The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Bill 59"
 All Comments / On "Bill 59"
    Until three years ago, Canada’s human rights commissions had the power to prosecute and convict individuals for "hate speech." This power was taken away after two high-profile cases: one against the magazine Maclean's for printing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's bookAmerica Alone; and the other against the journalist Ezra Levant for publishing Denmark’s satirical cartoons...
  • @Pat Casey

    The situation is different in Canada, especially in Quebec: the new ethos is more recent, has a weaker hold on people, and cannot be counted on “to do its job.” This is why we have legislation like Bill 59. It’s a sign of weakness, not of strength.
     
    That I did not realize and would not have guessed from what I recall of Richard Spencer's preempted invasion. But sign of weakness or no, that regime is presiding. And I think it would be good to force the issue if its not a passing fad that will lapse into latency. Make them ban a book by a true artist, hell make them throw an artist in jail. Mark Steyn really missed his opportunity to be a hero. Maybe someone else would have stood in the dock and made a speech of defiance, instead of defense. Speeches from the dock.... A pundit great he remains.

    To be honest, I cannot decide if what we have in America is better or worse. I just read an essay I wish I hadn't in the london review of books about the common denominator to all these rampage shooters. I can't decide if the freedom to be a misogynist of a certain color online should not be infringed a bit. Because what the hell are those losers good for except to make an example out of? And frankly, that haunts such as these are not self-policed a bit better on that issue makes me think there are double-fisted alphas with Uncle Sam who can do it better anyways.

    And I don't know if on the other stuff having "freedom" and a security apparatus that is insidious is better than having a publicly posted law spelled out in good faith for the common good issued by the sovereign, as St. Thomas said just laws must be. Because I gotta tell ya, it is a real bitch of a nightmare to be unlucky under what we got. Paranoia mixes things up very easily. Such as political opinions, secondly a couple days of heated exchange over the phone concerning your character being assassinated, and a third matter that amounts to the words, "yeah send me that essay I know what I'm going to do." Expect paranoia to mix those things into one then add an extra error if you'll be entering certain buildings in a certain city, and for something very very very strange to commence happening to you when you do. Good guys have a job to do but its a discredit to the public respect they do deserve when the deal is to do their job insidiously. Anyhow ya hear the oddest things.

    I agree

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    "Only a few commenters seem concerned and it has no effect in the real world."
     
    Apply that reasoning to other sites, like that of Theodre Beale (Vox Day). He's the writer who the Sad Puppies allowed to became the face of their movement because they didn't comment forcefully enough on the issue. The commenters on Beale's blog don't object when he voices support for Breivik, so there must be no negative effect to supporting Breivik, right? But that's a measurement bias. It misses the many more people whom you can't see who remove their weight from your causes.

    That's why Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch win against immigration opponents. They'd be willing to defend their supporters if people started building arguments for why their supporters aren't Americans (or Westerners), or don't have human rights.

    One of the best things Mr. Frost could do to support anti-immigration efforts would be to write up his vision on Jews and other high-IQ minorities in a formal article, so he can link to it when the topic recurs in the future. Not wanting high-IQ minorities and their allies on our side is insanity.

    Thanks for the comment, I meant to get back to you sooner as you make an excellent point. I read the Sad Puppies link that you provided and I found it very informative, heretofore, I only had a vague awareness of that situation.

    The major difference, and a definitive one, that I see is that there was an actual faction, a movement, in your words, called the Sad Puppies and they let the control of their message get hijacked. In the end, even some people who supported the ideas behind Sad Puppies withdrew their support because of this hijacking.

    We don’t have a movement, we don’t actually have a side other than we are not on the side of the crazy people running/ruining everything. We have no organized opposition. The other side wins by default.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond

    It’s Ron Unz’s site and I think he wants a free discussion with as little moderating as possible.
     
    Then why does he allow Sailer, Khan, and Jayman to self-moderate?

    I've just been informed that Peter had moderating "privileges," but had them taken after an argument with Unz. I gather that Peter tried to use his moderation rights to silence Ron or get in the last word (although I'm not sure of this inference).

    I think users of any forum must be alert to its terms of operation. There seems to be a certain secretiveness about such matters that's unbecoming of inquirers. Most of you are of the "right," and rightists are unlikely to challenge the prerogatives of site ownership.

    Peter hardly ever deleted comments at his old site or here (where he did have moderating privileges for a time although my undersanding is Unz.com authors do not automatically get to moderate). It always used to surprise me how Peter at his site virtually never banned people and preferred to reason with them or spend time trying to edit comments into publishable form. There was a long thread that Peter decided to close, while he worked on the new post continuing the debate, and then bit of a misunderstanding because Peter had done something to mothball his own site (Evo and Proud) and to a google search it looked like he had deleted Ron’s comments in old threads at E&P. They are both very busy men and probably have better things to do than moderate anyway. Unfortunately there are readers here who don’t care about the post and are looking for authors with soft moderation, I speak of magnificent internet warriors:-

    Crom,
    no one, not even you will remember if our comments were good or bad.
    Why we made them, or why we got banned.
    No, all that matters is that a few trolled the many;
    that’s what’s important.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It’s Ron Unz’s site and I think he wants a free discussion with as little moderating as possible.

    Then why does he allow Sailer, Khan, and Jayman to self-moderate?

    I’ve just been informed that Peter had moderating “privileges,” but had them taken after an argument with Unz. I gather that Peter tried to use his moderation rights to silence Ron or get in the last word (although I’m not sure of this inference).

    I think users of any forum must be alert to its terms of operation. There seems to be a certain secretiveness about such matters that’s unbecoming of inquirers. Most of you are of the “right,” and rightists are unlikely to challenge the prerogatives of site ownership.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Peter hardly ever deleted comments at his old site or here (where he did have moderating privileges for a time although my undersanding is Unz.com authors do not automatically get to moderate). It always used to surprise me how Peter at his site virtually never banned people and preferred to reason with them or spend time trying to edit comments into publishable form. There was a long thread that Peter decided to close, while he worked on the new post continuing the debate, and then bit of a misunderstanding because Peter had done something to mothball his own site (Evo and Proud) and to a google search it looked like he had deleted Ron's comments in old threads at E&P. They are both very busy men and probably have better things to do than moderate anyway. Unfortunately there are readers here who don't care about the post and are looking for authors with soft moderation, I speak of magnificent internet warriors:-

    Crom,
    no one, not even you will remember if our comments were good or bad.
    Why we made them, or why we got banned.
    No, all that matters is that a few trolled the many;
    that's what's important.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    Maybe I was rash on D.K. This is just about as bad.

    I also notice that folks who are disturbed about others' obsessions with Jews tolerate numerous posters with obsessions about negroes - interposing how despicable they're supposed to be into every discussion.

    But I don't understand why some bloggers are denied the privilege of moderating their blogs. [The free operation of the capitalist market, with each negotiating whatever advantages they can?]

    It’s Ron Unz’s site and I think he wants a free discussion with as little moderating as possible.

    Rehmat in comment 27: “Australia has always been a Zionist colony – from Rothschild to Rupert Murdoch.”
    Peter responded :”Uh, Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish”

    Rehmat turns up here often to accuses Jews of being behind the world’s troubles, and if he bothers to respond to Rehmat, Peter simply dismisses the remarks as worthless, as he did this time. It should be obvious to all who have ever read Rehmat that when he said “Zionist colony” he meant run by Jews like Murdoch. The context in the sentence makes this doubly clear. Pointing out that Murdoch is not Jewish was a economical use of Peter’s time. But then someone who is very familiar with Rehmat and knows he is a Jew hater decided that in Peter’s reply to Rehmat, Peter had implied a definition of the word Zionist. So we got a 100 comment thread on how Peter was failing to truly disprove what Rehmat alleged, because Peter had the wrong understanding of one of the words being used in the sentence. Peter was using the same concepts as the person he was talking to and refuted him in his own terms. Insisting on a correct definition (one’s own) for a word is a common ploy in argument, but it gets us nowhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Last comment from me to you and your BFF, Sam; Stretch way up on your tippy toes and kiss it. Of course you are so far beneath me you won't be able to reach it.

    Maybe I was rash on D.K. This is just about as bad.

    I also notice that folks who are disturbed about others’ obsessions with Jews tolerate numerous posters with obsessions about negroes – interposing how despicable they’re supposed to be into every discussion.

    But I don’t understand why some bloggers are denied the privilege of moderating their blogs. [The free operation of the capitalist market, with each negotiating whatever advantages they can?]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It's Ron Unz's site and I think he wants a free discussion with as little moderating as possible.


    Rehmat in comment 27: "Australia has always been a Zionist colony – from Rothschild to Rupert Murdoch."
    Peter responded :"Uh, Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish"

    Rehmat turns up here often to accuses Jews of being behind the world's troubles, and if he bothers to respond to Rehmat, Peter simply dismisses the remarks as worthless, as he did this time. It should be obvious to all who have ever read Rehmat that when he said "Zionist colony" he meant run by Jews like Murdoch. The context in the sentence makes this doubly clear. Pointing out that Murdoch is not Jewish was a economical use of Peter's time. But then someone who is very familiar with Rehmat and knows he is a Jew hater decided that in Peter's reply to Rehmat, Peter had implied a definition of the word Zionist. So we got a 100 comment thread on how Peter was failing to truly disprove what Rehmat alleged, because Peter had the wrong understanding of one of the words being used in the sentence. Peter was using the same concepts as the person he was talking to and refuted him in his own terms. Insisting on a correct definition (one's own) for a word is a common ploy in argument, but it gets us nowhere.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You need to tick the Remember My Information box for a number of comments before you get the agree/disagree privileges.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    A question may be legally objectionable, for assuming facts not in evidence; even so, a question, by itself, cannot serve as an accusation. In the instant case, the highly ambiguous, if arguably suggestive, question that I posed, which you find so unconscionable, did not assume any specific facts related to parentage, other than that the father had spent some unknown amount of money on the offspring. Inquiring as to the relationship between the father and his child, neither of whom are known to the questioner, does not imply what that unknown relationship actually is, let alone serve as an actionable accusation of bastardy, as you readily assume.

    Last comment from me to you and your BFF, Sam; Stretch way up on your tippy toes and kiss it. Of course you are so far beneath me you won’t be able to reach it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Maybe I was rash on D.K. This is just about as bad.

    I also notice that folks who are disturbed about others' obsessions with Jews tolerate numerous posters with obsessions about negroes - interposing how despicable they're supposed to be into every discussion.

    But I don't understand why some bloggers are denied the privilege of moderating their blogs. [The free operation of the capitalist market, with each negotiating whatever advantages they can?]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @helena
    "even limiting that first comment of mine to its one-sentence conclusion would have, I suspect, unleashed a similar, if somewhat smaller, wave of opprobrium"

    As Confucious say, Small wave easier to surf.

    But you certainly have the English language eating out of your hand.

    Confucius say, “Man must swim in own gene pool.”

    Thank you, yet again, Helena, for your kind words! :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    Why do some bloggers on Unz have this ability and others don't?

    It seems to me that rather than trying to prevail on posters to tone down, it would make more sense to obtain this ability.

    [For the record, I've never before proposed that someone should be banned anywhere. But comments about opponents accusing them of being bastards (literally) lowers the level of discussion too far. (See "Florida State Bar enforces 'political correctness'" - http://tinyurl.com/2bxc8hd for my defense against the state of some idiots using similar slurs. But it's not intelligent discussion! And the bald and blind attack on Peter Frost's whole career was also stupidly malicious.]

    A question may be legally objectionable, for assuming facts not in evidence; even so, a question, by itself, cannot serve as an accusation. In the instant case, the highly ambiguous, if arguably suggestive, question that I posed, which you find so unconscionable, did not assume any specific facts related to parentage, other than that the father had spent some unknown amount of money on the offspring. Inquiring as to the relationship between the father and his child, neither of whom are known to the questioner, does not imply what that unknown relationship actually is, let alone serve as an actionable accusation of bastardy, as you readily assume.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Last comment from me to you and your BFF, Sam; Stretch way up on your tippy toes and kiss it. Of course you are so far beneath me you won't be able to reach it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    Why do some bloggers on Unz have this ability and others don't?

    It seems to me that rather than trying to prevail on posters to tone down, it would make more sense to obtain this ability.

    [For the record, I've never before proposed that someone should be banned anywhere. But comments about opponents accusing them of being bastards (literally) lowers the level of discussion too far. (See "Florida State Bar enforces 'political correctness'" - http://tinyurl.com/2bxc8hd for my defense against the state of some idiots using similar slurs. But it's not intelligent discussion! And the bald and blind attack on Peter Frost's whole career was also stupidly malicious.]

    (See “Florida State Bar enforces ‘political correctness’”

    Wrong link. Should be http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/86th-installment-florida-state-bar.html .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Harold

    Funny, but I was under the distinct impression, earlier, Dr. Frost, that you did not, at all, respect my decision to post comments on the Internet using only my actual initials rather than my actual legal name!?! Well, we live and we learn; then, we die and forget it all….
     
    Yes, I am glad Frost wrote, “I assume you want to get attention for your opinions, while remaining anonymous. That’s your right, and I respect it.[emphasis mine]” As I was annoyed that he had written, “For that, you would have to publish under your name, and you seem to have issues with that option.”

    Having now read the entire exchange between yourself and the other commenters, I can only conclude that there must have been some sort of orgnised prank whereby they have all agreed to write bizarre, inapposite responses to your perspicuous comments in order to drive you up the wall. Nevertheless, I don’t think you ought to have insulted Frost’s appearance.

    I am certainly willing to concede the final point, Harold: I hereby offer Dr. Frost my apology for making fun of his haircut (which was what I frankly found so unseemly about that photograph)!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Helena, I thank you, again, for your efforts! In truth, I could have left out the issue of Rupert Murdoch's possible Jewishness, altogether, in my original response to Dr. Frost, and simply cut to the chase-- i.e., my closing sentence-- sans evidence of Mr. Murdoch's Zionism. I do not believe in proof by assertion, however, and the foregoing quote and links served as evidence of my closing assertion. The quote from Dr. Gottfried, along with discussing the issue of Mr. Murdoch's possible Jewish heritage, also served as evidence that a respectable, responsible, reasonably well-known (including here at Unz.com), paleoconservative, pro-Israel, Jewish-American professor considers Rupert Murdoch to be an "over-the-top Zionis[t]." The anti-Zionist Rehmat is not alone in his opinion that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist-- irrespective of his religious profession or familial descent! Regardless, even limiting that first comment of mine to its one-sentence conclusion would have, I suspect, unleashed a similar, if somewhat smaller, wave of opprobrium!?!

    “even limiting that first comment of mine to its one-sentence conclusion would have, I suspect, unleashed a similar, if somewhat smaller, wave of opprobrium”

    As Confucious say, Small wave easier to surf.

    But you certainly have the English language eating out of your hand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Confucius say, "Man must swim in own gene pool."

    Thank you, yet again, Helena, for your kind words! :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Harold
    He doesn’t have the ability.

    Why do some bloggers on Unz have this ability and others don’t?

    It seems to me that rather than trying to prevail on posters to tone down, it would make more sense to obtain this ability.

    [For the record, I've never before proposed that someone should be banned anywhere. But comments about opponents accusing them of being bastards (literally) lowers the level of discussion too far. (See "Florida State Bar enforces 'political correctness'" - http://tinyurl.com/2bxc8hd for my defense against the state of some idiots using similar slurs. But it's not intelligent discussion! And the bald and blind attack on Peter Frost's whole career was also stupidly malicious.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    (See "Florida State Bar enforces 'political correctness'"
     
    Wrong link. Should be http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/86th-installment-florida-state-bar.html .
    , @D. K.
    A question may be legally objectionable, for assuming facts not in evidence; even so, a question, by itself, cannot serve as an accusation. In the instant case, the highly ambiguous, if arguably suggestive, question that I posed, which you find so unconscionable, did not assume any specific facts related to parentage, other than that the father had spent some unknown amount of money on the offspring. Inquiring as to the relationship between the father and his child, neither of whom are known to the questioner, does not imply what that unknown relationship actually is, let alone serve as an actionable accusation of bastardy, as you readily assume.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Sean the problem with using the A-G tab is that unless it is a very short comment there will be sections or thoughts with which one agrees and other parts where there is disagreement or indifference.

    Maybe we can get an OT tab.

    I never agree with anything Rehmat says. There are 100 comments above us on a thread that Rehmat was the cause of, because although Peter gave a good response to Rehmat someone thought that there was an overwhelming need to talk about the failings of Peter’s reply, which obviously necessitated quotes on how Jewish Rupert Murdoch is, at very great length. Moreover, once you argue with these characters they say they are being attacked and reply to everyone, creating a long thread of arguments about who said what that drowns out the post and turns the culprit into the topic, into a star.

    You can’t ignore the Rehmats so they could be dealt with by disagree. Those who argue with Rehmats can safely be ignored. If people have a point they can’t make without off topic comments about Jews, it is very unlikely to be of sufficient enough value to merit any reply. People who argue with Peter can be dealt with or just ignored by him as he sees fit. But anyone who mentions Jews off post topic deserves the disagree button for that alone. It will be visible evidence underneath their comment for any casual reader of the blog. A large number of disagrees will devalue the comment better than any critical reply, which these people are in fact trying to draw.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Funny, but I was under the distinct impression, earlier, Dr. Frost, that you did not, at all, respect my decision to post comments on the Internet using only my actual initials rather than my actual legal name!?! Well, we live and we learn; then, we die and forget it all....

    My in-laws, and my many other Jewish acquaintances, will be pleased and relieved, no doubt, to learn that I have been provisionally approved as kosher. As for the kangaroos up in Quebec, I will amend my inquiry to you: which of my comments, above, do you have any reasonable fear could cause said kangaroos to bring charges against you for inciting racial hatred against the Jews? That of the many comments in this string-- let alone hosted on this entire Web site!-- referencing the Jews and/or Zionists, mine might be the one(s) to cause you to become "A Man for All Seasons" of the 21st Century, I find exceedingly hard to believe, even with my well knowing the legal, political, cultural, moral and personal depravity of the neobolsheviks!?! I certainly would appreciate seeing a full listing of my recently alleged political indiscretions....

    As for my assumed ethnic obsession, I will go on the record, here and now: the only Jewish issue over which I ever have obsessed was an Orthodox Jewish doctor from Massachusetts, an alumna of Radcliffe and N.Y.U., whose parents both were lawyers. Her mother treated me very well; her father refused even to meet me. She made aliyah, and eventually sent me a "Dear John" postcard from Jerusalem. There is a lawyer-novelist from the Commonwealth who has immortalized their family name: he was on a bar panel that suspended the father for unethical behavior, and was so shocked by the case, he appropriated the surname for his protagonist! The doctor, last I heard, was back living in the United States; she is now twice divorced. So, as the Bard himself would rightly say: "All's Well that Ends Well!"

    I never have been to Quebec, Dr. Frost. Depending upon exigencies, I would be happy to motor north to play at Clarence Darrow. I only hope that the kangaroos can arrange their court to adjourn at the optimum time of year for the city to be filled with wealthy widows and divorcees!?!

    Funny, but I was under the distinct impression, earlier, Dr. Frost, that you did not, at all, respect my decision to post comments on the Internet using only my actual initials rather than my actual legal name!?! Well, we live and we learn; then, we die and forget it all….

    Yes, I am glad Frost wrote, “I assume you want to get attention for your opinions, while remaining anonymous. That’s your right, and I respect it.[emphasis mine]” As I was annoyed that he had written, “For that, you would have to publish under your name, and you seem to have issues with that option.”

    Having now read the entire exchange between yourself and the other commenters, I can only conclude that there must have been some sort of orgnised prank whereby they have all agreed to write bizarre, inapposite responses to your perspicuous comments in order to drive you up the wall. Nevertheless, I don’t think you ought to have insulted Frost’s appearance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I am certainly willing to concede the final point, Harold: I hereby offer Dr. Frost my apology for making fun of his haircut (which was what I frankly found so unseemly about that photograph)!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    I had it wrong about Rehmat having quoted Gottfried, I don’t read Rehmat comments and assumed DK was mentioning and quoting Gottfried because Rehmat had referenced Gottfried in some way. After all, DK by his own account was arguing that Rupert Murdoch’s Zionism was not synonymous with him being Jewish, so why else would DK, who knows Rehmat is a card carrying Jew hater, be giving us long quotes suggesting Peter had been factually incorrect in his "Murdoch is not Jewish" response.

    In the beginning: Rehmat ( comment number 7) spoke of ” evil” and “criminal” Jews persecuting non-Jews especially Muslims in Canada. Then the Wizard of Oz (comment no8) talked about an Australian activist Jewish lawyer winning an aboriginal related case. In comment no 27 Rehmat said Australia was a Zionist colony. Rehmat was talking about Jews all along, he mentioned Zionism as a Jewish regime epitomized by Rupert Murdoch, so when in no 31 Peter gave his “Murdoch is not Jewish it was quite relevant to the fact that Rehmat had actually been explicitly talking about Canadian Jews in comment 7 and Australian Jewish “Zionists” in no 27. Peter noted Murdoch is not Jewish. Absolutely to the point short comment by Peter answering Rehmat the Jew-hater, but DK swooped in comment no 34 here is the full thing -


    October 19, 2015 at 2:40 pm GMT • 300 Words

    ***
    Australia has always been a Zionist colony – from Rothschild to Rupert Murdoch.
    Uh, Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish.
    ***
    Perhaps not, but your fellow Unzian, Professor Paul Gottfried, has had his own doubts about Mr. Murdoch’s explicit denials of his own Jewish heritage:
    ***
    Although I shall gladly defer to Steve Sailer on statistical and genetic matters, I must respectfully dissent from some of his assertions made in response to my posting about Murdoch. The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism. And “conservative” my foot! Among Murdoch’s announced political favorites have been Hillary, Andrew Cuomo, and Giuliani. Portraits of Murdoch that I’ve seen in People and other news sources worthy of his less than magisterial personality suggest this press baron is not exactly a man of the right. As for Murdoch’s mother, Elizabeth Joy (nee) Greene, there is lots of evidence on the internet (see for example http://currentissues.tv/Rupert%20Murdoch.html) that she was not only Jewish but a practicing Jew. The sources for this are extremely varied and by no means exclusively associated with anti-Semitic nuts.
    [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/07/27/murdoch-is-daddy-warbucks-to-the-neocons/
    ***
    As I myself have noted before, elsewhere, a professional genealogist in London was unable to trace Mr. Murdoch’s namesake maternal grandfather’s own ancestors, even though Rupert Greene’s father, according to a 1993 biography of Rupert’s famous grandson, was a railway engineer who had emigrated from Great Britain itself:
    http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html
    I find that lacuna rather strange. One thing is clear, however, straight from the horse’s mouth (or whatever), irrespective of his sometimes-alleged ties to Abraham himself; Rupert Murdoch is as devout and zealous of a Zionist as any Jewish press baron in the United States, if not the whole of the Western world:
    http://www.mjhnyc.org/documents/5-7-12RupertMurdochmuseumofjewishheritagespeechFORDISTRIBUTION.pdf
    The comment to which you replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist.
     

    Despite the facility for blockquote DK used very idiosyncratic punctuation marks for distinguishing his text from what he was citing. Why he was casting doubt (via an extended cite of a supposed article of Gottfried, (I have not checked) about Murdoch’s non-Jewish background, I have no idea. DK ended by saying

    “ One thing is clear, however, straight from the horse’s mouth (or whatever), irrespective of his sometimes-alleged ties to Abraham himself; Rupert Murdoch is as devout and zealous of a Zionist as any Jewish press baron in the United States, if not the whole of the Western world"
     
    The closer one is reading it, the more it seems difficult to see DK’s comment as not expressing backhanded support for Rehmat’s assertion that Murdoch is Jewish. One assumes a writer is giving information that he thinks relevant, and if not relevant what was the quote doing there? Certainly in the real world one must discard information to reach the key aspects of a problem, but why add such prominence to something apparently without bearing on the writer’s self –identified views. Nowhere did DK assert the information in the quote was not valid and so the quote ought not to be taken seriously A strong suggestion of Murdoch’s Jewishness was perceived in DK’s comment by everyone who responded to him.

    In comment no 52 DK said the “quote was originally posted by Unz.com’s own Dr. Paul Gottfried, back in July of 2011, at another Web site2” and DK complains I attribute to him the idea of Jewish collective agency behind “anti-hate” legislation in most Western countries. But why did he give the quote about Murdoch’s Jewishness, this was hard to see as anything but support for Rehmat's position, which is those of Jewish descent are acting for group centric reasons.

    In no 54 DK says


    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question– as does the quite-Jewish professor who shares this forum, Unz.com, with you, Dr. Paul Gottfried
     
    Apparently DK had now occupied every position in the argument simultaneously with a Jewishness does and does not matter line.

    Would you care to declare publicly, here and now, Dr. Frost, that the Reverend John Hagee is not a Zionist, because there is no publicly known evidence that he is himself of Jewish descent?
     
    That is the wrong way to pose the problem because a view such as Zionism is an allegiance that does not stem from genetic group (for instance a Jew who thought he was a gentile could hardly be a Jewish nationalist). DK’s example of Hagee as a Zionist is complete disconnected to Rehmat’s thoughts about Zionism, but he is still mentioning supposed evidence for Murdoch being Jewish.
    because at (no 64) DK says Murdoch’s being Jewish is “utterly immaterial” to his being labelled a Zionist, yet he acknowledges the quoted comment supposedly from Dr. Gottfried was “obviously used by me about … whether or not Rupert Murdoch is of Jewish descent,”. He apparently (he does not use proper punctuation) reinforced the quote by mentioning a little personal research: “As I myself have noted before, elsewhere, a professional genealogist in London was unable to trace Mr. Murdoch’s namesake maternal grandfather’s own ancestors, even though Rupert Greene’s father, according to a 1993 biography of Rupert’s famous grandson, was a railway engineer who had emigrated from Great Britain itself…”.

    Then DK begins hand waving -


    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question […]Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation?

     
    Let us refresh our memory, DK started all this by quoting (so he says) himself and Gottfried on Murdoch’s Jewish descent. I’ll let DK in comment no 92 explain why he was insisting on a non-ethnic definition of Zionist

    “I simply was defending Rehmat’s labeling of Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist– nothing more.Instead of proving that Rehmat’s claim about Australia was wrong, the professor merely asserted the (questionable) claim that Mr. Murdoch is not Jewish, as if that settled the entire issue that Rehmat had raised about Australia.”
     
    What Rehmat was saying about Canada and Australia was that Jews were in control and persecuting everyone else. That was what he meant by Zionist colony as a look at his comment 7 shows. Clearly Rehmat’s claim that Jews from Rothschild to Murdoch have run Australia (“Zionist colony”) is incompatible with Murdoch not being Jewish, and it is sufficient to note it. Rehmat was not using a non-ethnic definition of Zionist, the term is synonymous with ‘Jewish rule’ for him as anyone who has seen his comments (including DK) knows. DK got this thread centring around him by insisting that Peter’s response to Rehmat failed to take account of the true definition of ‘Zionist’, but Peter was not rebutting someone operating with that definition.

    ***

    VERSE: “. . . loquacious nonsense!”

    ***

    CHORUS: “Jesus, Mary and Joseph!”

    ***

    My only hope, Sean, is that you are posting these “X-Files”-style ravings from a secure location!?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Tick the Remember My Information box beside where you enter your Email address for a comment, and you can use the agree/ disagree function.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    I think Peter is sickened by the off-topic threads, but there is a problem with leaving them unanswered. In future I will leave it to Peter to answer the prima donnas.

    I think commenters would be better to just use the disagree button on OT and offensive comments.. Just hit the disagree button and then ignore them, they will get the message. Please hit the agree button on this comment and we can see if there are enough to make this work.

    Sean the problem with using the A-G tab is that unless it is a very short comment there will be sections or thoughts with which one agrees and other parts where there is disagreement or indifference.

    Maybe we can get an OT tab.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I never agree with anything Rehmat says. There are 100 comments above us on a thread that Rehmat was the cause of, because although Peter gave a good response to Rehmat someone thought that there was an overwhelming need to talk about the failings of Peter's reply, which obviously necessitated quotes on how Jewish Rupert Murdoch is, at very great length. Moreover, once you argue with these characters they say they are being attacked and reply to everyone, creating a long thread of arguments about who said what that drowns out the post and turns the culprit into the topic, into a star.

    You can't ignore the Rehmats so they could be dealt with by disagree. Those who argue with Rehmats can safely be ignored. If people have a point they can't make without off topic comments about Jews, it is very unlikely to be of sufficient enough value to merit any reply. People who argue with Peter can be dealt with or just ignored by him as he sees fit. But anyone who mentions Jews off post topic deserves the disagree button for that alone. It will be visible evidence underneath their comment for any casual reader of the blog. A large number of disagrees will devalue the comment better than any critical reply, which these people are in fact trying to draw.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    If you do wish to respond, please do so on Linh's and not Mercer's page. People are getting all "emotional" there and calling each other names like moron.

    On Ilana’s page I responded to an Individual who like the cliched hammer, thinks of every object as a nail (everything is a wretched “false flag” according to him. You are unfamiliar with his commenting style, which geokat can confirm with me I think. He is the most foul-mouthed charcter I have come across in these pages. So I actually had quite enough and applied a dose of his own medicine with apologies to the editors et al). I have not responded to you there, and fine we can continue on Linh’s page if you so wish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    You just have refuted your own previous claim, to Sean, earlier today, that I “can get much more attention by posting a comment here than by creating [my] own blog.”

    I assume you want to get attention for your opinions, while remaining anonymous. That's your right, and I respect it.

    I still am waiting for either you or your admirer to provide me with a single quotation from me, in this entire thread, that could plausibly be construed by any sane, let alone reasonable, person as being “anti-Semitic” in nature

    Personally, I don't think you're anti-Semitic. I think you have an obsession about certain Jewish-related issues. Again, it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is the opinion of the Quebec Human Rights Commission. I'm the one, not you, who would have to pay the penalty -- $10,000 for the first offence. If I am prosecuted, would you at least have the decency to come out of the woodwork and assume ownership of your comments? Would you come to the trial and speak in my defense?

    Funny, but I was under the distinct impression, earlier, Dr. Frost, that you did not, at all, respect my decision to post comments on the Internet using only my actual initials rather than my actual legal name!?! Well, we live and we learn; then, we die and forget it all….

    My in-laws, and my many other Jewish acquaintances, will be pleased and relieved, no doubt, to learn that I have been provisionally approved as kosher. As for the kangaroos up in Quebec, I will amend my inquiry to you: which of my comments, above, do you have any reasonable fear could cause said kangaroos to bring charges against you for inciting racial hatred against the Jews? That of the many comments in this string– let alone hosted on this entire Web site!– referencing the Jews and/or Zionists, mine might be the one(s) to cause you to become “A Man for All Seasons” of the 21st Century, I find exceedingly hard to believe, even with my well knowing the legal, political, cultural, moral and personal depravity of the neobolsheviks!?! I certainly would appreciate seeing a full listing of my recently alleged political indiscretions….

    As for my assumed ethnic obsession, I will go on the record, here and now: the only Jewish issue over which I ever have obsessed was an Orthodox Jewish doctor from Massachusetts, an alumna of Radcliffe and N.Y.U., whose parents both were lawyers. Her mother treated me very well; her father refused even to meet me. She made aliyah, and eventually sent me a “Dear John” postcard from Jerusalem. There is a lawyer-novelist from the Commonwealth who has immortalized their family name: he was on a bar panel that suspended the father for unethical behavior, and was so shocked by the case, he appropriated the surname for his protagonist! The doctor, last I heard, was back living in the United States; she is now twice divorced. So, as the Bard himself would rightly say: “All’s Well that Ends Well!”

    I never have been to Quebec, Dr. Frost. Depending upon exigencies, I would be happy to motor north to play at Clarence Darrow. I only hope that the kangaroos can arrange their court to adjourn at the optimum time of year for the city to be filled with wealthy widows and divorcees!?!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold

    Funny, but I was under the distinct impression, earlier, Dr. Frost, that you did not, at all, respect my decision to post comments on the Internet using only my actual initials rather than my actual legal name!?! Well, we live and we learn; then, we die and forget it all….
     
    Yes, I am glad Frost wrote, “I assume you want to get attention for your opinions, while remaining anonymous. That’s your right, and I respect it.[emphasis mine]” As I was annoyed that he had written, “For that, you would have to publish under your name, and you seem to have issues with that option.”

    Having now read the entire exchange between yourself and the other commenters, I can only conclude that there must have been some sort of orgnised prank whereby they have all agreed to write bizarre, inapposite responses to your perspicuous comments in order to drive you up the wall. Nevertheless, I don’t think you ought to have insulted Frost’s appearance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think Peter is sickened by the off-topic threads, but there is a problem with leaving them unanswered. In future I will leave it to Peter to answer the prima donnas.

    I think commenters would be better to just use the disagree button on OT and offensive comments.. Just hit the disagree button and then ignore them, they will get the message. Please hit the agree button on this comment and we can see if there are enough to make this work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Sean the problem with using the A-G tab is that unless it is a very short comment there will be sections or thoughts with which one agrees and other parts where there is disagreement or indifference.

    Maybe we can get an OT tab.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @helena
    Iffen,

    I revisited 'the afternoon of October 19th' when I realised that Sean's block quote was not from comment no. 34 (DK's opening gambit).

    DK provided 3 quotes. But to make his 2 points, the quotes could have been much shorter.

    Somewhere in another comment DK mentioned the use of context . So he feels the length of quotes was valid/relevant/useful/justified - there's probably a legal term or legal standard that DK is used to.

    For my own personal satisfaction I edited the quotes. I won't bore you with a reproduction of the exercise but suffice to say the phrase 'anti-semitic nuts' need not have appeared; and DK could have saved himself at least the confusion with you if not with Sean and Peter.

    Helena, I thank you, again, for your efforts! In truth, I could have left out the issue of Rupert Murdoch’s possible Jewishness, altogether, in my original response to Dr. Frost, and simply cut to the chase– i.e., my closing sentence– sans evidence of Mr. Murdoch’s Zionism. I do not believe in proof by assertion, however, and the foregoing quote and links served as evidence of my closing assertion. The quote from Dr. Gottfried, along with discussing the issue of Mr. Murdoch’s possible Jewish heritage, also served as evidence that a respectable, responsible, reasonably well-known (including here at Unz.com), paleoconservative, pro-Israel, Jewish-American professor considers Rupert Murdoch to be an “over-the-top Zionis[t].” The anti-Zionist Rehmat is not alone in his opinion that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist– irrespective of his religious profession or familial descent! Regardless, even limiting that first comment of mine to its one-sentence conclusion would have, I suspect, unleashed a similar, if somewhat smaller, wave of opprobrium!?!

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    "even limiting that first comment of mine to its one-sentence conclusion would have, I suspect, unleashed a similar, if somewhat smaller, wave of opprobrium"

    As Confucious say, Small wave easier to surf.

    But you certainly have the English language eating out of your hand.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @helena
    Iffen,

    I revisited 'the afternoon of October 19th' when I realised that Sean's block quote was not from comment no. 34 (DK's opening gambit).

    DK provided 3 quotes. But to make his 2 points, the quotes could have been much shorter.

    Somewhere in another comment DK mentioned the use of context . So he feels the length of quotes was valid/relevant/useful/justified - there's probably a legal term or legal standard that DK is used to.

    For my own personal satisfaction I edited the quotes. I won't bore you with a reproduction of the exercise but suffice to say the phrase 'anti-semitic nuts' need not have appeared; and DK could have saved himself at least the confusion with you if not with Sean and Peter.

    Thank you, Helena.

    In deference to Mr. Frost’s concerns, in comment # 139 I have invited SS and DK to continue the discussion on another post.

    I didn’t actually follow the Z word discussion very closely.

    I don’t care whether people use terms like A-S nuts or not, but if they do I would like to know what they mean by it. If they don’t want to explain it, that is fine with me. SS uses some other words like phobia and ultra-nationalist in a discussion about Germany and immigration. I see people throwing loaded words out all the time and mixing them with very clear terms like Germany without ever explicitly saying what they want to say. I sometimes seek clarification and if they don’t want to or can’t provide it, that is okay with me, I will draw my own conclusions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Are you on the Autism Spectrum, by any chance, Sean, or are you on something else altogether?

    Regardless, it behooves you to put up or shut up: quote, for my and everyone else's edification, my allegedly anti-Semitic comments, above, or else stop bothering me with your loquacious nonsense!

    I had it wrong about Rehmat having quoted Gottfried, I don’t read Rehmat comments and assumed DK was mentioning and quoting Gottfried because Rehmat had referenced Gottfried in some way. After all, DK by his own account was arguing that Rupert Murdoch’s Zionism was not synonymous with him being Jewish, so why else would DK, who knows Rehmat is a card carrying Jew hater, be giving us long quotes suggesting Peter had been factually incorrect in his “Murdoch is not Jewish” response.

    In the beginning: Rehmat ( comment number 7) spoke of ” evil” and “criminal” Jews persecuting non-Jews especially Muslims in Canada. Then the Wizard of Oz (comment no8) talked about an Australian activist Jewish lawyer winning an aboriginal related case. In comment no 27 Rehmat said Australia was a Zionist colony. Rehmat was talking about Jews all along, he mentioned Zionism as a Jewish regime epitomized by Rupert Murdoch, so when in no 31 Peter gave his “Murdoch is not Jewish it was quite relevant to the fact that Rehmat had actually been explicitly talking about Canadian Jews in comment 7 and Australian Jewish “Zionists” in no 27. Peter noted Murdoch is not Jewish. Absolutely to the point short comment by Peter answering Rehmat the Jew-hater, but DK swooped in comment no 34 here is the full thing -

    October 19, 2015 at 2:40 pm GMT • 300 Words

    ***
    Australia has always been a Zionist colony – from Rothschild to Rupert Murdoch.
    Uh, Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish.
    ***
    Perhaps not, but your fellow Unzian, Professor Paul Gottfried, has had his own doubts about Mr. Murdoch’s explicit denials of his own Jewish heritage:
    ***
    Although I shall gladly defer to Steve Sailer on statistical and genetic matters, I must respectfully dissent from some of his assertions made in response to my posting about Murdoch. The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism. And “conservative” my foot! Among Murdoch’s announced political favorites have been Hillary, Andrew Cuomo, and Giuliani. Portraits of Murdoch that I’ve seen in People and other news sources worthy of his less than magisterial personality suggest this press baron is not exactly a man of the right. As for Murdoch’s mother, Elizabeth Joy (nee) Greene, there is lots of evidence on the internet (see for example http://currentissues.tv/Rupert%20Murdoch.html) that she was not only Jewish but a practicing Jew. The sources for this are extremely varied and by no means exclusively associated with anti-Semitic nuts.
    (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/07/27/murdoch-is-daddy-warbucks-to-the-neocons/
    ***
    As I myself have noted before, elsewhere, a professional genealogist in London was unable to trace Mr. Murdoch’s namesake maternal grandfather’s own ancestors, even though Rupert Greene’s father, according to a 1993 biography of Rupert’s famous grandson, was a railway engineer who had emigrated from Great Britain itself:

    http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html

    I find that lacuna rather strange. One thing is clear, however, straight from the horse’s mouth (or whatever), irrespective of his sometimes-alleged ties to Abraham himself; Rupert Murdoch is as devout and zealous of a Zionist as any Jewish press baron in the United States, if not the whole of the Western world:

    http://www.mjhnyc.org/documents/5-7-12RupertMurdochmuseumofjewishheritagespeechFORDISTRIBUTION.pdf

    The comment to which you replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist.

    Despite the facility for blockquote DK used very idiosyncratic punctuation marks for distinguishing his text from what he was citing. Why he was casting doubt (via an extended cite of a supposed article of Gottfried, (I have not checked) about Murdoch’s non-Jewish background, I have no idea. DK ended by saying

    “ One thing is clear, however, straight from the horse’s mouth (or whatever), irrespective of his sometimes-alleged ties to Abraham himself; Rupert Murdoch is as devout and zealous of a Zionist as any Jewish press baron in the United States, if not the whole of the Western world”

    The closer one is reading it, the more it seems difficult to see DK’s comment as not expressing backhanded support for Rehmat’s assertion that Murdoch is Jewish. One assumes a writer is giving information that he thinks relevant, and if not relevant what was the quote doing there? Certainly in the real world one must discard information to reach the key aspects of a problem, but why add such prominence to something apparently without bearing on the writer’s self –identified views. Nowhere did DK assert the information in the quote was not valid and so the quote ought not to be taken seriously A strong suggestion of Murdoch’s Jewishness was perceived in DK’s comment by everyone who responded to him.

    In comment no 52 DK said the “quote was originally posted by Unz.com’s own Dr. Paul Gottfried, back in July of 2011, at another Web site2” and DK complains I attribute to him the idea of Jewish collective agency behind “anti-hate” legislation in most Western countries. But why did he give the quote about Murdoch’s Jewishness, this was hard to see as anything but support for Rehmat’s position, which is those of Jewish descent are acting for group centric reasons.

    In no 54 DK says

    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question– as does the quite-Jewish professor who shares this forum, Unz.com, with you, Dr. Paul Gottfried

    Apparently DK had now occupied every position in the argument simultaneously with a Jewishness does and does not matter line.

    Would you care to declare publicly, here and now, Dr. Frost, that the Reverend John Hagee is not a Zionist, because there is no publicly known evidence that he is himself of Jewish descent?

    That is the wrong way to pose the problem because a view such as Zionism is an allegiance that does not stem from genetic group (for instance a Jew who thought he was a gentile could hardly be a Jewish nationalist). DK’s example of Hagee as a Zionist is complete disconnected to Rehmat’s thoughts about Zionism, but he is still mentioning supposed evidence for Murdoch being Jewish.
    because at (no 64) DK says Murdoch’s being Jewish is “utterly immaterial” to his being labelled a Zionist, yet he acknowledges the quoted comment supposedly from Dr. Gottfried was “obviously used by me about … whether or not Rupert Murdoch is of Jewish descent,”. He apparently (he does not use proper punctuation) reinforced the quote by mentioning a little personal research: “As I myself have noted before, elsewhere, a professional genealogist in London was unable to trace Mr. Murdoch’s namesake maternal grandfather’s own ancestors, even though Rupert Greene’s father, according to a 1993 biography of Rupert’s famous grandson, was a railway engineer who had emigrated from Great Britain itself…”.

    Then DK begins hand waving -

    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question […]Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation?

    Let us refresh our memory, DK started all this by quoting (so he says) himself and Gottfried on Murdoch’s Jewish descent. I’ll let DK in comment no 92 explain why he was insisting on a non-ethnic definition of Zionist

    “I simply was defending Rehmat’s labeling of Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist– nothing more.Instead of proving that Rehmat’s claim about Australia was wrong, the professor merely asserted the (questionable) claim that Mr. Murdoch is not Jewish, as if that settled the entire issue that Rehmat had raised about Australia.”

    What Rehmat was saying about Canada and Australia was that Jews were in control and persecuting everyone else. That was what he meant by Zionist colony as a look at his comment 7 shows. Clearly Rehmat’s claim that Jews from Rothschild to Murdoch have run Australia (“Zionist colony”) is incompatible with Murdoch not being Jewish, and it is sufficient to note it. Rehmat was not using a non-ethnic definition of Zionist, the term is synonymous with ‘Jewish rule’ for him as anyone who has seen his comments (including DK) knows. DK got this thread centring around him by insisting that Peter’s response to Rehmat failed to take account of the true definition of ‘Zionist’, but Peter was not rebutting someone operating with that definition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    ***

    VERSE: ". . . loquacious nonsense!"

    ***

    CHORUS: "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!"

    ***

    My only hope, Sean, is that you are posting these "X-Files"-style ravings from a secure location!?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    It is true that I am not a writer and at times fail in expressing my thoughts as well as others.
    For example, I failed to get you to understand what I was talking about in the use of the word, “reckon.” The instance was somewhat trivial and I could see that I was making no headway with you so I dropped it.

    I do try my hand at word play, (back handed compliment) although I make no claims to being in the same league as you and DK.

    Let me try my hand at word play again.

    The question that I had was what DK meant by the use of the term, “anti-Semitic nuts.” DK disavows any responsibility or connection to the use of the word because he was using it as a quote. Now gentlemen, if I can use quotes to say anything that pops into my head and then refuse to accept any responsibility for the use of those words, then, yes, you have bested me. That said, I decided to drop my part in the thread because Mr. Frost requested that commenters refrain from mentioning the unmentionable.

    If you wordsmiths wish to continue on the unmentionable subject we can continue at the Linh post on Germany. I already have a question there for you SS, and I will ask it again here. Who has a phobia? How is that connected with present day Germany? What is ultra-nationalism? How do we distinguish it from ordinary nationalism? Since the post was about Germany, are we to assume that your “ultra-nationalism” applies to the Germans? Now you did not use a quote so you can’t use the excuse that your BFF DK used.

    I understand that you may not wish to respond as it must really hurt your pride to do so. If you do, please don’t use too many big words, keep it simple as a kindness to me. I have a small dictionary that doesn’t have a lot of the big words in it. However, the words that I do use I defend, and I have a reasonable idea of what they mean. Sometimes people will question me about what I have said (that is a good thing) and I gain a better understanding of the topic and the words being used. You two haven’t accomplished that. I have a lot of understanding left to do so it is really wide open. I really wonder why neither of you have made any progress there (oops, sorry).

    Iffen,

    I revisited ‘the afternoon of October 19th’ when I realised that Sean’s block quote was not from comment no. 34 (DK’s opening gambit).

    DK provided 3 quotes. But to make his 2 points, the quotes could have been much shorter.

    Somewhere in another comment DK mentioned the use of context . So he feels the length of quotes was valid/relevant/useful/justified – there’s probably a legal term or legal standard that DK is used to.

    For my own personal satisfaction I edited the quotes. I won’t bore you with a reproduction of the exercise but suffice to say the phrase ‘anti-semitic nuts’ need not have appeared; and DK could have saved himself at least the confusion with you if not with Sean and Peter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thank you, Helena.

    In deference to Mr. Frost’s concerns, in comment # 139 I have invited SS and DK to continue the discussion on another post.

    I didn’t actually follow the Z word discussion very closely.

    I don’t care whether people use terms like A-S nuts or not, but if they do I would like to know what they mean by it. If they don’t want to explain it, that is fine with me. SS uses some other words like phobia and ultra-nationalist in a discussion about Germany and immigration. I see people throwing loaded words out all the time and mixing them with very clear terms like Germany without ever explicitly saying what they want to say. I sometimes seek clarification and if they don’t want to or can’t provide it, that is okay with me, I will draw my own conclusions.
    , @D. K.
    Helena, I thank you, again, for your efforts! In truth, I could have left out the issue of Rupert Murdoch's possible Jewishness, altogether, in my original response to Dr. Frost, and simply cut to the chase-- i.e., my closing sentence-- sans evidence of Mr. Murdoch's Zionism. I do not believe in proof by assertion, however, and the foregoing quote and links served as evidence of my closing assertion. The quote from Dr. Gottfried, along with discussing the issue of Mr. Murdoch's possible Jewish heritage, also served as evidence that a respectable, responsible, reasonably well-known (including here at Unz.com), paleoconservative, pro-Israel, Jewish-American professor considers Rupert Murdoch to be an "over-the-top Zionis[t]." The anti-Zionist Rehmat is not alone in his opinion that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist-- irrespective of his religious profession or familial descent! Regardless, even limiting that first comment of mine to its one-sentence conclusion would have, I suspect, unleashed a similar, if somewhat smaller, wave of opprobrium!?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You just have refuted your own previous claim, to Sean, earlier today, that I “can get much more attention by posting a comment here than by creating [my] own blog.”

    I assume you want to get attention for your opinions, while remaining anonymous. That’s your right, and I respect it.

    I still am waiting for either you or your admirer to provide me with a single quotation from me, in this entire thread, that could plausibly be construed by any sane, let alone reasonable, person as being “anti-Semitic” in nature

    Personally, I don’t think you’re anti-Semitic. I think you have an obsession about certain Jewish-related issues. Again, it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is the opinion of the Quebec Human Rights Commission. I’m the one, not you, who would have to pay the penalty — $10,000 for the first offence. If I am prosecuted, would you at least have the decency to come out of the woodwork and assume ownership of your comments? Would you come to the trial and speak in my defense?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Funny, but I was under the distinct impression, earlier, Dr. Frost, that you did not, at all, respect my decision to post comments on the Internet using only my actual initials rather than my actual legal name!?! Well, we live and we learn; then, we die and forget it all....

    My in-laws, and my many other Jewish acquaintances, will be pleased and relieved, no doubt, to learn that I have been provisionally approved as kosher. As for the kangaroos up in Quebec, I will amend my inquiry to you: which of my comments, above, do you have any reasonable fear could cause said kangaroos to bring charges against you for inciting racial hatred against the Jews? That of the many comments in this string-- let alone hosted on this entire Web site!-- referencing the Jews and/or Zionists, mine might be the one(s) to cause you to become "A Man for All Seasons" of the 21st Century, I find exceedingly hard to believe, even with my well knowing the legal, political, cultural, moral and personal depravity of the neobolsheviks!?! I certainly would appreciate seeing a full listing of my recently alleged political indiscretions....

    As for my assumed ethnic obsession, I will go on the record, here and now: the only Jewish issue over which I ever have obsessed was an Orthodox Jewish doctor from Massachusetts, an alumna of Radcliffe and N.Y.U., whose parents both were lawyers. Her mother treated me very well; her father refused even to meet me. She made aliyah, and eventually sent me a "Dear John" postcard from Jerusalem. There is a lawyer-novelist from the Commonwealth who has immortalized their family name: he was on a bar panel that suspended the father for unethical behavior, and was so shocked by the case, he appropriated the surname for his protagonist! The doctor, last I heard, was back living in the United States; she is now twice divorced. So, as the Bard himself would rightly say: "All's Well that Ends Well!"

    I never have been to Quebec, Dr. Frost. Depending upon exigencies, I would be happy to motor north to play at Clarence Darrow. I only hope that the kangaroos can arrange their court to adjourn at the optimum time of year for the city to be filled with wealthy widows and divorcees!?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama
    D.K. writes with clarity and logic, at times with pleasing word play, a trait of which you appear not to have any command at all. Your 'back-handed compliment' was nothing of the sort, being simply a snide remark at someone who has clearly bested all of you in this thread. Some of you even went to the extent of wondering why D.K. hasn't been banned from this website. That's what I call the last resort of the ........well, emotional or pathetique! (hint: it consists of 3 movements drawing on life's transitory experiences)

    If you do wish to respond, please do so on Linh’s and not Mercer’s page. People are getting all “emotional” there and calling each other names like moron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    On Ilana's page I responded to an Individual who like the cliched hammer, thinks of every object as a nail (everything is a wretched "false flag" according to him. You are unfamiliar with his commenting style, which geokat can confirm with me I think. He is the most foul-mouthed charcter I have come across in these pages. So I actually had quite enough and applied a dose of his own medicine with apologies to the editors et al). I have not responded to you there, and fine we can continue on Linh's page if you so wish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama
    D.K. writes with clarity and logic, at times with pleasing word play, a trait of which you appear not to have any command at all. Your 'back-handed compliment' was nothing of the sort, being simply a snide remark at someone who has clearly bested all of you in this thread. Some of you even went to the extent of wondering why D.K. hasn't been banned from this website. That's what I call the last resort of the ........well, emotional or pathetique! (hint: it consists of 3 movements drawing on life's transitory experiences)

    Thank you, sincerely, Mr. Shama!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama
    D.K. writes with clarity and logic, at times with pleasing word play, a trait of which you appear not to have any command at all. Your 'back-handed compliment' was nothing of the sort, being simply a snide remark at someone who has clearly bested all of you in this thread. Some of you even went to the extent of wondering why D.K. hasn't been banned from this website. That's what I call the last resort of the ........well, emotional or pathetique! (hint: it consists of 3 movements drawing on life's transitory experiences)

    It is true that I am not a writer and at times fail in expressing my thoughts as well as others.
    For example, I failed to get you to understand what I was talking about in the use of the word, “reckon.” The instance was somewhat trivial and I could see that I was making no headway with you so I dropped it.

    I do try my hand at word play, (back handed compliment) although I make no claims to being in the same league as you and DK.

    Let me try my hand at word play again.

    The question that I had was what DK meant by the use of the term, “anti-Semitic nuts.” DK disavows any responsibility or connection to the use of the word because he was using it as a quote. Now gentlemen, if I can use quotes to say anything that pops into my head and then refuse to accept any responsibility for the use of those words, then, yes, you have bested me. That said, I decided to drop my part in the thread because Mr. Frost requested that commenters refrain from mentioning the unmentionable.

    If you wordsmiths wish to continue on the unmentionable subject we can continue at the Linh post on Germany. I already have a question there for you SS, and I will ask it again here. Who has a phobia? How is that connected with present day Germany? What is ultra-nationalism? How do we distinguish it from ordinary nationalism? Since the post was about Germany, are we to assume that your “ultra-nationalism” applies to the Germans? Now you did not use a quote so you can’t use the excuse that your BFF DK used.

    I understand that you may not wish to respond as it must really hurt your pride to do so. If you do, please don’t use too many big words, keep it simple as a kindness to me. I have a small dictionary that doesn’t have a lot of the big words in it. However, the words that I do use I defend, and I have a reasonable idea of what they mean. Sometimes people will question me about what I have said (that is a good thing) and I gain a better understanding of the topic and the words being used. You two haven’t accomplished that. I have a lot of understanding left to do so it is really wide open. I really wonder why neither of you have made any progress there (oops, sorry).

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Iffen,

    I revisited 'the afternoon of October 19th' when I realised that Sean's block quote was not from comment no. 34 (DK's opening gambit).

    DK provided 3 quotes. But to make his 2 points, the quotes could have been much shorter.

    Somewhere in another comment DK mentioned the use of context . So he feels the length of quotes was valid/relevant/useful/justified - there's probably a legal term or legal standard that DK is used to.

    For my own personal satisfaction I edited the quotes. I won't bore you with a reproduction of the exercise but suffice to say the phrase 'anti-semitic nuts' need not have appeared; and DK could have saved himself at least the confusion with you if not with Sean and Peter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    I don't understand why Peter Frost doesn't ban D.K.

    He doesn’t have the ability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Why do some bloggers on Unz have this ability and others don't?

    It seems to me that rather than trying to prevail on posters to tone down, it would make more sense to obtain this ability.

    [For the record, I've never before proposed that someone should be banned anywhere. But comments about opponents accusing them of being bastards (literally) lowers the level of discussion too far. (See "Florida State Bar enforces 'political correctness'" - http://tinyurl.com/2bxc8hd for my defense against the state of some idiots using similar slurs. But it's not intelligent discussion! And the bald and blind attack on Peter Frost's whole career was also stupidly malicious.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • D.K. writes with clarity and logic, at times with pleasing word play, a trait of which you appear not to have any command at all. Your ‘back-handed compliment’ was nothing of the sort, being simply a snide remark at someone who has clearly bested all of you in this thread. Some of you even went to the extent of wondering why D.K. hasn’t been banned from this website. That’s what I call the last resort of the ……..well, emotional or pathetique! (hint: it consists of 3 movements drawing on life’s transitory experiences)

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @iffen
    It is true that I am not a writer and at times fail in expressing my thoughts as well as others.
    For example, I failed to get you to understand what I was talking about in the use of the word, “reckon.” The instance was somewhat trivial and I could see that I was making no headway with you so I dropped it.

    I do try my hand at word play, (back handed compliment) although I make no claims to being in the same league as you and DK.

    Let me try my hand at word play again.

    The question that I had was what DK meant by the use of the term, “anti-Semitic nuts.” DK disavows any responsibility or connection to the use of the word because he was using it as a quote. Now gentlemen, if I can use quotes to say anything that pops into my head and then refuse to accept any responsibility for the use of those words, then, yes, you have bested me. That said, I decided to drop my part in the thread because Mr. Frost requested that commenters refrain from mentioning the unmentionable.

    If you wordsmiths wish to continue on the unmentionable subject we can continue at the Linh post on Germany. I already have a question there for you SS, and I will ask it again here. Who has a phobia? How is that connected with present day Germany? What is ultra-nationalism? How do we distinguish it from ordinary nationalism? Since the post was about Germany, are we to assume that your “ultra-nationalism” applies to the Germans? Now you did not use a quote so you can’t use the excuse that your BFF DK used.

    I understand that you may not wish to respond as it must really hurt your pride to do so. If you do, please don’t use too many big words, keep it simple as a kindness to me. I have a small dictionary that doesn’t have a lot of the big words in it. However, the words that I do use I defend, and I have a reasonable idea of what they mean. Sometimes people will question me about what I have said (that is a good thing) and I gain a better understanding of the topic and the words being used. You two haven’t accomplished that. I have a lot of understanding left to do so it is really wide open. I really wonder why neither of you have made any progress there (oops, sorry).
    , @D. K.
    Thank you, sincerely, Mr. Shama!
    , @iffen
    If you do wish to respond, please do so on Linh's and not Mercer's page. People are getting all "emotional" there and calling each other names like moron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    My comment was a back-handed compliment and should be considered as such. How should I describe your comment?

    You will pardon me, I am sure, for my lack of faith. You may describe my above comment, at issue, as a “crack.” That is the way that I myself describe your proffered “back-handed compliment.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Is your brother ashamed to claim you as a brother?

    Which one: the atheistic lawyer, the Third World priest, or the long-dead atheistic systems analyst?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    "I also do not appreciate being called, whether explicitly or implicitly, an anti-Semite".
    It behoves you to write clearly so as to avoid giving a misleading impression of what Peter is about, and drawing in offensive comments. There are legal implications for him in ignoring such comments in a country with a special tribunal that does not have a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    You are at least right, Sean, in noticing that I have been largely reiterating a lone issue: that of Rupert Murdoch’s Zionism. You are wrong, however, in stating that it has been “not particularly on-topic.” By replying to Rehmat as he did, the professor himself made it a relevant topic. My own reiterations, which you find so inscrutable, merely have been to defend my own original point in commenting here, in this string: whether Rehmat’s opening statement about Australian history and Zionism is right or wrong, per se, he was absolutely correct in his listing Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist. As Unz.com’s own Dr. Paul Gottfried commented, elsewhere, back in July of 2011:

    “The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism.”

     

    You do not appreciate being reminded that you off-topic are in the same category as the most unsalubrious of off-topic commenters, because it does not really matter what you were arguing for or against when you went off-topic and told the author of the post to stop objecting to you rambling on about how everyone has misinterpreted what you were saying. It was clear Peter said Rehmat's original comment was nonsense. You went off on a very involved discussion of a quote within a quote on the subject of Jews in which it was completely unclear to the casual reader what you were arguing, and by your own account changed tack to eventually settle on getting Peter to accept a certain stipulated definition of" Zionism" as the concrete point of all this activity. To get you to stop this discussion of Jewish racial characteristics Peter had to say he got it terribly wrong when he implied that being Jewish was something to do with being a "Zionist". Quite reasonably, he declined to do so.

    In view of your insistence a gentile and Christian televangelist, is the number one Zionist in the US, the implication is that Peter was wrong to mention Murdoch's lack of ethnic motivation for being a Zionist because (according to you) most Zionists are not gentiles. OK we know you think that and now because the author is not accepting that logic you are insulting him over and over again. A comment section is for remarks relevant to the subject of the post. Commenters are not a Federal grand jury where once you break silence you are bound to answer every subsequent point being made on pain of inferences of guilt. Peter is entitled to decline to go any further into an off topic thread after noting he does not subscribe to it.

    Are you on the Autism Spectrum, by any chance, Sean, or are you on something else altogether?

    Regardless, it behooves you to put up or shut up: quote, for my and everyone else’s edification, my allegedly anti-Semitic comments, above, or else stop bothering me with your loquacious nonsense!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I had it wrong about Rehmat having quoted Gottfried, I don’t read Rehmat comments and assumed DK was mentioning and quoting Gottfried because Rehmat had referenced Gottfried in some way. After all, DK by his own account was arguing that Rupert Murdoch’s Zionism was not synonymous with him being Jewish, so why else would DK, who knows Rehmat is a card carrying Jew hater, be giving us long quotes suggesting Peter had been factually incorrect in his "Murdoch is not Jewish" response.

    In the beginning: Rehmat ( comment number 7) spoke of ” evil” and “criminal” Jews persecuting non-Jews especially Muslims in Canada. Then the Wizard of Oz (comment no8) talked about an Australian activist Jewish lawyer winning an aboriginal related case. In comment no 27 Rehmat said Australia was a Zionist colony. Rehmat was talking about Jews all along, he mentioned Zionism as a Jewish regime epitomized by Rupert Murdoch, so when in no 31 Peter gave his “Murdoch is not Jewish it was quite relevant to the fact that Rehmat had actually been explicitly talking about Canadian Jews in comment 7 and Australian Jewish “Zionists” in no 27. Peter noted Murdoch is not Jewish. Absolutely to the point short comment by Peter answering Rehmat the Jew-hater, but DK swooped in comment no 34 here is the full thing -


    October 19, 2015 at 2:40 pm GMT • 300 Words

    ***
    Australia has always been a Zionist colony – from Rothschild to Rupert Murdoch.
    Uh, Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish.
    ***
    Perhaps not, but your fellow Unzian, Professor Paul Gottfried, has had his own doubts about Mr. Murdoch’s explicit denials of his own Jewish heritage:
    ***
    Although I shall gladly defer to Steve Sailer on statistical and genetic matters, I must respectfully dissent from some of his assertions made in response to my posting about Murdoch. The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism. And “conservative” my foot! Among Murdoch’s announced political favorites have been Hillary, Andrew Cuomo, and Giuliani. Portraits of Murdoch that I’ve seen in People and other news sources worthy of his less than magisterial personality suggest this press baron is not exactly a man of the right. As for Murdoch’s mother, Elizabeth Joy (nee) Greene, there is lots of evidence on the internet (see for example http://currentissues.tv/Rupert%20Murdoch.html) that she was not only Jewish but a practicing Jew. The sources for this are extremely varied and by no means exclusively associated with anti-Semitic nuts.
    [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/07/27/murdoch-is-daddy-warbucks-to-the-neocons/
    ***
    As I myself have noted before, elsewhere, a professional genealogist in London was unable to trace Mr. Murdoch’s namesake maternal grandfather’s own ancestors, even though Rupert Greene’s father, according to a 1993 biography of Rupert’s famous grandson, was a railway engineer who had emigrated from Great Britain itself:
    http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html
    I find that lacuna rather strange. One thing is clear, however, straight from the horse’s mouth (or whatever), irrespective of his sometimes-alleged ties to Abraham himself; Rupert Murdoch is as devout and zealous of a Zionist as any Jewish press baron in the United States, if not the whole of the Western world:
    http://www.mjhnyc.org/documents/5-7-12RupertMurdochmuseumofjewishheritagespeechFORDISTRIBUTION.pdf
    The comment to which you replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist.
     

    Despite the facility for blockquote DK used very idiosyncratic punctuation marks for distinguishing his text from what he was citing. Why he was casting doubt (via an extended cite of a supposed article of Gottfried, (I have not checked) about Murdoch’s non-Jewish background, I have no idea. DK ended by saying

    “ One thing is clear, however, straight from the horse’s mouth (or whatever), irrespective of his sometimes-alleged ties to Abraham himself; Rupert Murdoch is as devout and zealous of a Zionist as any Jewish press baron in the United States, if not the whole of the Western world"
     
    The closer one is reading it, the more it seems difficult to see DK’s comment as not expressing backhanded support for Rehmat’s assertion that Murdoch is Jewish. One assumes a writer is giving information that he thinks relevant, and if not relevant what was the quote doing there? Certainly in the real world one must discard information to reach the key aspects of a problem, but why add such prominence to something apparently without bearing on the writer’s self –identified views. Nowhere did DK assert the information in the quote was not valid and so the quote ought not to be taken seriously A strong suggestion of Murdoch’s Jewishness was perceived in DK’s comment by everyone who responded to him.

    In comment no 52 DK said the “quote was originally posted by Unz.com’s own Dr. Paul Gottfried, back in July of 2011, at another Web site2” and DK complains I attribute to him the idea of Jewish collective agency behind “anti-hate” legislation in most Western countries. But why did he give the quote about Murdoch’s Jewishness, this was hard to see as anything but support for Rehmat's position, which is those of Jewish descent are acting for group centric reasons.

    In no 54 DK says


    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question– as does the quite-Jewish professor who shares this forum, Unz.com, with you, Dr. Paul Gottfried
     
    Apparently DK had now occupied every position in the argument simultaneously with a Jewishness does and does not matter line.

    Would you care to declare publicly, here and now, Dr. Frost, that the Reverend John Hagee is not a Zionist, because there is no publicly known evidence that he is himself of Jewish descent?
     
    That is the wrong way to pose the problem because a view such as Zionism is an allegiance that does not stem from genetic group (for instance a Jew who thought he was a gentile could hardly be a Jewish nationalist). DK’s example of Hagee as a Zionist is complete disconnected to Rehmat’s thoughts about Zionism, but he is still mentioning supposed evidence for Murdoch being Jewish.
    because at (no 64) DK says Murdoch’s being Jewish is “utterly immaterial” to his being labelled a Zionist, yet he acknowledges the quoted comment supposedly from Dr. Gottfried was “obviously used by me about … whether or not Rupert Murdoch is of Jewish descent,”. He apparently (he does not use proper punctuation) reinforced the quote by mentioning a little personal research: “As I myself have noted before, elsewhere, a professional genealogist in London was unable to trace Mr. Murdoch’s namesake maternal grandfather’s own ancestors, even though Rupert Greene’s father, according to a 1993 biography of Rupert’s famous grandson, was a railway engineer who had emigrated from Great Britain itself…”.

    Then DK begins hand waving -


    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question […]Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation?

     
    Let us refresh our memory, DK started all this by quoting (so he says) himself and Gottfried on Murdoch’s Jewish descent. I’ll let DK in comment no 92 explain why he was insisting on a non-ethnic definition of Zionist

    “I simply was defending Rehmat’s labeling of Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist– nothing more.Instead of proving that Rehmat’s claim about Australia was wrong, the professor merely asserted the (questionable) claim that Mr. Murdoch is not Jewish, as if that settled the entire issue that Rehmat had raised about Australia.”
     
    What Rehmat was saying about Canada and Australia was that Jews were in control and persecuting everyone else. That was what he meant by Zionist colony as a look at his comment 7 shows. Clearly Rehmat’s claim that Jews from Rothschild to Murdoch have run Australia (“Zionist colony”) is incompatible with Murdoch not being Jewish, and it is sufficient to note it. Rehmat was not using a non-ethnic definition of Zionist, the term is synonymous with ‘Jewish rule’ for him as anyone who has seen his comments (including DK) knows. DK got this thread centring around him by insisting that Peter’s response to Rehmat failed to take account of the true definition of ‘Zionist’, but Peter was not rebutting someone operating with that definition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean

    My original comment, above, was intended only to correct Dr. Frost, Sean, and to disabuse him, and any of his credulous readers, of believing that his dismissive comments, in response to the two quotes from Rehmat that he deigned to address, had refuted anything that Rehmat actually had written. My subsequent comments, I believe (without my reviewing this entire thread), all have been to respond to those who have replied to me, whether to attack me or to succor me– except when I replied to myself, to add a link to an article about another famous Zionist, Winston Churchill.
     
    You made comments which had a very camouflaged purport, and Peter was responding to your response to his response to Rehmat. Your response did have a definitely supportive of Rehmat feel to it on any normal reading.

    It is down to you to make your meaning clear and if you try to argue against a criticism of a commenter, as you did by making an issue of Peter's dismissive 'Murdoch is not Jewish' response to to Rehmat, you need to make it clear what you are arguing. Peter said that in quick response to Rehmat's offensive. This is a comment section where people agree and disagree and if you want to float above the fray as someone without sympathy with a commenter who you appear to be supporting, please make that very obvious. It might be a good idea to emphasis you do not agree with something you are citing , such as the Gottfried quote otherwise you could appear to be dissimulating.


    D. K. says:
    October 20, 2015 at 7:45 pm GMT • 600 Words

    “You’re saying that Rupert Murdoch is ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’ because Jewish ancestry has not been ruled out for the ancestors of his maternal grandfather. Aren’t you being a bit … obsessive?”

    Are you not a native speaker of English, Dr. Frost, or is the native American-style English of this former English major (B.A.) and attorney (J.D.), inter alia, merely beyond your own boreal comprehension? Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question– as does the quite-Jewish professor who shares this forum, Unz.com, with you, Dr. Paul Gottfried. If you think that Dr. Gottfried is “a bit … obsessive,” I would advise you, pro bono publico, to take the issue up with him personally, here or elsewhere on this Web site. In the meantime, do feel free to go back and reread (?) that quote from Dr. Gottfried, cited by me above, and then, if you are feeling intellectually curious, today, click on the link that Dr. Gottfried himself cited, in that very quote, dealing with the possibility of Rupert Murdoch’s being Jewish by matrilineal descent, even if not by either public admission or private profession.

    Do you even know what a Zionist is, Dr. Frost? Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation? Do you know, for instance, who the Reverend John Hagee is, by any chance? Here is a passage from his Wikipedia.org entry, for your perusal:...
     

    You and no one brought up Hagee and began a bizzare argument that appeared to be about how Jewish people are less likely to be Zionists. This is quite a difference from what you seemed to be saying at the beginning of the thread, and you are only arguing with yourself by this point.

    “You made comments which had a very camouflaged purport, and Peter was responding to your response to his response to Rehmat. Your response did have a definitely supportive of Rehmat feel to it on any normal reading.”

    As I already have explicitly explained, Sean, I supported, and support, Rehmat’s contention that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist– NOTHING MORE!

    “It is down to you to make your meaning clear and if you try to argue against a criticism of a commenter, as you did by making an issue of Peter’s dismissive ‘Murdoch is not Jewish’ response to to Rehmat, you need to make it clear what you are arguing. Peter said that in quick response to Rehmat’s offensive. This is a comment section where people agree and disagree and if you want to float above the fray as someone without sympathy with a commenter who you appear to be supporting, please make that very obvious. It might be a good idea to emphasis you do not agree with something you are citing , such as the Gottfried quote otherwise you could appear to be dissimulating.”

    I am a retired lawyer, Sean, with a degree in English from a major American university, from which I have a Phi Beta Kappa key. My writing abilities have been vetted, beginning with my freshman term paper, in English 101, on which I scored a 98% (A+), in December 1974, long before grade inflation took off in academia, after I already had tested out of the next semester’s also-required English 102, altogether. I was further vetted through the completion of my B.A., in English and General History; my M.S., in Personality and Social Psychology; my J.D., in Law; and, my M.B.A., in Management & Organization. I was vetted through two and a half days of writing bar-exam essays. I was vetted through my writing my way through a legal career, in downtown Seattle. I was vetted in my work as a psychological legal consultant. I was vetted in my work as a paid ghostwriter. My writing abilities have been vetted ever since I first wrote my name on the wall in ink, above my childhood bed, when I was three or four years old.

    If you have trouble grasping what I write, Sean, the trouble is not in my writing; the trouble is your meager grasp!

    “You and no one [sic] brought up Hagee and began a bizzare argument that appeared to be about how Jewish people are less likely to be Zionists.”

    At what grade level do you read, Sean? I brought up the Reverend Hagee for the reason that I already explained to you, but which you still fail to grasp. I stated that there were more gentiles who considered themselves to be Zionists than there were Jewish people who considered themselves to be Zionists. Do you know how many Jews there are in the world, Sean? Fewer than fifteen million! Do you know how many gentiles there are in the world, Sean? Over seven and a quarter billion! If every Jewish person in the world considered him- or herself to be a Zionist, it still would take only about two-tenths of one percent of all gentiles, or three-quarters of one percent of all Christians, to surpass that number! Are you as innumerate as you apparently are illiterate, Sean?!?

    “This is quite a difference from what you seemed to be saying at the beginning of the thread, and you are only arguing with yourself by this point.”

    I have responded to countless attacks upon my position, or simply upon me; I have not retracted a single argument that I have made, along the way. If I am arguing with only myself, now, Sean, why in Zeus’ name do you keep responding to every one of my replies to you? Why did you interject yourself into the exchange between me and another commenter, to begin with, citing an unsourced quote, as your lead, which did not even originate with me? (Thanks, again, Helena, for tracking that down, near the top of these comments!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    For an educated person, you have a remarkably naive faith in dictionaries. To define an ideology, go to its sources. A Zionist is necessarily a Jew, just like a French nationalist is a Frenchman. Others would ordinarily be termed "Zionist sympathizers" - like Murdoch.

    wikipedia (based on original sources): "Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).[1][2][3][4]" [my emphasis].

    I am naive for having faith in Merriam-Webster, while you come here and cite Wikipedia.org to me?!?

    “Jesus, Mary and Joseph!”

    Try this, Mr. Diamond:

    http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/articles/last-romantic-zionist-gentile/

    “The Last Romantic Zionist Gentile” by Yoav Tenembaum

    ["Dr. Tenembaum resides in Tel Aviv. He is the author of the article ”A hero without a grave” which introduces this site."]

    EXTRACT:

    ***

    Churchill used to trace his Zionism back to the days of the Balfour Declaration, describing himself as ”an old Zionist.” His attitude toward Zionism remained as passionate and as explicit following his return to Ten Downing Street in 1951. Now, however, with the State of Israel firmly in place, the images he entertained became perhaps more vivid, more colorful, and as ever imbued with historical resonance.

    Thus, in June 1954, Churchill stated to journalists in the United States, ”I am a Zionist, let me make that clear. I was one of the original ones after the Balfour Declaration and I have worked faithfully for it.” This was merely the introduction. He went on: ”I think it is a most wonderful thing that this community should have established itself so effectively, turning the desert into fertile gardens and thriving townships, and should have afforded refuge to millions of their co-religionists who suffered so fearfully under Hitler, and not only under Hitler, persecution. I think it is a wonderful thing.” In a conversation with Israel’s Ambassador in London, Eliyahu Elath, Churchill referred to Israel’s population as ”the sons of the prophets dwelling in Zion.”

    ***

    THE AUTHOR’S CONCLUSION:

    ***

    Churchill’s was Israel’s best friend, and as a friend his attitude was shaped by sentiment as much as by pragmatic considerations. He was emotionally attached to Israel and its people, and his stance was a corollary of this. His oft-repeated, self-declared Zionist sympathies, his emotional attachment to the Jewish people and their restored sovereign entity, permeated his attitude toward Arab-Israeli disputes. He was, perhaps the last romantic Zionist Gentile. Or the last romantic Zionist.

    ***

    Or, as ‘Ringo’ said to ‘Clang’ in “HELP!” (1965):

    “I don’t subscribe to your religion!”

    ***

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Correct: do not dish it out, if you are not prepared to take it! "The Golden Rule," or some such thing....

    My comment was a back-handed compliment and should be considered as such. How should I describe your comment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    You will pardon me, I am sure, for my lack of faith. You may describe my above comment, at issue, as a "crack." That is the way that I myself describe your proffered "back-handed compliment."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Correct: do not dish it out, if you are not prepared to take it! "The Golden Rule," or some such thing....

    Is your brother ashamed to claim you as a brother?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Which one: the atheistic lawyer, the Third World priest, or the long-dead atheistic systems analyst?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    I don't understand why Peter Frost doesn't ban D.K.

    Why not tell it directly to Peter Frost, then, instead of telling it to me (in the third person, no less!), Mr. Diamond? Regardless, why not be prophylactic, now, rather than punitive, later, and just go ahead and ban me from your own world-renowned Web site, Mr. Diamond?

    (Since I have your invaluable attention, now, Mr. Diamond, I was already curious: when you agreed with Dr. Frost’s first comment [#31, supra], which was a long comment, comprised of his replies to several different commenters, were you really agreeing with everything that he wrote, or was there, perhaps, something in particular– or even, perhaps, something particularistic– that really left you feeling so agreeable? Just curious….)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Sean, would you care to point to my alleged "anti-Semitic" statement(s), in this comment thread, that could get your hero thrown into a gulag, in the Great White North? My defining Zionism, and thereby identifying Zionists, after your hero has deliberately taken up the issue raised by another commenter, Rehmat, is not "anti-Semitic"-- other than in the minds of the clinically paranoid! Would you care to point out where I was pleaded with, by your hero, to stop defending myself against his own ignorance?

    Regardless, as should have been explicitly obvious from the very comment that you were just responding to, you did not presciently understand what I was getting at, in my first comment above, about most Zionists' being gentiles, because that was not what I was getting at, at all. The whole point was that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist-- which is a subscriber to a specific political ideology, irrespective of that subscriber's religion or ethnicity. Rehmat, to that extent, at least, was absolutely correct, irrespective of the rest of his argument-- which your hero failed to refute! If Rupert Murdoch were the only gentile in the world to subscribe to Zionism, he still would be a Zionist. Your hero did not know that, because he did not even know what Zionism is. With the help of the more-literate folks at Merriam-Webster, perhaps he now does....

    When your hero makes a false claim, or implies as much, it is subject to refutation by those of us who are better educated than he. When those refutations are attacked, by him or a sycophant, we are fully justified in defending our earlier refutations, even if, in doing so, we upset the hero or the sycophant. That is not being "off-topic." Neither was my bringing in the Reverend Hagee. I did so because he is perhaps the most notorious Zionist in America-- and he obviously is not Jewish! I was using him as an obvious exemplar of a Zionist gentile, after your hero fallaciously claimed that only Jews may be Zionists. (Feel free to go back to my link to the Winston Churchill Web site, which will take you to an article in which Mr. Churchill is quoted as calling himself a Zionist, and which concludes with the Jewish author himself calling Churchill a Zionist!)

    I must say, in closing, Sean, that you and your friend Peter were obviously made for each other....

    For an educated person, you have a remarkably naive faith in dictionaries. To define an ideology, go to its sources. A Zionist is necessarily a Jew, just like a French nationalist is a Frenchman. Others would ordinarily be termed “Zionist sympathizers” – like Murdoch.

    wikipedia (based on original sources): “Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).[1][2][3][4]” [my emphasis].

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I am naive for having faith in Merriam-Webster, while you come here and cite Wikipedia.org to me?!?

    "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!"

    Try this, Mr. Diamond:

    http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/articles/last-romantic-zionist-gentile/

    "The Last Romantic Zionist Gentile" by Yoav Tenembaum

    ["Dr. Tenembaum resides in Tel Aviv. He is the author of the article ”A hero without a grave” which introduces this site."]

    EXTRACT:

    ***

    Churchill used to trace his Zionism back to the days of the Balfour Declaration, describing himself as ”an old Zionist.” His attitude toward Zionism remained as passionate and as explicit following his return to Ten Downing Street in 1951. Now, however, with the State of Israel firmly in place, the images he entertained became perhaps more vivid, more colorful, and as ever imbued with historical resonance.

    Thus, in June 1954, Churchill stated to journalists in the United States, ”I am a Zionist, let me make that clear. I was one of the original ones after the Balfour Declaration and I have worked faithfully for it.” This was merely the introduction. He went on: ”I think it is a most wonderful thing that this community should have established itself so effectively, turning the desert into fertile gardens and thriving townships, and should have afforded refuge to millions of their co-religionists who suffered so fearfully under Hitler, and not only under Hitler, persecution. I think it is a wonderful thing.” In a conversation with Israel’s Ambassador in London, Eliyahu Elath, Churchill referred to Israel’s population as ”the sons of the prophets dwelling in Zion.”

    ***

    THE AUTHOR'S CONCLUSION:

    ***

    Churchill’s was Israel’s best friend, and as a friend his attitude was shaped by sentiment as much as by pragmatic considerations. He was emotionally attached to Israel and its people, and his stance was a corollary of this. His oft-repeated, self-declared Zionist sympathies, his emotional attachment to the Jewish people and their restored sovereign entity, permeated his attitude toward Arab-Israeli disputes. He was, perhaps the last romantic Zionist Gentile. Or the last romantic Zionist.

    ***

    Or, as 'Ringo' said to 'Clang' in "HELP!" (1965):

    "I don't subscribe to your religion!"

    ***
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • My original comment, above, was intended only to correct Dr. Frost, Sean, and to disabuse him, and any of his credulous readers, of believing that his dismissive comments, in response to the two quotes from Rehmat that he deigned to address, had refuted anything that Rehmat actually had written. My subsequent comments, I believe (without my reviewing this entire thread), all have been to respond to those who have replied to me, whether to attack me or to succor me– except when I replied to myself, to add a link to an article about another famous Zionist, Winston Churchill.

    You made comments which had a very camouflaged purport, and Peter was responding to your response to his response to Rehmat. Your response did have a definitely supportive of Rehmat feel to it on any normal reading.

    It is down to you to make your meaning clear and if you try to argue against a criticism of a commenter, as you did by making an issue of Peter’s dismissive ‘Murdoch is not Jewish’ response to to Rehmat, you need to make it clear what you are arguing. Peter said that in quick response to Rehmat’s offensive. This is a comment section where people agree and disagree and if you want to float above the fray as someone without sympathy with a commenter who you appear to be supporting, please make that very obvious. It might be a good idea to emphasis you do not agree with something you are citing , such as the Gottfried quote otherwise you could appear to be dissimulating.

    D. K. says:
    October 20, 2015 at 7:45 pm GMT • 600 Words

    “You’re saying that Rupert Murdoch is ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’ because Jewish ancestry has not been ruled out for the ancestors of his maternal grandfather. Aren’t you being a bit … obsessive?”

    Are you not a native speaker of English, Dr. Frost, or is the native American-style English of this former English major (B.A.) and attorney (J.D.), inter alia, merely beyond your own boreal comprehension? Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question– as does the quite-Jewish professor who shares this forum, Unz.com, with you, Dr. Paul Gottfried. If you think that Dr. Gottfried is “a bit … obsessive,” I would advise you, pro bono publico, to take the issue up with him personally, here or elsewhere on this Web site. In the meantime, do feel free to go back and reread (?) that quote from Dr. Gottfried, cited by me above, and then, if you are feeling intellectually curious, today, click on the link that Dr. Gottfried himself cited, in that very quote, dealing with the possibility of Rupert Murdoch’s being Jewish by matrilineal descent, even if not by either public admission or private profession.

    Do you even know what a Zionist is, Dr. Frost? Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation? Do you know, for instance, who the Reverend John Hagee is, by any chance? Here is a passage from his Wikipedia.org entry, for your perusal:…

    You and no one brought up Hagee and began a bizzare argument that appeared to be about how Jewish people are less likely to be Zionists. This is quite a difference from what you seemed to be saying at the beginning of the thread, and you are only arguing with yourself by this point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    "You made comments which had a very camouflaged purport, and Peter was responding to your response to his response to Rehmat. Your response did have a definitely supportive of Rehmat feel to it on any normal reading."

    As I already have explicitly explained, Sean, I supported, and support, Rehmat's contention that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist-- NOTHING MORE!

    "It is down to you to make your meaning clear and if you try to argue against a criticism of a commenter, as you did by making an issue of Peter’s dismissive ‘Murdoch is not Jewish’ response to to Rehmat, you need to make it clear what you are arguing. Peter said that in quick response to Rehmat’s offensive. This is a comment section where people agree and disagree and if you want to float above the fray as someone without sympathy with a commenter who you appear to be supporting, please make that very obvious. It might be a good idea to emphasis you do not agree with something you are citing , such as the Gottfried quote otherwise you could appear to be dissimulating."

    I am a retired lawyer, Sean, with a degree in English from a major American university, from which I have a Phi Beta Kappa key. My writing abilities have been vetted, beginning with my freshman term paper, in English 101, on which I scored a 98% (A+), in December 1974, long before grade inflation took off in academia, after I already had tested out of the next semester's also-required English 102, altogether. I was further vetted through the completion of my B.A., in English and General History; my M.S., in Personality and Social Psychology; my J.D., in Law; and, my M.B.A., in Management & Organization. I was vetted through two and a half days of writing bar-exam essays. I was vetted through my writing my way through a legal career, in downtown Seattle. I was vetted in my work as a psychological legal consultant. I was vetted in my work as a paid ghostwriter. My writing abilities have been vetted ever since I first wrote my name on the wall in ink, above my childhood bed, when I was three or four years old.

    If you have trouble grasping what I write, Sean, the trouble is not in my writing; the trouble is your meager grasp!

    "You and no one [sic] brought up Hagee and began a bizzare argument that appeared to be about how Jewish people are less likely to be Zionists."

    At what grade level do you read, Sean? I brought up the Reverend Hagee for the reason that I already explained to you, but which you still fail to grasp. I stated that there were more gentiles who considered themselves to be Zionists than there were Jewish people who considered themselves to be Zionists. Do you know how many Jews there are in the world, Sean? Fewer than fifteen million! Do you know how many gentiles there are in the world, Sean? Over seven and a quarter billion! If every Jewish person in the world considered him- or herself to be a Zionist, it still would take only about two-tenths of one percent of all gentiles, or three-quarters of one percent of all Christians, to surpass that number! Are you as innumerate as you apparently are illiterate, Sean?!?

    "This is quite a difference from what you seemed to be saying at the beginning of the thread, and you are only arguing with yourself by this point."

    I have responded to countless attacks upon my position, or simply upon me; I have not retracted a single argument that I have made, along the way. If I am arguing with only myself, now, Sean, why in Zeus' name do you keep responding to every one of my replies to you? Why did you interject yourself into the exchange between me and another commenter, to begin with, citing an unsourced quote, as your lead, which did not even originate with me? (Thanks, again, Helena, for tracking that down, near the top of these comments!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen

    or do you not even know whom to ask?!?
     
    It didn't take long for you to show us your true character.

    Correct: do not dish it out, if you are not prepared to take it! “The Golden Rule,” or some such thing….

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Is your brother ashamed to claim you as a brother?
    , @iffen
    My comment was a back-handed compliment and should be considered as such. How should I describe your comment?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    I can get so much more attention by posting comments here, in response to a world-renown academic like you, using only my initials, than I ever could garner by starting my own blog

    No, you're not posting comments here to draw attention to yourself. For that, you would have to publish under your name, and you seem to have issues with that option.

    What is your annual take from that enterprise, Dr. Frost

    Zero.

    What were you up to, professionally, in May of 1981

    I was working as a computer operator for the head office of Towers Department Stores. I was trying to save up money for my education at Universite Laval.

    I am assuming (and surely hoping) that it did not take you eight years of continuous study to complete your M.A. degree

    Officially, it took me two years. Unofficially, it took me a year and a half. (I was provisionally admitted to the Ph.D. program before acceptance of my master's thesis).

    I left Purdue, having been persuaded [...] to become a lawyer, rather than an academic. After all, who wants to spend a lifetime toiling futilely in the shadow of an academic giant like Laval University’s Peter Frost?

    I worked with lawyers when I was an antiracist activist. They can be pretty shameless when they want to drum up business.

    If I wanted to be rich, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing now.

    Why not ask your host, Dr. Frost, or, better yet, your colleague, Steve Sailer, whether I have been just trolling their comment sections?

    I wasn't referring specifically to you when I made that remark. Even now I'm not sure. One can never be sure with people who use pseudonyms.

    I also do not appreciate being called, whether explicitly or implicitly, an anti-Semite

    I said you were "obsessive" about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch's maternal grandfather has Jewish ancestry. It doesn't really matter whether I think your obsessiveness is driven by anti-Semitism. What matters is the opinion of the Quebec Human Rights Commission.

    or at least shut the hell up about it

    My feelings exactly.

    Mr. Unz: Please, give this poor man a larger stipend!

    I don't get a stipend. I don't think even Steve Sailer gets one.

    “No, you’re not posting comments here to draw attention to yourself. For that, you would have to publish under your name, and you seem to have issues with that option.”

    You just have refuted your own previous claim, to Sean, earlier today, that I “can get much more attention by posting a comment here than by creating [my] own blog.” In the musical words of ‘Judas Iscariot’: “It doesn’t help us if you’re inconsistent. / They only need a small excuse to put us all away.” ["Strange Thing Mystifying" (1970)] At any rate, anyone who has known me at all well, in “real life,” would quickly recognize me, to the exclusion of all others, from the endless biographical details that I have littered throughout this and other Web sites. I do not feel any legal or moral obligation to help the N.S.A., and whomever else, in their own nefarious duties.

    “I worked with lawyers when I was an antiracist activist. They can be pretty shameless when they want to drum up business.”

    Yes, they can, which is one reason why I hate lawyers myself, like almost everyone else. Then again, of the countless lawyers whom I have known in my life, beginning with my eldest brother, I have known very few who were as shameless, and otherwise anti-social, as the typical antiracism activist!?! (Yes, I have some of those in the family, too; one of my nephews, who is an A.B.D. in Theology, from one of your universities in Toronto, is one of the most unbearably obnoxious people whom I ever have known– and, I say that as his own beloved godfather!)

    “If I wanted to be rich, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing now.”

    Yes, well, there is a lot of that going around, Professor. I could have married my law-school girlfriend, and then just have spent the rest of my life living (quite well) off of her own immense legal talent and boundless professional ambition. (She retired, at age 55, just last year.)

    “I wasn’t referring specifically to you when I made that remark. Even now I’m not sure. One can never be sure with people who use pseudonyms.”

    You mean like, say, Eric Blair? Regardless, refer back to my first response, within this comment.

    “I said you were ‘obsessive’ about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch’s maternal grandfather has Jewish ancestry. It doesn’t really matter whether I think your obsessiveness is driven by anti-Semitism. What matters is the opinion of the Quebec Human Rights Commission.”

    As someone trained in Personality Psychology, and who has known me intimately for nearly sixty years, I think that I am in rather a better position than you to judge that particular trait in myself. There was nothing in the least bit “obsessive” about my simply raising the possibility of Rupert Murdoch’s being Jewish, after you yourself, sans evidence, declared him not-Jewish– even though Rehmat never even had claimed that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish! The quote that I supplied, in my first comment, above, was from your own Jewish colleague, here at Unz.com, Dr. Paul Gottfried. As I said, the second time around, if you feel that Dr. Gottfried himself also is “a bit…obsessive” about the possibility of Rupert Murdoch’s being Jewish, by matrilineal descent, you should take it up with your colleague yourself, whether here or elsewhere on this Web site.

    I still am waiting for either you or your admirer to provide me with a single quotation from me, in this entire thread, that could plausibly be construed by any sane, let alone reasonable, person as being “anti-Semitic” in nature…. (The in-laws are waiting, Professor!)

    “I don’t get a stipend. I don’t think even Steve Sailer gets one.”

    Well, then, a bargain at twice the price! (If you two should decide that you need a referral, feel free to ask….)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    I permanently retired from the law in 2001, at age 44. How are you fixed...? Did your father get his money's worth, by the way, or do you not even know whom to ask?!?

    I don’t understand why Peter Frost doesn’t ban D.K.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Why not tell it directly to Peter Frost, then, instead of telling it to me (in the third person, no less!), Mr. Diamond? Regardless, why not be prophylactic, now, rather than punitive, later, and just go ahead and ban me from your own world-renowned Web site, Mr. Diamond?

    (Since I have your invaluable attention, now, Mr. Diamond, I was already curious: when you agreed with Dr. Frost's first comment [#31, supra], which was a long comment, comprised of his replies to several different commenters, were you really agreeing with everything that he wrote, or was there, perhaps, something in particular-- or even, perhaps, something particularistic-- that really left you feeling so agreeable? Just curious....)
    , @Harold
    He doesn’t have the ability.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Racial solidarity isn’t clannish? Then there’s something basic I’ve missed.

    A clan is a cohesive group of several interbreeding families. It normally has high rates of cousin marriage and inbreeding. Clans are rare in Western societies but they are still common in many areas of the world (Afghanistan, the Caucasus, remote and inaccessible highland areas in general).

    Nationalist movements of the early 20th century, particularly Nazism, tried to create "racial solidarity" by using the sort of intimate kinship terminology used by clans ("we are all brothers and sisters"), but this sort of ideological manipulation characterizes other ideologies, including Christianity and Communism.

    While clans can develop spontaneously (particularly under conditions of limited geographic mobility), the same is not true for "racial solidarity." Racial solidarity requires either ideological indoctrination or fear of a common enemy.

    For example, until recently Hungarian nationalists preferred to squabble with Romanians and Slovaks. This seems to be changing with the current immigration tsunami.

    Empirically: why do the parts of America where inbreeding is highest – the deep south and Appalachia – show the greatest racial cohesion.

    It's not a cause and effect relationship. Appalachia has high rates of inbreeding for the same reason it's racially and religiously conservative. It's a region with historically low rates of immigration and in-migration from other states. Low economic growth has also helped to preserve traditional social structures. People stay put and value relationships with their families and immediate kin.

    Peter has repeatedly explained that he wishes these threads would stop and how they could damage him, yet you just ignored that to go on and on.

    He's incorrigible, Sean, like certain other commenters. He can get much more attention by posting a comment here than by creating his own blog. Some of the other commenters may also be trolls. Here in Canada there have been cases of government officials deliberately leaving anti-Semitic comments on blogs they want to shut down.

    Nationalist movements of the early 20th century, particularly Nazism, tried to create “racial solidarity” by using the sort of intimate kinship terminology used by clans (“we are all brothers and sisters”), but this sort of ideological manipulation characterizes other ideologies, including Christianity and Communism.

    One difference is that races are closer to being kin than are classes.

    What about Jews, to whom (some) hbders attribute clannishness (which others term “tribalism”), due to inbreeding? [The description seems to pertain both to degree of allegiance to kin and to Jews in general.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “I also do not appreciate being called, whether explicitly or implicitly, an anti-Semite”.
    It behoves you to write clearly so as to avoid giving a misleading impression of what Peter is about, and drawing in offensive comments. There are legal implications for him in ignoring such comments in a country with a special tribunal that does not have a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    You are at least right, Sean, in noticing that I have been largely reiterating a lone issue: that of Rupert Murdoch’s Zionism. You are wrong, however, in stating that it has been “not particularly on-topic.” By replying to Rehmat as he did, the professor himself made it a relevant topic. My own reiterations, which you find so inscrutable, merely have been to defend my own original point in commenting here, in this string: whether Rehmat’s opening statement about Australian history and Zionism is right or wrong, per se, he was absolutely correct in his listing Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist. As Unz.com’s own Dr. Paul Gottfried commented, elsewhere, back in July of 2011:

    “The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism.”

    You do not appreciate being reminded that you off-topic are in the same category as the most unsalubrious of off-topic commenters, because it does not really matter what you were arguing for or against when you went off-topic and told the author of the post to stop objecting to you rambling on about how everyone has misinterpreted what you were saying. It was clear Peter said Rehmat’s original comment was nonsense. You went off on a very involved discussion of a quote within a quote on the subject of Jews in which it was completely unclear to the casual reader what you were arguing, and by your own account changed tack to eventually settle on getting Peter to accept a certain stipulated definition of” Zionism” as the concrete point of all this activity. To get you to stop this discussion of Jewish racial characteristics Peter had to say he got it terribly wrong when he implied that being Jewish was something to do with being a “Zionist”. Quite reasonably, he declined to do so.

    In view of your insistence a gentile and Christian televangelist, is the number one Zionist in the US, the implication is that Peter was wrong to mention Murdoch’s lack of ethnic motivation for being a Zionist because (according to you) most Zionists are not gentiles. OK we know you think that and now because the author is not accepting that logic you are insulting him over and over again. A comment section is for remarks relevant to the subject of the post. Commenters are not a Federal grand jury where once you break silence you are bound to answer every subsequent point being made on pain of inferences of guilt. Peter is entitled to decline to go any further into an off topic thread after noting he does not subscribe to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Are you on the Autism Spectrum, by any chance, Sean, or are you on something else altogether?

    Regardless, it behooves you to put up or shut up: quote, for my and everyone else's edification, my allegedly anti-Semitic comments, above, or else stop bothering me with your loquacious nonsense!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • or do you not even know whom to ask?!?

    It didn’t take long for you to show us your true character.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Correct: do not dish it out, if you are not prepared to take it! "The Golden Rule," or some such thing....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    He got his money's worth out of his law degree, didn't he?

    I permanently retired from the law in 2001, at age 44. How are you fixed…? Did your father get his money’s worth, by the way, or do you not even know whom to ask?!?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    I don't understand why Peter Frost doesn't ban D.K.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen

    leftists can point to the “vile, anti-Semitic language” in the comments as evidence that the ideas in the article can’t be taken seriously
     
    I am glad someone else understands this.

    The "leftists" certainly understand it.

    Since there is minimal moderation, postings by a provocateur could make it difficult to escape the site being described as anti-Semitic and racist. (Not that a provocateur is actually needed.)

    Does it matter if Unz is described as anti-Semitic or racist?

    No, it does not.

    After reading here for a couple of years, it has become obvious to me that few, if any, of the content providers have any thoughts about any political opposition. Not just here at Unz, but this situation prevails in almost any direction one turns and that has to be the main reason that crazies are in full control of our culture and our government. They have no political opposition. They can say and do anything that they want, no matter how crazy, and there is no opposition. None. So, in fact, it doesn't really matter whether Unz, is, or is not, described as anti-Semitic or racist. Only a few commenters seem concerned and it has no effect in the real world.

    “Only a few commenters seem concerned and it has no effect in the real world.”

    Apply that reasoning to other sites, like that of Theodre Beale (Vox Day). He’s the writer who the Sad Puppies allowed to became the face of their movement because they didn’t comment forcefully enough on the issue. The commenters on Beale’s blog don’t object when he voices support for Breivik, so there must be no negative effect to supporting Breivik, right? But that’s a measurement bias. It misses the many more people whom you can’t see who remove their weight from your causes.

    That’s why Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch win against immigration opponents. They’d be willing to defend their supporters if people started building arguments for why their supporters aren’t Americans (or Westerners), or don’t have human rights.

    One of the best things Mr. Frost could do to support anti-immigration efforts would be to write up his vision on Jews and other high-IQ minorities in a formal article, so he can link to it when the topic recurs in the future. Not wanting high-IQ minorities and their allies on our side is insanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for the comment, I meant to get back to you sooner as you make an excellent point. I read the Sad Puppies link that you provided and I found it very informative, heretofore, I only had a vague awareness of that situation.

    The major difference, and a definitive one, that I see is that there was an actual faction, a movement, in your words, called the Sad Puppies and they let the control of their message get hijacked. In the end, even some people who supported the ideas behind Sad Puppies withdrew their support because of this hijacking.

    We don’t have a movement, we don’t actually have a side other than we are not on the side of the crazy people running/ruining everything. We have no organized opposition. The other side wins by default.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I can get so much more attention by posting comments here, in response to a world-renown academic like you, using only my initials, than I ever could garner by starting my own blog

    No, you’re not posting comments here to draw attention to yourself. For that, you would have to publish under your name, and you seem to have issues with that option.

    What is your annual take from that enterprise, Dr. Frost

    Zero.

    What were you up to, professionally, in May of 1981

    I was working as a computer operator for the head office of Towers Department Stores. I was trying to save up money for my education at Universite Laval.

    I am assuming (and surely hoping) that it did not take you eight years of continuous study to complete your M.A. degree

    Officially, it took me two years. Unofficially, it took me a year and a half. (I was provisionally admitted to the Ph.D. program before acceptance of my master’s thesis).

    I left Purdue, having been persuaded [...] to become a lawyer, rather than an academic. After all, who wants to spend a lifetime toiling futilely in the shadow of an academic giant like Laval University’s Peter Frost?

    I worked with lawyers when I was an antiracist activist. They can be pretty shameless when they want to drum up business.

    If I wanted to be rich, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing now.

    Why not ask your host, Dr. Frost, or, better yet, your colleague, Steve Sailer, whether I have been just trolling their comment sections?

    I wasn’t referring specifically to you when I made that remark. Even now I’m not sure. One can never be sure with people who use pseudonyms.

    I also do not appreciate being called, whether explicitly or implicitly, an anti-Semite

    I said you were “obsessive” about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch’s maternal grandfather has Jewish ancestry. It doesn’t really matter whether I think your obsessiveness is driven by anti-Semitism. What matters is the opinion of the Quebec Human Rights Commission.

    or at least shut the hell up about it

    My feelings exactly.

    Mr. Unz: Please, give this poor man a larger stipend!

    I don’t get a stipend. I don’t think even Steve Sailer gets one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    "No, you’re not posting comments here to draw attention to yourself. For that, you would have to publish under your name, and you seem to have issues with that option."

    You just have refuted your own previous claim, to Sean, earlier today, that I "can get much more attention by posting a comment here than by creating [my] own blog." In the musical words of 'Judas Iscariot': "It doesn't help us if you're inconsistent. / They only need a small excuse to put us all away." ["Strange Thing Mystifying" (1970)] At any rate, anyone who has known me at all well, in "real life," would quickly recognize me, to the exclusion of all others, from the endless biographical details that I have littered throughout this and other Web sites. I do not feel any legal or moral obligation to help the N.S.A., and whomever else, in their own nefarious duties.

    "I worked with lawyers when I was an antiracist activist. They can be pretty shameless when they want to drum up business."

    Yes, they can, which is one reason why I hate lawyers myself, like almost everyone else. Then again, of the countless lawyers whom I have known in my life, beginning with my eldest brother, I have known very few who were as shameless, and otherwise anti-social, as the typical antiracism activist!?! (Yes, I have some of those in the family, too; one of my nephews, who is an A.B.D. in Theology, from one of your universities in Toronto, is one of the most unbearably obnoxious people whom I ever have known-- and, I say that as his own beloved godfather!)

    "If I wanted to be rich, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing now."

    Yes, well, there is a lot of that going around, Professor. I could have married my law-school girlfriend, and then just have spent the rest of my life living (quite well) off of her own immense legal talent and boundless professional ambition. (She retired, at age 55, just last year.)

    "I wasn’t referring specifically to you when I made that remark. Even now I’m not sure. One can never be sure with people who use pseudonyms."

    You mean like, say, Eric Blair? Regardless, refer back to my first response, within this comment.

    "I said you were 'obsessive' about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch’s maternal grandfather has Jewish ancestry. It doesn’t really matter whether I think your obsessiveness is driven by anti-Semitism. What matters is the opinion of the Quebec Human Rights Commission."

    As someone trained in Personality Psychology, and who has known me intimately for nearly sixty years, I think that I am in rather a better position than you to judge that particular trait in myself. There was nothing in the least bit "obsessive" about my simply raising the possibility of Rupert Murdoch's being Jewish, after you yourself, sans evidence, declared him not-Jewish-- even though Rehmat never even had claimed that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish! The quote that I supplied, in my first comment, above, was from your own Jewish colleague, here at Unz.com, Dr. Paul Gottfried. As I said, the second time around, if you feel that Dr. Gottfried himself also is "a bit...obsessive" about the possibility of Rupert Murdoch's being Jewish, by matrilineal descent, you should take it up with your colleague yourself, whether here or elsewhere on this Web site.

    I still am waiting for either you or your admirer to provide me with a single quotation from me, in this entire thread, that could plausibly be construed by any sane, let alone reasonable, person as being "anti-Semitic" in nature.... (The in-laws are waiting, Professor!)

    "I don’t get a stipend. I don’t think even Steve Sailer gets one."

    Well, then, a bargain at twice the price! (If you two should decide that you need a referral, feel free to ask....)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Rehmhat made a meandering comment, and Peter dismissed in and in passing mentioned that Murdoch is not Jewish. You them seized on a fragment from Gottfried in Rehmat's comment and used it as a wedge to start going on and on about selected aspects of Gottfried's article, which would be open to misinterpretation. Falling to make your meaning clear when you quote Gottfried to contradict Rehmat, who had used a fragment from him in a comment Peter dismissed, and then taking Peter to task over being dismissive about what Rehmat said while you are actually disagreeing with Rehmat may lead to misunderstanding. Whose responsibility is it if the atrociously convoluted sentences I noted make others misunderstand what you said you meant?

    A thread about how Jewish a media magnate is, that turned into one about how Jewish Zionism is 100% down to you, and now you are blaming others for not getting what (you said) you meant though clarity was not your goal .given the peculiar mode of expression. I don't think it is their fault. Peter was kind enough to reply and now we are going on in ever decreasing circles centered round you and your definition of words, supported by insulting links to dictionaries meaning of ' 'illiterate'.

    The DK method is to contradict while using quotes, so as to keep his purport completely unclear, but seems to be agreeing,. When the post author does not let the seemingly offending remarks go by on the comments to his post without disagreeing with them, DK attacks the disagreement as making a false claim, and goes further into a discussion that the post author was clearly objecting to as done to death, offensive and off -topic. DK deems all positions taken on any issue as fundamentally his own to the extent they are true. He is everywhere and nowhere till he dominates the thread and those with an undeniable position are accused of being fatally flawed by failing to properly define their terms You can't refuse to engage because otherwise he clutters the comments and others come in to disagree or agree , and when told there is no right to dominate on off-topic matters he ends by calling those arguing against him as conceited totalitarians.

    I cannot help but to repeat myself: “Jesus, Mary and Joseph!”

    Now, I will dissect just the beginning of your convoluted rant, Sean, from before you unwound your unstrung mind completely:

    “Rehmhat made a meandering comment, and Peter dismissed in [sic] and in passing mentioned that Murdoch is not Jewish.”

    No, Sean: Rehmat, in his inimitable style, made a provocative claim:

    “Australia has always been a Zionist colony – from Rothschild to Rupert Murdoch.”

    I am passingly familiar with Rehmat’s views, and his writing style, from various other Web sites, including his own blog. I assume that he is a Muslim immigrant whose native language was not English. (If I am wrong in those assumptions, and he happens to be following this thread, at this late date, I invite him to correct my misapprehensions.) While I do not find his English usage to be particularly artful, let alone graceful, I have no trouble following his general train of thought. That was true of that particular comment [#27, supra], let alone of its opening claim– which was one of the two to which your beloved Peter Frost chose to reply [#31, supra].

    As someone with a degree in English (B.A.), and a great deal of professional writing experience, as an attorney and otherwise, I would not characterize Rehmat’s comment as “meandering.” As for your hero, he did not mention “in passing” that Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish, he said: “Uh, Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish,” after deliberately choosing to quote Rehmat’s opening line. As I stated above: “The professor did so in a way as to make it sound as if it were ludicrous, to the point of unbelievability, that anyone even could dare to assert that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist.”

    As I pointed out, in my own original comment, above, it is far from certain that Rupert Murdoch actually is not Jewish, by matrilineal descent, irrespective of any profession of faith, or public acknowledgement. Regardless, as was the actual conclusion, and essential point, of that original comment by me: “The comment to which you [Dr. Frost] replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist.” In other words, as I have pointed out, above, your hero failed to address, let alone to refute, Rehmat’s opening thesis.

    As to that thesis, about Australian history and Zionism, I have had no comment, as I have no real opinion, as I have insufficient knowledge of the Land Down Under. (I still am trying to get over learning about Rolf Harris’ recent fall from grace….) My only point, originally, was that Rupert Murdoch undoubtedly is a rabid, powerful and influential Zionist, irrespective of his ancestry; thus, Dr. Frost had failed utterly in his attempt to prove otherwise, by simply dismissing Mr. Murdoch’s Jewishness, let alone in his attempt to refute Rehmat’s overarching thesis, stated as his opening line, and deliberately quoted back by Dr. Frost himself.

    “You them [sic] seized on a fragment from Gottfried in Rehmat’s comment and used it as a wedge to start going on and on about selected aspects of Gottfried’s article, which would be open to misinterpretation.”

    Here is where the outright hallucinating takes hold, Sean: If Rehmat quoted Dr. Gottfried, at any point in the former’s aforementioned comment, at issue, he did so wholly without attribution!?! Perhaps you can convince Dr. Gottfried to peruse Rehmat’s comment, in hopes of ferreting out plagiarism on the part of the latter; I certainly am unable to recognize anything of Dr. Gottfried’s work in Rehmat’s comment. I did not borrow anything at all from Rehmat’s comment, other than what Dr. Frost had cited (and his own reply); I merely defended Rehmat from Dr. Frost’s implicit claim that Rupert Murdoch is not a Zionist– a term which Dr. Frost clearly did not (then) even understand! I did quote a pertinent comment from Dr. Gottfried himself, about Mr. Murdoch’s possible Jewishness, of course. I quoted that comment– made in response to (Unz.com’s own) Steve Sailer– in full; I did not quote anything at all, nor otherwise even allude to, that article by Dr. Gottfried, under which that quoted comment was made, however. You are fantasizing, all the way around, Sean!

    “Falling [sic] to make your [emphasis in the original] meaning clear when you quote Gottfried to contradict Rehmat, who had used a fragment from him in a comment Peter dismissed, and then taking Peter to task over being dismissive about what Rehmat said while you are actually disagreeing with Rehmat may lead to misunderstanding.”

    You were just accusing whom of writing “atrociously convoluted sentences,” Sean?!? As for the factual claim, floating around in that swamp of incorrigible prose, about a quote from Dr. Gottfried, refer to my own exegesis of your previous sentence.

    After that, you pretty much completely lose it….

    My original comment, above, was intended only to correct Dr. Frost, Sean, and to disabuse him, and any of his credulous readers, of believing that his dismissive comments, in response to the two quotes from Rehmat that he deigned to address, had refuted anything that Rehmat actually had written. My subsequent comments, I believe (without my reviewing this entire thread), all have been to respond to those who have replied to me, whether to attack me or to succor me– except when I replied to myself, to add a link to an article about another famous Zionist, Winston Churchill.

    I reserve the right to defend myself against anyone’s attack. If Peter Frost needs to seek shelter from me, courtesy of Mr. Unz, by having my comments banned, so be it. We cannot all be replete with intellectual or moral character. Some of us, after all, were born of freemasons’ daughters….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Racial solidarity isn’t clannish? Then there’s something basic I’ve missed.

    A clan is a cohesive group of several interbreeding families. It normally has high rates of cousin marriage and inbreeding. Clans are rare in Western societies but they are still common in many areas of the world (Afghanistan, the Caucasus, remote and inaccessible highland areas in general).

    Nationalist movements of the early 20th century, particularly Nazism, tried to create "racial solidarity" by using the sort of intimate kinship terminology used by clans ("we are all brothers and sisters"), but this sort of ideological manipulation characterizes other ideologies, including Christianity and Communism.

    While clans can develop spontaneously (particularly under conditions of limited geographic mobility), the same is not true for "racial solidarity." Racial solidarity requires either ideological indoctrination or fear of a common enemy.

    For example, until recently Hungarian nationalists preferred to squabble with Romanians and Slovaks. This seems to be changing with the current immigration tsunami.

    Empirically: why do the parts of America where inbreeding is highest – the deep south and Appalachia – show the greatest racial cohesion.

    It's not a cause and effect relationship. Appalachia has high rates of inbreeding for the same reason it's racially and religiously conservative. It's a region with historically low rates of immigration and in-migration from other states. Low economic growth has also helped to preserve traditional social structures. People stay put and value relationships with their families and immediate kin.

    Peter has repeatedly explained that he wishes these threads would stop and how they could damage him, yet you just ignored that to go on and on.

    He's incorrigible, Sean, like certain other commenters. He can get much more attention by posting a comment here than by creating his own blog. Some of the other commenters may also be trolls. Here in Canada there have been cases of government officials deliberately leaving anti-Semitic comments on blogs they want to shut down.

    Mais oui, Dr Frost! I can get so much more attention by posting comments here, in response to a world-renown academic like you, using only my initials, than I ever could garner by starting my own blog, elsewhere, as you did. (What is your annual take from that enterprise, Dr. Frost– or, do you not want the tax authorities, up there, to know how much lucre you are raking in from it?) After all, who would not want to shine in the reflected glow of the luminous Dr. Peter Frost?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Frost

    Oops!! That is not even you, is it, Dr. Frost?

    What were you up to, professionally, in May of 1981, Dr. Frost? Your C.V. leaves that unclear– because I am assuming (and surely hoping) that it did not take you eight years of continuous study to complete your M.A. degree (especially not in a dubious discipline like Anthropology)!?!

    http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/curriculumvitae.htm

    That May, less than a year after I had entered the Graduate School at Purdue University, under my major professor, James J. Jaccard, I had my first professional publication. A few months later, I left Purdue, having been persuaded (“Cherchez la femme!” as you cosmopolitans, Up North, would say) to become a lawyer, rather than an academic. After all, who wants to spend a lifetime toiling futilely in the shadow of an academic giant like Laval University’s Peter Frost?

    I have posted quite a few comments at this Web site, in the nearly two years that it has been up and running, courtesy of our host, the inimitable Ron Unz. The majority of those comments, in all probability, have been posted under Steve Sailer’s blog posts. Mr. Unz himself is familiar with my comments, however, since I started commenting, here, under his own articles, well before Mr. Sailer ever came on board. For instance, I had a long exchange with one of his detractors, the inimitable Nurit Baytch, over Mr. Unz’ controversial meritocracy claims vis-a-vis the Ivy League (and some other elite schools). I know that my opinions are sometimes at odds with Mr. Unz’ own, such as on immigration and the Hispanicization of the United States; but, he has never stooped to implying that I am here, at his eponymous Web site, as a troll, as you just have. Why not ask your host, Dr. Frost, or, better yet, your colleague, Steve Sailer, whether I have been just trolling their comment sections?

    I also do not appreciate being called, whether explicitly or implicitly, an anti-Semite, whether by some boreal academic, up in a godforsaken provincial capital, or one of his obnoxious fanboys. It might upset the nearby in-laws, schmuck! I make the same inquiry to you, Dr. Frost, that I did, last night, to your aforementioned fanboy: “[W]ould you care to point to my alleged ‘anti-Semitic’ statement(s), in this comment thread, that could get [you] thrown into a gulag, in the Great White North?” If not, then you should apologize to me, or at least shut the hell up about it. If you do not want any people who are better, and more broadly, educated than you commenting on your posts and your own comments, in reply to your other readers, then just say so, and be done with it. I realize that not everyone has thick enough skin to stand being publicly corrected in his factual errors, or simple illiteracies, let alone in his own virtual domain.

    [Mr. Unz: Please, give this poor man a larger stipend! It detracts from your own brand name to be hosting someone who walks around town, even in godforsaken Quebec City, looking like this:

    iffen says:

    @Sean
    Rehmhat made a meandering comment, and Peter dismissed in and in passing mentioned that Murdoch is not Jewish. You them seized on a fragment from Gottfried in Rehmat's comment and used it as a wedge to start going on and on about selected aspects of Gottfried's article, which would be open to misinterpretation. Falling to make your meaning clear when you quote Gottfried to contradict Rehmat, who had used a fragment from him in a comment Peter dismissed, and then taking Peter to task over being dismissive about what Rehmat said while you are actually disagreeing with Rehmat may lead to misunderstanding. Whose responsibility is it if the atrociously convoluted sentences I noted make others misunderstand what you said you meant?

    A thread about how Jewish a media magnate is, that turned into one about how Jewish Zionism is 100% down to you, and now you are blaming others for not getting what (you said) you meant though clarity was not your goal .given the peculiar mode of expression. I don't think it is their fault. Peter was kind enough to reply and now we are going on in ever decreasing circles centered round you and your definition of words, supported by insulting links to dictionaries meaning of ' 'illiterate'.

    The DK method is to contradict while using quotes, so as to keep his purport completely unclear, but seems to be agreeing,. When the post author does not let the seemingly offending remarks go by on the comments to his post without disagreeing with them, DK attacks the disagreement as making a false claim, and goes further into a discussion that the post author was clearly objecting to as done to death, offensive and off -topic. DK deems all positions taken on any issue as fundamentally his own to the extent they are true. He is everywhere and nowhere till he dominates the thread and those with an undeniable position are accused of being fatally flawed by failing to properly define their terms You can't refuse to engage because otherwise he clutters the comments and others come in to disagree or agree , and when told there is no right to dominate on off-topic matters he ends by calling those arguing against him as conceited totalitarians.

    He got his money’s worth out of his law degree, didn’t he?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I permanently retired from the law in 2001, at age 44. How are you fixed...? Did your father get his money's worth, by the way, or do you not even know whom to ask?!?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Sean, would you care to point to my alleged "anti-Semitic" statement(s), in this comment thread, that could get your hero thrown into a gulag, in the Great White North? My defining Zionism, and thereby identifying Zionists, after your hero has deliberately taken up the issue raised by another commenter, Rehmat, is not "anti-Semitic"-- other than in the minds of the clinically paranoid! Would you care to point out where I was pleaded with, by your hero, to stop defending myself against his own ignorance?

    Regardless, as should have been explicitly obvious from the very comment that you were just responding to, you did not presciently understand what I was getting at, in my first comment above, about most Zionists' being gentiles, because that was not what I was getting at, at all. The whole point was that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist-- which is a subscriber to a specific political ideology, irrespective of that subscriber's religion or ethnicity. Rehmat, to that extent, at least, was absolutely correct, irrespective of the rest of his argument-- which your hero failed to refute! If Rupert Murdoch were the only gentile in the world to subscribe to Zionism, he still would be a Zionist. Your hero did not know that, because he did not even know what Zionism is. With the help of the more-literate folks at Merriam-Webster, perhaps he now does....

    When your hero makes a false claim, or implies as much, it is subject to refutation by those of us who are better educated than he. When those refutations are attacked, by him or a sycophant, we are fully justified in defending our earlier refutations, even if, in doing so, we upset the hero or the sycophant. That is not being "off-topic." Neither was my bringing in the Reverend Hagee. I did so because he is perhaps the most notorious Zionist in America-- and he obviously is not Jewish! I was using him as an obvious exemplar of a Zionist gentile, after your hero fallaciously claimed that only Jews may be Zionists. (Feel free to go back to my link to the Winston Churchill Web site, which will take you to an article in which Mr. Churchill is quoted as calling himself a Zionist, and which concludes with the Jewish author himself calling Churchill a Zionist!)

    I must say, in closing, Sean, that you and your friend Peter were obviously made for each other....

    Rehmhat made a meandering comment, and Peter dismissed in and in passing mentioned that Murdoch is not Jewish. You them seized on a fragment from Gottfried in Rehmat’s comment and used it as a wedge to start going on and on about selected aspects of Gottfried’s article, which would be open to misinterpretation. Falling to make your meaning clear when you quote Gottfried to contradict Rehmat, who had used a fragment from him in a comment Peter dismissed, and then taking Peter to task over being dismissive about what Rehmat said while you are actually disagreeing with Rehmat may lead to misunderstanding. Whose responsibility is it if the atrociously convoluted sentences I noted make others misunderstand what you said you meant?

    A thread about how Jewish a media magnate is, that turned into one about how Jewish Zionism is 100% down to you, and now you are blaming others for not getting what (you said) you meant though clarity was not your goal .given the peculiar mode of expression. I don’t think it is their fault. Peter was kind enough to reply and now we are going on in ever decreasing circles centered round you and your definition of words, supported by insulting links to dictionaries meaning of ‘ ‘illiterate’.

    The DK method is to contradict while using quotes, so as to keep his purport completely unclear, but seems to be agreeing,. When the post author does not let the seemingly offending remarks go by on the comments to his post without disagreeing with them, DK attacks the disagreement as making a false claim, and goes further into a discussion that the post author was clearly objecting to as done to death, offensive and off -topic. DK deems all positions taken on any issue as fundamentally his own to the extent they are true. He is everywhere and nowhere till he dominates the thread and those with an undeniable position are accused of being fatally flawed by failing to properly define their terms You can’t refuse to engage because otherwise he clutters the comments and others come in to disagree or agree , and when told there is no right to dominate on off-topic matters he ends by calling those arguing against him as conceited totalitarians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    He got his money's worth out of his law degree, didn't he?
    , @D. K.
    I cannot help but to repeat myself: "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!"

    Now, I will dissect just the beginning of your convoluted rant, Sean, from before you unwound your unstrung mind completely:

    "Rehmhat made a meandering comment, and Peter dismissed in [sic] and in passing mentioned that Murdoch is not Jewish."

    No, Sean: Rehmat, in his inimitable style, made a provocative claim:

    "Australia has always been a Zionist colony – from Rothschild to Rupert Murdoch."

    I am passingly familiar with Rehmat's views, and his writing style, from various other Web sites, including his own blog. I assume that he is a Muslim immigrant whose native language was not English. (If I am wrong in those assumptions, and he happens to be following this thread, at this late date, I invite him to correct my misapprehensions.) While I do not find his English usage to be particularly artful, let alone graceful, I have no trouble following his general train of thought. That was true of that particular comment [#27, supra], let alone of its opening claim-- which was one of the two to which your beloved Peter Frost chose to reply [#31, supra].

    As someone with a degree in English (B.A.), and a great deal of professional writing experience, as an attorney and otherwise, I would not characterize Rehmat's comment as "meandering." As for your hero, he did not mention "in passing" that Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish, he said: "Uh, Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish," after deliberately choosing to quote Rehmat's opening line. As I stated above: "The professor did so in a way as to make it sound as if it were ludicrous, to the point of unbelievability, that anyone even could dare to assert that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist."

    As I pointed out, in my own original comment, above, it is far from certain that Rupert Murdoch actually is not Jewish, by matrilineal descent, irrespective of any profession of faith, or public acknowledgement. Regardless, as was the actual conclusion, and essential point, of that original comment by me: "The comment to which you [Dr. Frost] replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist." In other words, as I have pointed out, above, your hero failed to address, let alone to refute, Rehmat's opening thesis.

    As to that thesis, about Australian history and Zionism, I have had no comment, as I have no real opinion, as I have insufficient knowledge of the Land Down Under. (I still am trying to get over learning about Rolf Harris' recent fall from grace....) My only point, originally, was that Rupert Murdoch undoubtedly is a rabid, powerful and influential Zionist, irrespective of his ancestry; thus, Dr. Frost had failed utterly in his attempt to prove otherwise, by simply dismissing Mr. Murdoch's Jewishness, let alone in his attempt to refute Rehmat's overarching thesis, stated as his opening line, and deliberately quoted back by Dr. Frost himself.

    "You them [sic] seized on a fragment from Gottfried in Rehmat’s comment and used it as a wedge to start going on and on about selected aspects of Gottfried’s article, which would be open to misinterpretation."

    Here is where the outright hallucinating takes hold, Sean: If Rehmat quoted Dr. Gottfried, at any point in the former's aforementioned comment, at issue, he did so wholly without attribution!?! Perhaps you can convince Dr. Gottfried to peruse Rehmat's comment, in hopes of ferreting out plagiarism on the part of the latter; I certainly am unable to recognize anything of Dr. Gottfried's work in Rehmat's comment. I did not borrow anything at all from Rehmat's comment, other than what Dr. Frost had cited (and his own reply); I merely defended Rehmat from Dr. Frost's implicit claim that Rupert Murdoch is not a Zionist-- a term which Dr. Frost clearly did not (then) even understand! I did quote a pertinent comment from Dr. Gottfried himself, about Mr. Murdoch's possible Jewishness, of course. I quoted that comment-- made in response to (Unz.com's own) Steve Sailer-- in full; I did not quote anything at all, nor otherwise even allude to, that article by Dr. Gottfried, under which that quoted comment was made, however. You are fantasizing, all the way around, Sean!

    "Falling [sic] to make your [emphasis in the original] meaning clear when you quote Gottfried to contradict Rehmat, who had used a fragment from him in a comment Peter dismissed, and then taking Peter to task over being dismissive about what Rehmat said while you are actually disagreeing with Rehmat may lead to misunderstanding."

    You were just accusing whom of writing "atrociously convoluted sentences," Sean?!? As for the factual claim, floating around in that swamp of incorrigible prose, about a quote from Dr. Gottfried, refer to my own exegesis of your previous sentence.

    After that, you pretty much completely lose it....

    My original comment, above, was intended only to correct Dr. Frost, Sean, and to disabuse him, and any of his credulous readers, of believing that his dismissive comments, in response to the two quotes from Rehmat that he deigned to address, had refuted anything that Rehmat actually had written. My subsequent comments, I believe (without my reviewing this entire thread), all have been to respond to those who have replied to me, whether to attack me or to succor me-- except when I replied to myself, to add a link to an article about another famous Zionist, Winston Churchill.

    I reserve the right to defend myself against anyone's attack. If Peter Frost needs to seek shelter from me, courtesy of Mr. Unz, by having my comments banned, so be it. We cannot all be replete with intellectual or moral character. Some of us, after all, were born of freemasons' daughters....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Racial solidarity isn’t clannish? Then there’s something basic I’ve missed.

    A clan is a cohesive group of several interbreeding families. It normally has high rates of cousin marriage and inbreeding. Clans are rare in Western societies but they are still common in many areas of the world (Afghanistan, the Caucasus, remote and inaccessible highland areas in general).

    Nationalist movements of the early 20th century, particularly Nazism, tried to create “racial solidarity” by using the sort of intimate kinship terminology used by clans (“we are all brothers and sisters”), but this sort of ideological manipulation characterizes other ideologies, including Christianity and Communism.

    While clans can develop spontaneously (particularly under conditions of limited geographic mobility), the same is not true for “racial solidarity.” Racial solidarity requires either ideological indoctrination or fear of a common enemy.

    For example, until recently Hungarian nationalists preferred to squabble with Romanians and Slovaks. This seems to be changing with the current immigration tsunami.

    Empirically: why do the parts of America where inbreeding is highest – the deep south and Appalachia – show the greatest racial cohesion.

    It’s not a cause and effect relationship. Appalachia has high rates of inbreeding for the same reason it’s racially and religiously conservative. It’s a region with historically low rates of immigration and in-migration from other states. Low economic growth has also helped to preserve traditional social structures. People stay put and value relationships with their families and immediate kin.

    Peter has repeatedly explained that he wishes these threads would stop and how they could damage him, yet you just ignored that to go on and on.

    He’s incorrigible, Sean, like certain other commenters. He can get much more attention by posting a comment here than by creating his own blog. Some of the other commenters may also be trolls. Here in Canada there have been cases of government officials deliberately leaving anti-Semitic comments on blogs they want to shut down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Mais oui, Dr Frost! I can get so much more attention by posting comments here, in response to a world-renown academic like you, using only my initials, than I ever could garner by starting my own blog, elsewhere, as you did. (What is your annual take from that enterprise, Dr. Frost-- or, do you not want the tax authorities, up there, to know how much lucre you are raking in from it?) After all, who would not want to shine in the reflected glow of the luminous Dr. Peter Frost?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Frost

    Oops!! That is not even you, is it, Dr. Frost?

    What were you up to, professionally, in May of 1981, Dr. Frost? Your C.V. leaves that unclear-- because I am assuming (and surely hoping) that it did not take you eight years of continuous study to complete your M.A. degree (especially not in a dubious discipline like Anthropology)!?!

    http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/curriculumvitae.htm

    That May, less than a year after I had entered the Graduate School at Purdue University, under my major professor, James J. Jaccard, I had my first professional publication. A few months later, I left Purdue, having been persuaded ("Cherchez la femme!" as you cosmopolitans, Up North, would say) to become a lawyer, rather than an academic. After all, who wants to spend a lifetime toiling futilely in the shadow of an academic giant like Laval University's Peter Frost?

    I have posted quite a few comments at this Web site, in the nearly two years that it has been up and running, courtesy of our host, the inimitable Ron Unz. The majority of those comments, in all probability, have been posted under Steve Sailer's blog posts. Mr. Unz himself is familiar with my comments, however, since I started commenting, here, under his own articles, well before Mr. Sailer ever came on board. For instance, I had a long exchange with one of his detractors, the inimitable Nurit Baytch, over Mr. Unz' controversial meritocracy claims vis-a-vis the Ivy League (and some other elite schools). I know that my opinions are sometimes at odds with Mr. Unz' own, such as on immigration and the Hispanicization of the United States; but, he has never stooped to implying that I am here, at his eponymous Web site, as a troll, as you just have. Why not ask your host, Dr. Frost, or, better yet, your colleague, Steve Sailer, whether I have been just trolling their comment sections?

    I also do not appreciate being called, whether explicitly or implicitly, an anti-Semite, whether by some boreal academic, up in a godforsaken provincial capital, or one of his obnoxious fanboys. It might upset the nearby in-laws, schmuck! I make the same inquiry to you, Dr. Frost, that I did, last night, to your aforementioned fanboy: "[W]ould you care to point to my alleged 'anti-Semitic' statement(s), in this comment thread, that could get [you] thrown into a gulag, in the Great White North?" If not, then you should apologize to me, or at least shut the hell up about it. If you do not want any people who are better, and more broadly, educated than you commenting on your posts and your own comments, in reply to your other readers, then just say so, and be done with it. I realize that not everyone has thick enough skin to stand being publicly corrected in his factual errors, or simple illiteracies, let alone in his own virtual domain.

    [Mr. Unz: Please, give this poor man a larger stipend! It detracts from your own brand name to be hosting someone who walks around town, even in godforsaken Quebec City, looking like this:

    http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/passport-photo.jpg

    "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!" as the old folks, back home, used to exclaim.]
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    Nationalist movements of the early 20th century, particularly Nazism, tried to create “racial solidarity” by using the sort of intimate kinship terminology used by clans (“we are all brothers and sisters”), but this sort of ideological manipulation characterizes other ideologies, including Christianity and Communism.
     
    One difference is that races are closer to being kin than are classes.

    What about Jews, to whom (some) hbders attribute clannishness (which others term "tribalism"), due to inbreeding? [The description seems to pertain both to degree of allegiance to kin and to Jews in general.]

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Branson is not very representative of ordinary people, obviously. He's part of a very small minority. He owns multiple homes around the world and owns private islands in the West Indies. He is frequently travelling between his different homes in different cities around the world, as well as travelling for business. With that kind of lifestyle, it's quite easy for Branson to see himself as from "Earth" and quite difficult for him to understand why less mobile and less wealthy people would oppose refugees.

    Richard Branson, Bono, and Bill Gates are more representative of Whites than are the people on this site.

    The French, English, Swedes, and Canadians refuse to vote in large numbers for their nationalist parties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond

    “Racially clannish” is an oxymoron.
     
    Racial solidarity isn't clannish? Then there's something basic I've missed.

    Empirically: why do the parts of America where inbreeding is highest - the deep south and Appalachia - show the greatest racial cohesion.

    Also, it’s common to attribute the cohesiveness of “Jews” to clannishness (or “tribalism”): greater inbreeding than Western Europeans. Why does the solidarity of “Jews” express clannishness where the solidarity of “whites” supposedly does not?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Then Naziism was a universalistic doctrine despite being racially clannish. I suppose it would be universalistic at a meta level, in that distinctions of clan are elevated into having universal significance.

    Neither. "Universal moral norms" apply to everyone who is able or willing to accept them. If you repeatedly violate those norms, you become a moral outcaste. You no longer enjoy the protection of society.

    We see this reasoning in the word "outlaw." The law applies to everybody, but if a group of people act in a way that puts them outside the law, they no longer enjoy the protection of the law. They can be killed on sight without the benefit of trial. This is the mindset that has been used to expel witches, Jews, and racists from normal society.

    "Racially clannish" is an oxymoron.

    This sounds like a group selection argument. How likely is it that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction

    Your question is academic. Guilt proneness and affective empathy exist as highly heritable behaviors. The question is not whether they evolved, but rather how they evolved.

    I'm as skeptical as you about group selection. Jerry Coyne summed up the main objection as follows: "Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters."

    This objection doesn't apply to the "haystack model," where groups regularly merge and split up within a larger group. In that model, groups with higher proportions of altruists are more successful than those with lower proportions, even though non-altruists are more successful than altruists within each group. Since the groups are of short duration, the overall number of altruists increases with each generation.

    As late as 7,000 years ago, the people living along the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic were fisher/hunters. During the summer, they lived as sedentary fishermen in large coastal communities. During the winter, they lived inland as nomadic hunters in much smaller groups. There was thus a yearly cycle of smaller hunting groups merging to become larger fishing communities, which then split up again in autumn. This corresponds closely to the haystack model and may have been conducive to selection for altruistic behavior, i.e., guilt proneness, affective empathy, and susceptibility to universal moral norms.

    “Racially clannish” is an oxymoron.

    Racial solidarity isn’t clannish? Then there’s something basic I’ve missed.

    Empirically: why do the parts of America where inbreeding is highest – the deep south and Appalachia – show the greatest racial cohesion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Also, it's common to attribute the cohesiveness of "Jews" to clannishness (or "tribalism"): greater inbreeding than Western Europeans. Why does the solidarity of "Jews" express clannishness where the solidarity of "whites" supposedly does not?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean

    Your claim, now, that it was a natural follow-up to my stating that most Zionists are gentiles strikes me as a bit odd– for the simple reason that I had yet to say that when you posted that reply to me!?!
     
    Why is it it odd to you that I read the early comment and understood what you were getting at? Perhaps you are not writing with an eye to making your meaning clear, and are actually trying to draw the unwary into extended discussions over the purport and provenance of quotations within comments about others' comments containing a fragment of a quotation. These ever decreasing circular arguments about how you have been misunderstood are of very limited interest to anyone but the author. You went further off topic when you brought up Hagee.

    As already explained Peter is effectively forced to respond against anti semitic comment baiting, which he may still be held legally responsible for in Canada nonetheless. Peter has repeatedly explained that he wishes these threads would stop and how they could damage him, yet you just ignored that to go on and on. Justifying your off-topic remarks by saying Peter replied to the comment can't be an excuse, because he has repeatedly asked everyone to stop those threads and it is his place to be dismissive of them, and not yours to come in and start picking faults with irrelevant aspects of his comments. You are not on topic when you continue a discussion on a thread the post author says he thinks is worthless, and pleaded with you to end.

    Your snide carping about the way Peter dismissed the Zionism thread was related to his mention of Mr. Murdoch's nationality and began a very involved argument centred on you that few people would wish to go into. It was out of order, and off topic because you kept mentioning Zionism in comments about how others didn't understand the issue long after Peter had said the post was not about whether everyone else but you was misunderstanding the true definition of Zionism, quibbles over definition of various other words, and a quote used by another OT commenter. Rupert Murdoch took US citizenship for the same reason he does almost everything, for business reasons, and Peter said what he said to signify disapproval and end the discussion as you knew full well.

    Sean, would you care to point to my alleged “anti-Semitic” statement(s), in this comment thread, that could get your hero thrown into a gulag, in the Great White North? My defining Zionism, and thereby identifying Zionists, after your hero has deliberately taken up the issue raised by another commenter, Rehmat, is not “anti-Semitic”– other than in the minds of the clinically paranoid! Would you care to point out where I was pleaded with, by your hero, to stop defending myself against his own ignorance?

    Regardless, as should have been explicitly obvious from the very comment that you were just responding to, you did not presciently understand what I was getting at, in my first comment above, about most Zionists’ being gentiles, because that was not what I was getting at, at all. The whole point was that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist– which is a subscriber to a specific political ideology, irrespective of that subscriber’s religion or ethnicity. Rehmat, to that extent, at least, was absolutely correct, irrespective of the rest of his argument– which your hero failed to refute! If Rupert Murdoch were the only gentile in the world to subscribe to Zionism, he still would be a Zionist. Your hero did not know that, because he did not even know what Zionism is. With the help of the more-literate folks at Merriam-Webster, perhaps he now does….

    When your hero makes a false claim, or implies as much, it is subject to refutation by those of us who are better educated than he. When those refutations are attacked, by him or a sycophant, we are fully justified in defending our earlier refutations, even if, in doing so, we upset the hero or the sycophant. That is not being “off-topic.” Neither was my bringing in the Reverend Hagee. I did so because he is perhaps the most notorious Zionist in America– and he obviously is not Jewish! I was using him as an obvious exemplar of a Zionist gentile, after your hero fallaciously claimed that only Jews may be Zionists. (Feel free to go back to my link to the Winston Churchill Web site, which will take you to an article in which Mr. Churchill is quoted as calling himself a Zionist, and which concludes with the Jewish author himself calling Churchill a Zionist!)

    I must say, in closing, Sean, that you and your friend Peter were obviously made for each other….

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @Sean
    Rehmhat made a meandering comment, and Peter dismissed in and in passing mentioned that Murdoch is not Jewish. You them seized on a fragment from Gottfried in Rehmat's comment and used it as a wedge to start going on and on about selected aspects of Gottfried's article, which would be open to misinterpretation. Falling to make your meaning clear when you quote Gottfried to contradict Rehmat, who had used a fragment from him in a comment Peter dismissed, and then taking Peter to task over being dismissive about what Rehmat said while you are actually disagreeing with Rehmat may lead to misunderstanding. Whose responsibility is it if the atrociously convoluted sentences I noted make others misunderstand what you said you meant?

    A thread about how Jewish a media magnate is, that turned into one about how Jewish Zionism is 100% down to you, and now you are blaming others for not getting what (you said) you meant though clarity was not your goal .given the peculiar mode of expression. I don't think it is their fault. Peter was kind enough to reply and now we are going on in ever decreasing circles centered round you and your definition of words, supported by insulting links to dictionaries meaning of ' 'illiterate'.

    The DK method is to contradict while using quotes, so as to keep his purport completely unclear, but seems to be agreeing,. When the post author does not let the seemingly offending remarks go by on the comments to his post without disagreeing with them, DK attacks the disagreement as making a false claim, and goes further into a discussion that the post author was clearly objecting to as done to death, offensive and off -topic. DK deems all positions taken on any issue as fundamentally his own to the extent they are true. He is everywhere and nowhere till he dominates the thread and those with an undeniable position are accused of being fatally flawed by failing to properly define their terms You can't refuse to engage because otherwise he clutters the comments and others come in to disagree or agree , and when told there is no right to dominate on off-topic matters he ends by calling those arguing against him as conceited totalitarians.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    For an educated person, you have a remarkably naive faith in dictionaries. To define an ideology, go to its sources. A Zionist is necessarily a Jew, just like a French nationalist is a Frenchman. Others would ordinarily be termed "Zionist sympathizers" - like Murdoch.

    wikipedia (based on original sources): "Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).[1][2][3][4]" [my emphasis].
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    That recent piece, They Scare Me, by Bryan Caplan, is truly fascinating.

    I was trying to suggest pointing out to Bryan Caplan that his preferred open borders policy would create a commercially superior genetic stock by importing energetic capable people from Africa and Asia. The smartest Nigerians are surely superior employees to most US citizens and introducing genes from the clever diligent employees from Nigeria into the US will alter the genetic characteristics of the whole country toward a hereditary a high-performance population. It will also have a tendency to restrict the fertility of the traditional people.

    Caplan comes ready to scoff at the usual genetic arguments against his position, but what would he do if confronted with some one who noted the genetic causation of superiority among immigrants. There is actually much in what Caplan says inasmuch the immigrants are superior in real ways, and we know (and he must suspect) this must be to a high degree hereditary. The high IQ, aspiration level and amenability to discipline are surely what is being precisely selected by migration (the poverty prone are left behind in the homeland). So in a few generations the US could garner the top 1% of genetic super-capable from countries like India. The Canadian immigration policy is garnering the best genetic stock from all around the world, and these better genes will indeed be an improvement on the traditional population in certain very important respects.

    Just what we need in the USA, more elites, only ones who have less religious and other cultural ties with the proles.

    Driving living conditions below subsistence levels will definitely control the population of the undesirables, can’t argue with that logic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    That recent piece, They Scare Me, by Bryan Caplan, is truly fascinating.

    I was trying to suggest pointing out to Bryan Caplan that his preferred open borders policy would create a commercially superior genetic stock by importing energetic capable people from Africa and Asia. The smartest Nigerians are surely superior employees to most US citizens and introducing genes from the clever diligent employees from Nigeria into the US will alter the genetic characteristics of the whole country toward a hereditary a high-performance population. It will also have a tendency to restrict the fertility of the traditional people.

    Caplan comes ready to scoff at the usual genetic arguments against his position, but what would he do if confronted with some one who noted the genetic causation of superiority among immigrants. There is actually much in what Caplan says inasmuch the immigrants are superior in real ways, and we know (and he must suspect) this must be to a high degree hereditary. The high IQ, aspiration level and amenability to discipline are surely what is being precisely selected by migration (the poverty prone are left behind in the homeland). So in a few generations the US could garner the top 1% of genetic super-capable from countries like India. The Canadian immigration policy is garnering the best genetic stock from all around the world, and these better genes will indeed be an improvement on the traditional population in certain very important respects.

    See also these from Caplan:

    “Just 3 of my ancestors who weren’t killed by Cossacks, Communists, or Nazis thanks to pre-WWI open immig policies.”

    “Immigration, Misanthropy, and the Holocaust”

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/immigration_mis.html

    The Museum of Jewish Heritage in NYC features an outstanding exhibit on European Jewry’s struggle to escape from Hitler’s clutches. Throughout the 1930s, the Nazis officially encouraged Jewish emigration. The catch: By definition, every emigrant from Nazi territory had to become an immigrant to non-Nazi territory – and by the 1930s, almost every country tightly restricted immigration of all kinds.

    “Almost every country” includes, of course, the United States. When Jews in the Russian Empire faced pogroms before World War I, about two million found refuge in America. By the 1930s, such a welcome was unthinkable. Why? Public opinion.

    Results from a 1938 survey: When asked “What is your attitude toward allowing German, Austrian, and other political refugees to come into the U.S.?,” a bare 5% of Americans favored raising the immigration quota. Two-thirds didn’t even want to fill the extremely low quota of the era.

    Was anti-Semitism the problem? I doubt it. Public opinion would have been roughly the same for virtually any group of foreigners. For any nationality you can imagine, the U.S. public would have played what I call Misanthropy by Numbers: Picture the outgroup, rattle off every negative that comes to mind, ignore all positives (or twist positives into negatives), ignore all remedies other than exclusion, and try not to think about the horrors you forbid this outgroup to escape.

    American immigration policy in the 1930s – the policy that trapped millions of Jews in Nazi territory – wasn’t a weird aberration of a by-gone era. It epitomized the misanthropic mind-set that continues to drive immigration policy around the globe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    That recent piece, They Scare Me, by Bryan Caplan, is truly fascinating.

    I was trying to suggest pointing out to Bryan Caplan that his preferred open borders policy would create a commercially superior genetic stock by importing energetic capable people from Africa and Asia. The smartest Nigerians are surely superior employees to most US citizens and introducing genes from the clever diligent employees from Nigeria into the US will alter the genetic characteristics of the whole country toward a hereditary a high-performance population. It will also have a tendency to restrict the fertility of the traditional people.

    Caplan comes ready to scoff at the usual genetic arguments against his position, but what would he do if confronted with some one who noted the genetic causation of superiority among immigrants. There is actually much in what Caplan says inasmuch the immigrants are superior in real ways, and we know (and he must suspect) this must be to a high degree hereditary. The high IQ, aspiration level and amenability to discipline are surely what is being precisely selected by migration (the poverty prone are left behind in the homeland). So in a few generations the US could garner the top 1% of genetic super-capable from countries like India. The Canadian immigration policy is garnering the best genetic stock from all around the world, and these better genes will indeed be an improvement on the traditional population in certain very important respects.

    Caplan has never argued that immigrants are better, genetically or otherwise. His open borders views aren’t based on immigrants being better workers or being good for the economy. He has conceded before that immigration makes native workers worse off. His open borders position is based on his moral views and his fear of majorities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Someone ('iffen') asked me:

    "How do you separate the regular anti-Semites from the wing-nut types?"

    I replied:

    "That was Dr. Gottfried’s chosen phrase that you are quoting back at me. He posts on this Web site, including among us lowly commenters, so I would suggest that you ask him the question that you are posing to me!?! (After all, he is Jewish, whereas I am merely related to his people by marriage.)"

    You then wrote a long reply to me, having nothing at all to do with the issue of that preceding exchange; and, you began that long reply with a quote, as if that were what you were responding to, when that quote was neither mine nor one that I had quoted, here or anywhere else. I did not accuse you of "stupid misinterpretation;" I merely asked you to explain why you had written that long reply to me, at all, let alone in reply to that particular comment of mine, made in answer to someone else's question to me. I could not understand it then; I cannot understand it now. Your claim, now, that it was a natural follow-up to my stating that most Zionists are gentiles strikes me as a bit odd-- for the simple reason that I had yet to say that when you posted that reply to me!?!

    The entire point of my first comment to the boreal professor, above, is summed up in its closing:

    "The comment to which you replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist."

    I simply was defending Rehmat's labeling of Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist-- nothing more. Instead of proving that Rehmat's claim about Australia was wrong, the professor merely asserted the (questionable) claim that Mr. Murdoch is not Jewish, as if that settled the entire issue that Rehmat had raised about Australia. The professor did so in a way as to make it sound as if it were ludicrous, to the point of unbelievability, that anyone even could dare to assert that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist. (As we later established, dispositively, the professor himself did not even know what a Zionist actually is!) In answer to Rehmat's pointing out that the new Australian prime minister had previously made the claim that his own mother was Jewish-- a claim that is far more dubious than anyone's claim that Rupert Murdoch's late mother was Jewish!-- the professor replied only to make a snide joke about his own mother's family being freemasons. That apparently is his idea of refuting an argument. As my own late mother would have advised: "Consider the source." (Of course, she was of Catholic stock, not the daughter of a freemason.)

    You are at least right, Sean, in noticing that I have been largely reiterating a lone issue: that of Rupert Murdoch's Zionism. You are wrong, however, in stating that it has been "not particularly on-topic." By replying to Rehmat as he did, the professor himself made it a relevant topic. My own reiterations, which you find so inscrutable, merely have been to defend my own original point in commenting here, in this string: whether Rehmat's opening statement about Australian history and Zionism is right or wrong, per se, he was absolutely correct in his listing Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist. As Unz.com's own Dr. Paul Gottfried commented, elsewhere, back in July of 2011:

    "The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism."

    If I were an agnostic on the issue, otherwise, I would take the word of Professor Gottfried over that of Professor Frost, on the issue of any given public figure's being a Zionist or not. How about you, Sean? (Or, was your own mother a freemason's daughter, too?)

    If it makes you feel happy or superior, Sean, to blame me for someone else's repeatedly asking me to explain what "anti-Semitic nuts" are, and how they compare to other anti-Semites, while I reiterated that the phrase was Dr. Gottfried's, not mine, and was wholly immaterial to why I had quoted him, regardless, then fine! I have bigger problems to worry about-- like a five-run deficit in the seventh inning of an elimination game, where my future mother watched four World Series games, seventy years ago this month....

    Your claim, now, that it was a natural follow-up to my stating that most Zionists are gentiles strikes me as a bit odd– for the simple reason that I had yet to say that when you posted that reply to me!?!

    Why is it it odd to you that I read the early comment and understood what you were getting at? Perhaps you are not writing with an eye to making your meaning clear, and are actually trying to draw the unwary into extended discussions over the purport and provenance of quotations within comments about others’ comments containing a fragment of a quotation. These ever decreasing circular arguments about how you have been misunderstood are of very limited interest to anyone but the author. You went further off topic when you brought up Hagee.

    As already explained Peter is effectively forced to respond against anti semitic comment baiting, which he may still be held legally responsible for in Canada nonetheless. Peter has repeatedly explained that he wishes these threads would stop and how they could damage him, yet you just ignored that to go on and on. Justifying your off-topic remarks by saying Peter replied to the comment can’t be an excuse, because he has repeatedly asked everyone to stop those threads and it is his place to be dismissive of them, and not yours to come in and start picking faults with irrelevant aspects of his comments. You are not on topic when you continue a discussion on a thread the post author says he thinks is worthless, and pleaded with you to end.

    Your snide carping about the way Peter dismissed the Zionism thread was related to his mention of Mr. Murdoch’s nationality and began a very involved argument centred on you that few people would wish to go into. It was out of order, and off topic because you kept mentioning Zionism in comments about how others didn’t understand the issue long after Peter had said the post was not about whether everyone else but you was misunderstanding the true definition of Zionism, quibbles over definition of various other words, and a quote used by another OT commenter. Rupert Murdoch took US citizenship for the same reason he does almost everything, for business reasons, and Peter said what he said to signify disapproval and end the discussion as you knew full well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Sean, would you care to point to my alleged "anti-Semitic" statement(s), in this comment thread, that could get your hero thrown into a gulag, in the Great White North? My defining Zionism, and thereby identifying Zionists, after your hero has deliberately taken up the issue raised by another commenter, Rehmat, is not "anti-Semitic"-- other than in the minds of the clinically paranoid! Would you care to point out where I was pleaded with, by your hero, to stop defending myself against his own ignorance?

    Regardless, as should have been explicitly obvious from the very comment that you were just responding to, you did not presciently understand what I was getting at, in my first comment above, about most Zionists' being gentiles, because that was not what I was getting at, at all. The whole point was that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist-- which is a subscriber to a specific political ideology, irrespective of that subscriber's religion or ethnicity. Rehmat, to that extent, at least, was absolutely correct, irrespective of the rest of his argument-- which your hero failed to refute! If Rupert Murdoch were the only gentile in the world to subscribe to Zionism, he still would be a Zionist. Your hero did not know that, because he did not even know what Zionism is. With the help of the more-literate folks at Merriam-Webster, perhaps he now does....

    When your hero makes a false claim, or implies as much, it is subject to refutation by those of us who are better educated than he. When those refutations are attacked, by him or a sycophant, we are fully justified in defending our earlier refutations, even if, in doing so, we upset the hero or the sycophant. That is not being "off-topic." Neither was my bringing in the Reverend Hagee. I did so because he is perhaps the most notorious Zionist in America-- and he obviously is not Jewish! I was using him as an obvious exemplar of a Zionist gentile, after your hero fallaciously claimed that only Jews may be Zionists. (Feel free to go back to my link to the Winston Churchill Web site, which will take you to an article in which Mr. Churchill is quoted as calling himself a Zionist, and which concludes with the Jewish author himself calling Churchill a Zionist!)

    I must say, in closing, Sean, that you and your friend Peter were obviously made for each other....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t believe that having a large number of ethnic/religious/other groups none of which is a majority necessarily decreases the liklihood of intergroup conflict. Afghanistan has a large number of ethnic groups none of which are a majority (the largest group the Pashtuns are 42% of the population). But Afghanistan certainly has a lot of intergroup conflict. Certainly an awful lot more violent than Finland where the Finns are the something like 90% of the population.

    According to Caplan’s tbeory it seems that Afghanistan should be internally peaceful while in Finland the Lapps and Swedes should be crushed under the Finnish boot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Then Naziism was a universalistic doctrine despite being racially clannish. I suppose it would be universalistic at a meta level, in that distinctions of clan are elevated into having universal significance.

    Neither. "Universal moral norms" apply to everyone who is able or willing to accept them. If you repeatedly violate those norms, you become a moral outcaste. You no longer enjoy the protection of society.

    We see this reasoning in the word "outlaw." The law applies to everybody, but if a group of people act in a way that puts them outside the law, they no longer enjoy the protection of the law. They can be killed on sight without the benefit of trial. This is the mindset that has been used to expel witches, Jews, and racists from normal society.

    "Racially clannish" is an oxymoron.

    This sounds like a group selection argument. How likely is it that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction

    Your question is academic. Guilt proneness and affective empathy exist as highly heritable behaviors. The question is not whether they evolved, but rather how they evolved.

    I'm as skeptical as you about group selection. Jerry Coyne summed up the main objection as follows: "Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters."

    This objection doesn't apply to the "haystack model," where groups regularly merge and split up within a larger group. In that model, groups with higher proportions of altruists are more successful than those with lower proportions, even though non-altruists are more successful than altruists within each group. Since the groups are of short duration, the overall number of altruists increases with each generation.

    As late as 7,000 years ago, the people living along the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic were fisher/hunters. During the summer, they lived as sedentary fishermen in large coastal communities. During the winter, they lived inland as nomadic hunters in much smaller groups. There was thus a yearly cycle of smaller hunting groups merging to become larger fishing communities, which then split up again in autumn. This corresponds closely to the haystack model and may have been conducive to selection for altruistic behavior, i.e., guilt proneness, affective empathy, and susceptibility to universal moral norms.

    I’m not skeptical about group selection. I just wonder if that is the mechanism behind phenotypes across historical time from liberalism to Naziism that are claimed to be a single phenotype. These phenotypes or phenotype are supposed to representative of the population group, so presumably the rate and not just overall number would be relevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The "Caplan school of thought" doesn't care about genetics or the qualities of immigrants. All that is irrelevant. It simply boils down to a fear of majorities:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/they_scare_me.html

    Occasionally, though, I wonder: What would happen if Mormons were a solid majority of the U.S. population? Maybe they'd be as wonderful as ever, but I readily picture a sinister metamorphosis. Given enough power, even Mormons might embrace a brutal fundamentalism. Despite my lovely experiences with Mormons, they scare me.

    To be fair, they're hardly alone. You know who else scares me? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists. Sunnis, Shiites, Catholics, and Protestants. Whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Marxists, and reactionaries. Even libertarians scare me a bit. Why? Because given enough power, there's a serious chance they'll do terrible things. Different terrible things, no doubt. But terrible nonetheless.

    If you're afraid of every group, though, shouldn't you support whatever group has the minimum chance of doing terrible things once it's firmly in charge? Not at all. There's another path: Try to prevent any group from being firmly in charge. In the long-run, the best way to do this is to make every group a small minority - to split society into such small pieces that everyone abandons hope of running society and refocuses their energy on building beautiful Bubbles.

    When people lament the political externalities of open borders, they're usually picturing an influx of a group with a bad track record of being in charge. In a sense, these critics understate their case; numerical superiority can turn even the nicest groups into a mortal danger. But critics also overlook the open borders remedy: Diaspora dynamics notwithstanding, welcoming everyone is a great way to turn everyone into a minority. And while that hardly guarantees safety, it's less menacing than the status quo.
     

    That recent piece, They Scare Me, by Bryan Caplan, is truly fascinating.

    I was trying to suggest pointing out to Bryan Caplan that his preferred open borders policy would create a commercially superior genetic stock by importing energetic capable people from Africa and Asia. The smartest Nigerians are surely superior employees to most US citizens and introducing genes from the clever diligent employees from Nigeria into the US will alter the genetic characteristics of the whole country toward a hereditary a high-performance population. It will also have a tendency to restrict the fertility of the traditional people.

    Caplan comes ready to scoff at the usual genetic arguments against his position, but what would he do if confronted with some one who noted the genetic causation of superiority among immigrants. There is actually much in what Caplan says inasmuch the immigrants are superior in real ways, and we know (and he must suspect) this must be to a high degree hereditary. The high IQ, aspiration level and amenability to discipline are surely what is being precisely selected by migration (the poverty prone are left behind in the homeland). So in a few generations the US could garner the top 1% of genetic super-capable from countries like India. The Canadian immigration policy is garnering the best genetic stock from all around the world, and these better genes will indeed be an improvement on the traditional population in certain very important respects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Caplan has never argued that immigrants are better, genetically or otherwise. His open borders views aren't based on immigrants being better workers or being good for the economy. He has conceded before that immigration makes native workers worse off. His open borders position is based on his moral views and his fear of majorities.
    , @Anonymous
    See also these from Caplan:

    https://twitter.com/bryan_caplan/status/363863837469978624

    "Just 3 of my ancestors who weren't killed by Cossacks, Communists, or Nazis thanks to pre-WWI open immig policies."
     
    "Immigration, Misanthropy, and the Holocaust"

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/immigration_mis.html

    The Museum of Jewish Heritage in NYC features an outstanding exhibit on European Jewry's struggle to escape from Hitler's clutches. Throughout the 1930s, the Nazis officially encouraged Jewish emigration. The catch: By definition, every emigrant from Nazi territory had to become an immigrant to non-Nazi territory - and by the 1930s, almost every country tightly restricted immigration of all kinds.

    "Almost every country" includes, of course, the United States. When Jews in the Russian Empire faced pogroms before World War I, about two million found refuge in America. By the 1930s, such a welcome was unthinkable. Why? Public opinion.

    Results from a 1938 survey: When asked "What is your attitude toward allowing German, Austrian, and other political refugees to come into the U.S.?," a bare 5% of Americans favored raising the immigration quota. Two-thirds didn't even want to fill the extremely low quota of the era.

    ...

    Was anti-Semitism the problem? I doubt it. Public opinion would have been roughly the same for virtually any group of foreigners. For any nationality you can imagine, the U.S. public would have played what I call Misanthropy by Numbers: Picture the outgroup, rattle off every negative that comes to mind, ignore all positives (or twist positives into negatives), ignore all remedies other than exclusion, and try not to think about the horrors you forbid this outgroup to escape.

    American immigration policy in the 1930s - the policy that trapped millions of Jews in Nazi territory - wasn't a weird aberration of a by-gone era. It epitomized the misanthropic mind-set that continues to drive immigration policy around the globe.
     
    , @iffen
    Just what we need in the USA, more elites, only ones who have less religious and other cultural ties with the proles.

    Driving living conditions below subsistence levels will definitely control the population of the undesirables, can't argue with that logic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jim
    When Yugoslavia broke up the part that had the least violence was Slovenia which was one of the most homogeneous with 83% of the population being Slovene. There was virtually no violence directed at the non-Slovenian part of the population. Admittedly if there had been much violence in Slovenia it is possible that Italy might have intervened. Maybe this was a factor though I doubt it.

    Bosnia was the most heterogeneous part of Yugoslavia. No ethnic grroup there, not even the Bosnians was a majority. Nowhere was the violence worst.

    In Finland ethnic Finns are about 90% of the population with Swedes and Lapps less than 10%. According to Caplan the Swedes and Lapps in Finland are in great danger of oppression from the Finns while the myriad ethnicities of the former Yugoslavia should have lived together in peaceful harmony.

    Which way are you leaning here, Jim?

    Should we suspect that there might be a problem with the hypothesis or should we try to get different facts?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jim
    When Yugoslavia broke up the part that had the least violence was Slovenia which was one of the most homogeneous with 83% of the population being Slovene. There was virtually no violence directed at the non-Slovenian part of the population. Admittedly if there had been much violence in Slovenia it is possible that Italy might have intervened. Maybe this was a factor though I doubt it.

    Bosnia was the most heterogeneous part of Yugoslavia. No ethnic grroup there, not even the Bosnians was a majority. Nowhere was the violence worst.

    In Finland ethnic Finns are about 90% of the population with Swedes and Lapps less than 10%. According to Caplan the Swedes and Lapps in Finland are in great danger of oppression from the Finns while the myriad ethnicities of the former Yugoslavia should have lived together in peaceful harmony.

    The character of the groups was also probably a factor. Bosniaks and Serbs are probably more martial and militant than Swedes and Lapps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The "Caplan school of thought" doesn't care about genetics or the qualities of immigrants. All that is irrelevant. It simply boils down to a fear of majorities:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/they_scare_me.html

    Occasionally, though, I wonder: What would happen if Mormons were a solid majority of the U.S. population? Maybe they'd be as wonderful as ever, but I readily picture a sinister metamorphosis. Given enough power, even Mormons might embrace a brutal fundamentalism. Despite my lovely experiences with Mormons, they scare me.

    To be fair, they're hardly alone. You know who else scares me? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists. Sunnis, Shiites, Catholics, and Protestants. Whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Marxists, and reactionaries. Even libertarians scare me a bit. Why? Because given enough power, there's a serious chance they'll do terrible things. Different terrible things, no doubt. But terrible nonetheless.

    If you're afraid of every group, though, shouldn't you support whatever group has the minimum chance of doing terrible things once it's firmly in charge? Not at all. There's another path: Try to prevent any group from being firmly in charge. In the long-run, the best way to do this is to make every group a small minority - to split society into such small pieces that everyone abandons hope of running society and refocuses their energy on building beautiful Bubbles.

    When people lament the political externalities of open borders, they're usually picturing an influx of a group with a bad track record of being in charge. In a sense, these critics understate their case; numerical superiority can turn even the nicest groups into a mortal danger. But critics also overlook the open borders remedy: Diaspora dynamics notwithstanding, welcoming everyone is a great way to turn everyone into a minority. And while that hardly guarantees safety, it's less menacing than the status quo.
     

    When Yugoslavia broke up the part that had the least violence was Slovenia which was one of the most homogeneous with 83% of the population being Slovene. There was virtually no violence directed at the non-Slovenian part of the population. Admittedly if there had been much violence in Slovenia it is possible that Italy might have intervened. Maybe this was a factor though I doubt it.

    Bosnia was the most heterogeneous part of Yugoslavia. No ethnic grroup there, not even the Bosnians was a majority. Nowhere was the violence worst.

    In Finland ethnic Finns are about 90% of the population with Swedes and Lapps less than 10%. According to Caplan the Swedes and Lapps in Finland are in great danger of oppression from the Finns while the myriad ethnicities of the former Yugoslavia should have lived together in peaceful harmony.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The character of the groups was also probably a factor. Bosniaks and Serbs are probably more martial and militant than Swedes and Lapps.
    , @iffen
    Which way are you leaning here, Jim?

    Should we suspect that there might be a problem with the hypothesis or should we try to get different facts?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Yes, apart from Ukraine. Maybe there is no point in a Spartan type of cohesion if you are in a nonmilitary commercial competition . I think that the modern policies are aimed at a type of strength. Adding population is a type of power and the Economist was gloating a while ago about how Britain would overtake Germany as the most populous country in the EU. The Globalists' house journal seem to argue for something that has nothing to do with free movement of labor and capital and only really matters in a political conflict between countries. At bottom they are still using the old calculus of relative power, in which Germany is in a zero sum game with Britain.

    There is a great deal of concern with the relative power arguments such as "Diversity makes Us Stronger". But why do we need to be stronger than other countries within the West? Underneath it all the capitalists in big states are still worrying about how they measure up to potential rivals.

    It might be an interesting project to give a Devil's advocate argument genetic for mass immigration and how it might improve the quality of the population. The Canadian immigration policy is supposed to have resulted in an incipient over-class of migrants. I know about half of those studying law and similar subjects in Canada are Asian. We could look at the lowest social classes of whites especially the men, and how them never reproducing could work to raise the genetic quality of the population. A genetic argument against white men and for an imported higher quality population of immigrants could prove tricky for people like Bryan Caplan to argue about. It seems likely that immigration is eliminating some whites from and reducing the fertility of others, and the Caplan school of thought has it that immigrants have no genetic advantage. Just focus on the beneficial genetic consequences and point out how an immigration policy achieves them.

    I was not thinking of a Spartan type of cohesion. (You can forget about converting the Western consumer to an Amish lifestyle.) I was thinking of an ordinary, garden variety national state cohesion. We (I am speaking about the US, but it seems the other Western countries are in the same boat) are losing our top to bottom cohesion. The working class is being driven toward a threadbare economic existence. There is no interest from the ruling elites in maintaining a decent standard of living for the left side of the curve that has been enjoyed, or which at least seemed to be within their grasp in the post WWII period.

    I think capitalists worry about making money. If a global perspective is beneficial then that is what they will pursue, likewise, if a national state is useful then they will utilize that approach. These are tools and they know how to use them.

    A selective immigration policy like Canada’s is easier to sell than unlimited, unrestricted mass immigration. What should be considered here is that in liberal democracies the immigration policy is easily changed by those with political power. How long will Canada maintain their policy, or Australia?

    There is a large and powerful political impulse that does not see the need for national borders and is ready to push for citizen of the world type policies. The apathetic and dis-organized populace that might oppose this will be (is) simply run over. A small committed, coordinated group will, by default, win over a dis-organized mass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Then Naziism was a universalistic doctrine despite being racially clannish. I suppose it would be universalistic at a meta level, in that distinctions of clan are elevated into having universal significance.

    Neither. “Universal moral norms” apply to everyone who is able or willing to accept them. If you repeatedly violate those norms, you become a moral outcaste. You no longer enjoy the protection of society.

    We see this reasoning in the word “outlaw.” The law applies to everybody, but if a group of people act in a way that puts them outside the law, they no longer enjoy the protection of the law. They can be killed on sight without the benefit of trial. This is the mindset that has been used to expel witches, Jews, and racists from normal society.

    “Racially clannish” is an oxymoron.

    This sounds like a group selection argument. How likely is it that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction

    Your question is academic. Guilt proneness and affective empathy exist as highly heritable behaviors. The question is not whether they evolved, but rather how they evolved.

    I’m as skeptical as you about group selection. Jerry Coyne summed up the main objection as follows: “Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters.”

    This objection doesn’t apply to the “haystack model,” where groups regularly merge and split up within a larger group. In that model, groups with higher proportions of altruists are more successful than those with lower proportions, even though non-altruists are more successful than altruists within each group. Since the groups are of short duration, the overall number of altruists increases with each generation.

    As late as 7,000 years ago, the people living along the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic were fisher/hunters. During the summer, they lived as sedentary fishermen in large coastal communities. During the winter, they lived inland as nomadic hunters in much smaller groups. There was thus a yearly cycle of smaller hunting groups merging to become larger fishing communities, which then split up again in autumn. This corresponds closely to the haystack model and may have been conducive to selection for altruistic behavior, i.e., guilt proneness, affective empathy, and susceptibility to universal moral norms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm not skeptical about group selection. I just wonder if that is the mechanism behind phenotypes across historical time from liberalism to Naziism that are claimed to be a single phenotype. These phenotypes or phenotype are supposed to representative of the population group, so presumably the rate and not just overall number would be relevant.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    “Racially clannish” is an oxymoron.
     
    Racial solidarity isn't clannish? Then there's something basic I've missed.

    Empirically: why do the parts of America where inbreeding is highest - the deep south and Appalachia - show the greatest racial cohesion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @helena
    I .... to see you having such a hard time of it, you seem like a well-balanced human. I traced the controversial quote - it came from comment 14, who I imagine is a self-confessed wing-nut. Not that that helps any, I just thought you might be interested to solve the puzzle.

    As my Vatican-trained priestly brother, down in El Salvador, would say: “Bless you, Helena!” :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It’s interesting that Peter mentions behaviours (altruism, clannishness) creating/leading to regulatory behaviours/ideologies/emotions (guilt/shame, empathies). It sounds like the beginning of a framework for the role of relatedness in a self-organising (sociocultural) system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Someone ('iffen') asked me:

    "How do you separate the regular anti-Semites from the wing-nut types?"

    I replied:

    "That was Dr. Gottfried’s chosen phrase that you are quoting back at me. He posts on this Web site, including among us lowly commenters, so I would suggest that you ask him the question that you are posing to me!?! (After all, he is Jewish, whereas I am merely related to his people by marriage.)"

    You then wrote a long reply to me, having nothing at all to do with the issue of that preceding exchange; and, you began that long reply with a quote, as if that were what you were responding to, when that quote was neither mine nor one that I had quoted, here or anywhere else. I did not accuse you of "stupid misinterpretation;" I merely asked you to explain why you had written that long reply to me, at all, let alone in reply to that particular comment of mine, made in answer to someone else's question to me. I could not understand it then; I cannot understand it now. Your claim, now, that it was a natural follow-up to my stating that most Zionists are gentiles strikes me as a bit odd-- for the simple reason that I had yet to say that when you posted that reply to me!?!

    The entire point of my first comment to the boreal professor, above, is summed up in its closing:

    "The comment to which you replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist."

    I simply was defending Rehmat's labeling of Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist-- nothing more. Instead of proving that Rehmat's claim about Australia was wrong, the professor merely asserted the (questionable) claim that Mr. Murdoch is not Jewish, as if that settled the entire issue that Rehmat had raised about Australia. The professor did so in a way as to make it sound as if it were ludicrous, to the point of unbelievability, that anyone even could dare to assert that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist. (As we later established, dispositively, the professor himself did not even know what a Zionist actually is!) In answer to Rehmat's pointing out that the new Australian prime minister had previously made the claim that his own mother was Jewish-- a claim that is far more dubious than anyone's claim that Rupert Murdoch's late mother was Jewish!-- the professor replied only to make a snide joke about his own mother's family being freemasons. That apparently is his idea of refuting an argument. As my own late mother would have advised: "Consider the source." (Of course, she was of Catholic stock, not the daughter of a freemason.)

    You are at least right, Sean, in noticing that I have been largely reiterating a lone issue: that of Rupert Murdoch's Zionism. You are wrong, however, in stating that it has been "not particularly on-topic." By replying to Rehmat as he did, the professor himself made it a relevant topic. My own reiterations, which you find so inscrutable, merely have been to defend my own original point in commenting here, in this string: whether Rehmat's opening statement about Australian history and Zionism is right or wrong, per se, he was absolutely correct in his listing Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist. As Unz.com's own Dr. Paul Gottfried commented, elsewhere, back in July of 2011:

    "The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism."

    If I were an agnostic on the issue, otherwise, I would take the word of Professor Gottfried over that of Professor Frost, on the issue of any given public figure's being a Zionist or not. How about you, Sean? (Or, was your own mother a freemason's daughter, too?)

    If it makes you feel happy or superior, Sean, to blame me for someone else's repeatedly asking me to explain what "anti-Semitic nuts" are, and how they compare to other anti-Semites, while I reiterated that the phrase was Dr. Gottfried's, not mine, and was wholly immaterial to why I had quoted him, regardless, then fine! I have bigger problems to worry about-- like a five-run deficit in the seventh inning of an elimination game, where my future mother watched four World Series games, seventy years ago this month....

    I …. to see you having such a hard time of it, you seem like a well-balanced human. I traced the controversial quote – it came from comment 14, who I imagine is a self-confessed wing-nut. Not that that helps any, I just thought you might be interested to solve the puzzle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    As my Vatican-trained priestly brother, down in El Salvador, would say: "Bless you, Helena!" :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Can’t wait until Islamists publicly post their murderous plans and carry them out.
    Will Canadians go back to their Timmy Horton’s and finish their crullers and coffee or act like the Canadians at Juno Beach?

    God bless them, hope they are better than this shitty country that voted for BHO twice, PBUH.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    DK, I am very surprised that you can not see the connection between your insistence that Zionists are typically gentiles and my response showing that I had already made the point that pro-Israel intellectuals are often the ones opposing replacement immigration.

    I gave several examples of how in France the very few public intellectual critics of anti-racism are all strong supporters of Israel: Jews and Gentiles. It is the same in Canada Ezra Levant on Israel ....
     
    I don't think my response was at all unrelated or difficult to follow, and find it strange that you don't understand the reply as having anything to do with your own comment thread, which is going round in ever decreasing circles about definitions and the Gottfried quote. It is not as if you have multiple ideas on the go here to keep track of. You are reiterating one, not particularly on-topic, point that is presumably understood by yourself at least. I took the trouble to make a pertinent reply only for you to accuse me of stupid misinterpretation.

    Someone (‘iffen’) asked me:

    “How do you separate the regular anti-Semites from the wing-nut types?”

    I replied:

    “That was Dr. Gottfried’s chosen phrase that you are quoting back at me. He posts on this Web site, including among us lowly commenters, so I would suggest that you ask him the question that you are posing to me!?! (After all, he is Jewish, whereas I am merely related to his people by marriage.)”

    You then wrote a long reply to me, having nothing at all to do with the issue of that preceding exchange; and, you began that long reply with a quote, as if that were what you were responding to, when that quote was neither mine nor one that I had quoted, here or anywhere else. I did not accuse you of “stupid misinterpretation;” I merely asked you to explain why you had written that long reply to me, at all, let alone in reply to that particular comment of mine, made in answer to someone else’s question to me. I could not understand it then; I cannot understand it now. Your claim, now, that it was a natural follow-up to my stating that most Zionists are gentiles strikes me as a bit odd– for the simple reason that I had yet to say that when you posted that reply to me!?!

    The entire point of my first comment to the boreal professor, above, is summed up in its closing:

    “The comment to which you replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist.”

    I simply was defending Rehmat’s labeling of Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist– nothing more. Instead of proving that Rehmat’s claim about Australia was wrong, the professor merely asserted the (questionable) claim that Mr. Murdoch is not Jewish, as if that settled the entire issue that Rehmat had raised about Australia. The professor did so in a way as to make it sound as if it were ludicrous, to the point of unbelievability, that anyone even could dare to assert that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist. (As we later established, dispositively, the professor himself did not even know what a Zionist actually is!) In answer to Rehmat’s pointing out that the new Australian prime minister had previously made the claim that his own mother was Jewish– a claim that is far more dubious than anyone’s claim that Rupert Murdoch’s late mother was Jewish!– the professor replied only to make a snide joke about his own mother’s family being freemasons. That apparently is his idea of refuting an argument. As my own late mother would have advised: “Consider the source.” (Of course, she was of Catholic stock, not the daughter of a freemason.)

    You are at least right, Sean, in noticing that I have been largely reiterating a lone issue: that of Rupert Murdoch’s Zionism. You are wrong, however, in stating that it has been “not particularly on-topic.” By replying to Rehmat as he did, the professor himself made it a relevant topic. My own reiterations, which you find so inscrutable, merely have been to defend my own original point in commenting here, in this string: whether Rehmat’s opening statement about Australian history and Zionism is right or wrong, per se, he was absolutely correct in his listing Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist. As Unz.com’s own Dr. Paul Gottfried commented, elsewhere, back in July of 2011:

    “The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism.”

    If I were an agnostic on the issue, otherwise, I would take the word of Professor Gottfried over that of Professor Frost, on the issue of any given public figure’s being a Zionist or not. How about you, Sean? (Or, was your own mother a freemason’s daughter, too?)

    If it makes you feel happy or superior, Sean, to blame me for someone else’s repeatedly asking me to explain what “anti-Semitic nuts” are, and how they compare to other anti-Semites, while I reiterated that the phrase was Dr. Gottfried’s, not mine, and was wholly immaterial to why I had quoted him, regardless, then fine! I have bigger problems to worry about– like a five-run deficit in the seventh inning of an elimination game, where my future mother watched four World Series games, seventy years ago this month….

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    I .... to see you having such a hard time of it, you seem like a well-balanced human. I traced the controversial quote - it came from comment 14, who I imagine is a self-confessed wing-nut. Not that that helps any, I just thought you might be interested to solve the puzzle.
    , @Sean

    Your claim, now, that it was a natural follow-up to my stating that most Zionists are gentiles strikes me as a bit odd– for the simple reason that I had yet to say that when you posted that reply to me!?!
     
    Why is it it odd to you that I read the early comment and understood what you were getting at? Perhaps you are not writing with an eye to making your meaning clear, and are actually trying to draw the unwary into extended discussions over the purport and provenance of quotations within comments about others' comments containing a fragment of a quotation. These ever decreasing circular arguments about how you have been misunderstood are of very limited interest to anyone but the author. You went further off topic when you brought up Hagee.

    As already explained Peter is effectively forced to respond against anti semitic comment baiting, which he may still be held legally responsible for in Canada nonetheless. Peter has repeatedly explained that he wishes these threads would stop and how they could damage him, yet you just ignored that to go on and on. Justifying your off-topic remarks by saying Peter replied to the comment can't be an excuse, because he has repeatedly asked everyone to stop those threads and it is his place to be dismissive of them, and not yours to come in and start picking faults with irrelevant aspects of his comments. You are not on topic when you continue a discussion on a thread the post author says he thinks is worthless, and pleaded with you to end.

    Your snide carping about the way Peter dismissed the Zionism thread was related to his mention of Mr. Murdoch's nationality and began a very involved argument centred on you that few people would wish to go into. It was out of order, and off topic because you kept mentioning Zionism in comments about how others didn't understand the issue long after Peter had said the post was not about whether everyone else but you was misunderstanding the true definition of Zionism, quibbles over definition of various other words, and a quote used by another OT commenter. Rupert Murdoch took US citizenship for the same reason he does almost everything, for business reasons, and Peter said what he said to signify disapproval and end the discussion as you knew full well.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Like in the UK, where until Blair left wing politics was mostly about economic issues, the Canadian left had different priorities from their American equivalents. The American hyper PCness I read about in Chronicles and National Review was fringe at my university; it was also less common in the UK than in the US – though they’ve obviously caught up since then.

    This was also my experience at university. There was an antiracist movement within the political left, but it was peripheral and largely concerned about economic issues. With the disintegration of the "old left," antiracism took on a life of its own, as was the case with much of what people call "Cultural Marxism"

    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question

    This isn't a genealogical forum. It may be that Rupert Murdoch's maternal grandfather had Jewish ancestors. I don't know and, frankly, the issue is irrelevant to the subject of my column.

    Do you even know what a Zionist is, Dr. Frost? Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation?

    A Zionist is a Jewish nationalist. Is it possible for a non-Jew to be a Jewish nationalist? Can I, as a Canadian, be an American nationalist? I don't think so. At most, I can be a friend and admirer of the U.S.

    Would you care to read that speech given to the Museum of Jewish Heritage: A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, a few years back, by Rupert Murdoch, cited by me above, and publicly declare, here and now, that Rupert Murdoch is not a Zionist, and could never be a Zionist, unless and until it were dispositively proven that he is of Jewish descent himself?


    No, I wouldn't care to read that speech, and I have no idea what "dispositively" means. I will publicly declare, however, that Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. He may be a friend of Israel but he is no more a Zionist than my late mother (who collected books on Israel).

    how do you answer the obvious objection that the supposedly guilt prone, empathetic, unclannish Germans were the ones to embrace the opposite in the form of Naziism?

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it's important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel "free riders", i.e., people who profit from guilt and empathy while giving nothing in return.

    Thus, in addition to guilt proneness and affective empathy, there is a third behavioral adaptation: greater susceptibility to belief in universal moral norms, as opposed to relativistic kin-based morality. People who violate such norms are treated as moral outcastes.

    Germans, like other Northwest Europeans, have a greater tendency to show concern for people beyond one's immediate kin, but this concern is contingent on compliance with moral norms that apply to everyone. If someone is identified as an "evil" person -- a witch, a Jew, or a racist -- that person must be expelled and/or killed.

    Being a "racist" in Germany today is like being a "Jew" in Germany in the 1930s. It's the same mindset. This point is made by Pierre-André Taguieff:

    If the racist is no longer an ignorant person but rather a villain, and if he is defined by his impulses or negative passions (hate, aggressive intolerance, etc.), then the evil is in him, and his case seems hopeless. The antiracist’s task is no longer to lead the "racist" towards goodness, but rather to isolate him as a carrier of evil. The "racist" must be singled out and stigmatized.

     

    Taguieff, P-A. (2013). Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme, Paris: PUF.

    What has changed in Germany between then and now is that the moral system has been radically reprogrammed. The mindset is still the same but it is now responding to new notions of right and wrong.

    it is interesting that Mr. Frost resorts to childish rhetoric when attacking anti-semites…”nuts” and “Jews, Jews” , Jews”

    I didn't call you a "nut." I said that certain commenters in this section are "obsessive." You and perhaps a half-dozen commenters are so narcissistic that you don't even see that you're speaking off-topic. As far as you're concerned there is only one topic. And that topic is Jews, Jews, Jews.

    You guys ruin almost every comment thread by insisting on your "right" to talk about your pet obsession. You're not so much offensive as dreadfully boring. You bore the rest of us to tears and cause many commenters to go elsewhere.

    What has changed in Germany between then and now is that the moral system has been radically reprogrammed. The mindset is still the same but it is now responding to new notions of right and wrong.

    Then Naziism was a universalistic doctrine despite being racially clannish. I suppose it would be universalistic at a meta level, in that distinctions of clan are elevated into having universal significance. The contrast between the meta-universalistic and the clannish: ‘Canadian jobs for Canadians’ is a “clannish” slogan, but hbd [like Naziism] is a universalistic doctrine that would motivate and justify clannish behavior. [Outbred substitutes for 'Aryan.']

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    "I’ve encountered far more antiracism and anti-Americanism in the U.S. Both ideologies are American cultural exports."

    The right-most 5% tend to not report on e.g. Richard Branson's essay advocating more refugees, so they don't understand how most Whites view things. See the political cartoon Branson used in that essay: "Where are you from?" -> "Earth."

    Europeans have been advocating global compassion since even before America was exporting its culture. Canadians, Europeans, and New Zealanders famously tend to view Americans as "gun-toting, racist, bible-thumping conservatives" relative to their own enlightened secular progressive cultures.

    Branson is not very representative of ordinary people, obviously. He’s part of a very small minority. He owns multiple homes around the world and owns private islands in the West Indies. He is frequently travelling between his different homes in different cities around the world, as well as travelling for business. With that kind of lifestyle, it’s quite easy for Branson to see himself as from “Earth” and quite difficult for him to understand why less mobile and less wealthy people would oppose refugees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Richard Branson, Bono, and Bill Gates are more representative of Whites than are the people on this site.

    The French, English, Swedes, and Canadians refuse to vote in large numbers for their nationalist parties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    THE JEWISH LOBBY MUST BE BEHIND THIS RACKET

    There are very few Jewish people in the Quebec Human Rights bureaucracy. In fact, its latest target was the Orthodox Jewish sect Lev Tahor, which it accused of "child abuse." The sect had to flee Quebec, when the Human Rights Commission threatened to seize their children and place them in foster homes.

    The Jewish man Ezra Levant

    Ezra Levant is one of the few Canadians who has defended freedom of opinion. I only wish there were more people like him.

    So why is it Canadians are constantly accusing Americans of being awful racists?

    In the past, some Canadians would talk that way. Now, those same people love to lecture their fellow citizens about their racist past. I've traveled in both countries, and I've encountered far more antiracism and anti-Americanism in the U.S. Both ideologies are American cultural exports.

    Multicult is the official ideology in Canada more than perhaps any country in the world.

    That isn't my impression, especially if we're talking about Quebec.

    I thought Canada was so proud of their supposed “Bill of Rights” that was passed as part of their federal constitutional reform in the early 1980s?

    The party that imposed our Charter of Rights (and the new Constitution) was almost wiped out in the ensuing federal election. It was never approved by a referendum, nor was it discussed as a campaign issue in the previous election. It was essentially imposed by one man and a party of yes-men.

    It’s appalling – at least three centuries of liberty, and in practice a fair degree of liberty before that, just flushed down the toilet.

    Canada has a long tradition of reverence for "moral authority." In the past, moral authority was held by the Church and the Monarchy. With the decline of both institutions, it has been usurped by a new class of moralists. The average Canadian is unhappy with what is happening, but at the gut level he or she cannot fight back. The new moralists know this is our Achilles heel.

    Will a point arrive when the progressive insanity is so egregious that islam will come to be seen as a relief?

    It's the sort of insanity that can stop very easily. The problem is not just the fear of being taken to court and going to prison. It's also the fear of one's moral self. The fear of being immoral.

    Why has Canada always been to the wimpish or trendy left of Australia on issues like this

    I know both countries, and the differences are slight. Are Australians speaking out against "The Great Replacement"? Very few.

    Mark Steyn really missed his opportunity to be a hero.

    Mark Steyn wanted to take his case to the Supreme Court. It was the human rights commission that chickened out. He's doing more than his fair share of what needs to be done.

    Canadianism: worthy of pity, not hate. But it’s still time to drop the I-Am-Canadian paradigm.

    Love of country is not conditional. I love my country in the same way a man loves his wife even though she now has senile dementia.

    “I’ve encountered far more antiracism and anti-Americanism in the U.S. Both ideologies are American cultural exports.”

    The right-most 5% tend to not report on e.g. Richard Branson’s essay advocating more refugees, so they don’t understand how most Whites view things. See the political cartoon Branson used in that essay: “Where are you from?” -> “Earth.”

    Europeans have been advocating global compassion since even before America was exporting its culture. Canadians, Europeans, and New Zealanders famously tend to view Americans as “gun-toting, racist, bible-thumping conservatives” relative to their own enlightened secular progressive cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Branson is not very representative of ordinary people, obviously. He's part of a very small minority. He owns multiple homes around the world and owns private islands in the West Indies. He is frequently travelling between his different homes in different cities around the world, as well as travelling for business. With that kind of lifestyle, it's quite easy for Branson to see himself as from "Earth" and quite difficult for him to understand why less mobile and less wealthy people would oppose refugees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    Yes, apart from Ukraine. Maybe there is no point in a Spartan type of cohesion if you are in a nonmilitary commercial competition . I think that the modern policies are aimed at a type of strength. Adding population is a type of power and the Economist was gloating a while ago about how Britain would overtake Germany as the most populous country in the EU. The Globalists' house journal seem to argue for something that has nothing to do with free movement of labor and capital and only really matters in a political conflict between countries. At bottom they are still using the old calculus of relative power, in which Germany is in a zero sum game with Britain.

    There is a great deal of concern with the relative power arguments such as "Diversity makes Us Stronger". But why do we need to be stronger than other countries within the West? Underneath it all the capitalists in big states are still worrying about how they measure up to potential rivals.

    It might be an interesting project to give a Devil's advocate argument genetic for mass immigration and how it might improve the quality of the population. The Canadian immigration policy is supposed to have resulted in an incipient over-class of migrants. I know about half of those studying law and similar subjects in Canada are Asian. We could look at the lowest social classes of whites especially the men, and how them never reproducing could work to raise the genetic quality of the population. A genetic argument against white men and for an imported higher quality population of immigrants could prove tricky for people like Bryan Caplan to argue about. It seems likely that immigration is eliminating some whites from and reducing the fertility of others, and the Caplan school of thought has it that immigrants have no genetic advantage. Just focus on the beneficial genetic consequences and point out how an immigration policy achieves them.

    The “Caplan school of thought” doesn’t care about genetics or the qualities of immigrants. All that is irrelevant. It simply boils down to a fear of majorities:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/they_scare_me.html

    Occasionally, though, I wonder: What would happen if Mormons were a solid majority of the U.S. population? Maybe they’d be as wonderful as ever, but I readily picture a sinister metamorphosis. Given enough power, even Mormons might embrace a brutal fundamentalism. Despite my lovely experiences with Mormons, they scare me.

    To be fair, they’re hardly alone. You know who else scares me? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists. Sunnis, Shiites, Catholics, and Protestants. Whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Marxists, and reactionaries. Even libertarians scare me a bit. Why? Because given enough power, there’s a serious chance they’ll do terrible things. Different terrible things, no doubt. But terrible nonetheless.

    If you’re afraid of every group, though, shouldn’t you support whatever group has the minimum chance of doing terrible things once it’s firmly in charge? Not at all. There’s another path: Try to prevent any group from being firmly in charge. In the long-run, the best way to do this is to make every group a small minority – to split society into such small pieces that everyone abandons hope of running society and refocuses their energy on building beautiful Bubbles.

    When people lament the political externalities of open borders, they’re usually picturing an influx of a group with a bad track record of being in charge. In a sense, these critics understate their case; numerical superiority can turn even the nicest groups into a mortal danger. But critics also overlook the open borders remedy: Diaspora dynamics notwithstanding, welcoming everyone is a great way to turn everyone into a minority. And while that hardly guarantees safety, it’s less menacing than the status quo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    When Yugoslavia broke up the part that had the least violence was Slovenia which was one of the most homogeneous with 83% of the population being Slovene. There was virtually no violence directed at the non-Slovenian part of the population. Admittedly if there had been much violence in Slovenia it is possible that Italy might have intervened. Maybe this was a factor though I doubt it.

    Bosnia was the most heterogeneous part of Yugoslavia. No ethnic grroup there, not even the Bosnians was a majority. Nowhere was the violence worst.

    In Finland ethnic Finns are about 90% of the population with Swedes and Lapps less than 10%. According to Caplan the Swedes and Lapps in Finland are in great danger of oppression from the Finns while the myriad ethnicities of the former Yugoslavia should have lived together in peaceful harmony.
    , @Sean
    That recent piece, They Scare Me, by Bryan Caplan, is truly fascinating.

    I was trying to suggest pointing out to Bryan Caplan that his preferred open borders policy would create a commercially superior genetic stock by importing energetic capable people from Africa and Asia. The smartest Nigerians are surely superior employees to most US citizens and introducing genes from the clever diligent employees from Nigeria into the US will alter the genetic characteristics of the whole country toward a hereditary a high-performance population. It will also have a tendency to restrict the fertility of the traditional people.

    Caplan comes ready to scoff at the usual genetic arguments against his position, but what would he do if confronted with some one who noted the genetic causation of superiority among immigrants. There is actually much in what Caplan says inasmuch the immigrants are superior in real ways, and we know (and he must suspect) this must be to a high degree hereditary. The high IQ, aspiration level and amenability to discipline are surely what is being precisely selected by migration (the poverty prone are left behind in the homeland). So in a few generations the US could garner the top 1% of genetic super-capable from countries like India. The Canadian immigration policy is garnering the best genetic stock from all around the world, and these better genes will indeed be an improvement on the traditional population in certain very important respects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen

    The Germans are still the Germans, but they behave differently now because they are in a different situation. They moved from living in a world of enemies to being safe with no potential enemies on their borders.
     
    You are saying that national cohesion cannot be obtained or maintained unless there is a severe external threat.

    If that is true then all of the Western countries can hang it up.

    Yes, apart from Ukraine. Maybe there is no point in a Spartan type of cohesion if you are in a nonmilitary commercial competition . I think that the modern policies are aimed at a type of strength. Adding population is a type of power and the Economist was gloating a while ago about how Britain would overtake Germany as the most populous country in the EU. The Globalists’ house journal seem to argue for something that has nothing to do with free movement of labor and capital and only really matters in a political conflict between countries. At bottom they are still using the old calculus of relative power, in which Germany is in a zero sum game with Britain.

    There is a great deal of concern with the relative power arguments such as “Diversity makes Us Stronger”. But why do we need to be stronger than other countries within the West? Underneath it all the capitalists in big states are still worrying about how they measure up to potential rivals.

    It might be an interesting project to give a Devil’s advocate argument genetic for mass immigration and how it might improve the quality of the population. The Canadian immigration policy is supposed to have resulted in an incipient over-class of migrants. I know about half of those studying law and similar subjects in Canada are Asian. We could look at the lowest social classes of whites especially the men, and how them never reproducing could work to raise the genetic quality of the population. A genetic argument against white men and for an imported higher quality population of immigrants could prove tricky for people like Bryan Caplan to argue about. It seems likely that immigration is eliminating some whites from and reducing the fertility of others, and the Caplan school of thought has it that immigrants have no genetic advantage. Just focus on the beneficial genetic consequences and point out how an immigration policy achieves them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The "Caplan school of thought" doesn't care about genetics or the qualities of immigrants. All that is irrelevant. It simply boils down to a fear of majorities:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/they_scare_me.html

    Occasionally, though, I wonder: What would happen if Mormons were a solid majority of the U.S. population? Maybe they'd be as wonderful as ever, but I readily picture a sinister metamorphosis. Given enough power, even Mormons might embrace a brutal fundamentalism. Despite my lovely experiences with Mormons, they scare me.

    To be fair, they're hardly alone. You know who else scares me? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists. Sunnis, Shiites, Catholics, and Protestants. Whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Marxists, and reactionaries. Even libertarians scare me a bit. Why? Because given enough power, there's a serious chance they'll do terrible things. Different terrible things, no doubt. But terrible nonetheless.

    If you're afraid of every group, though, shouldn't you support whatever group has the minimum chance of doing terrible things once it's firmly in charge? Not at all. There's another path: Try to prevent any group from being firmly in charge. In the long-run, the best way to do this is to make every group a small minority - to split society into such small pieces that everyone abandons hope of running society and refocuses their energy on building beautiful Bubbles.

    When people lament the political externalities of open borders, they're usually picturing an influx of a group with a bad track record of being in charge. In a sense, these critics understate their case; numerical superiority can turn even the nicest groups into a mortal danger. But critics also overlook the open borders remedy: Diaspora dynamics notwithstanding, welcoming everyone is a great way to turn everyone into a minority. And while that hardly guarantees safety, it's less menacing than the status quo.
     
    , @iffen
    I was not thinking of a Spartan type of cohesion. (You can forget about converting the Western consumer to an Amish lifestyle.) I was thinking of an ordinary, garden variety national state cohesion. We (I am speaking about the US, but it seems the other Western countries are in the same boat) are losing our top to bottom cohesion. The working class is being driven toward a threadbare economic existence. There is no interest from the ruling elites in maintaining a decent standard of living for the left side of the curve that has been enjoyed, or which at least seemed to be within their grasp in the post WWII period.

    I think capitalists worry about making money. If a global perspective is beneficial then that is what they will pursue, likewise, if a national state is useful then they will utilize that approach. These are tools and they know how to use them.

    A selective immigration policy like Canada’s is easier to sell than unlimited, unrestricted mass immigration. What should be considered here is that in liberal democracies the immigration policy is easily changed by those with political power. How long will Canada maintain their policy, or Australia?

    There is a large and powerful political impulse that does not see the need for national borders and is ready to push for citizen of the world type policies. The apathetic and dis-organized populace that might oppose this will be (is) simply run over. A small committed, coordinated group will, by default, win over a dis-organized mass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    "It’s one thing to be an anti-social sociopath, and quite another to be not so zealous about sacrificing one’s own individual reproductive success or kin interests to benefit a large social group. But have you never heard of war?

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it’s important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel “free riders” Germans, like other Northwest Europeans, have a greater tendency to show concern for people beyond one’s immediate kin, but this concern is contingent on compliance with moral norms that apply to everyone. If someone is identified as an “evil” person — a witch, a Jew, or a racist — that person must be expelled and/or killed.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldj%C3%A4gerkorps

    By and large the Germans were more self sacrificing in the wars, though cowards were less tolerated.

    But have you never heard of war?

    That’s why I asked how likely it might be that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction.

    Oswald Teichmuller was a brilliant mathematician but such a fervent Nazi that he volunteered to serve on the Eastern Front, where he died at the age of 30.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cloudbuster
    I think in some cases, it has to be a "poison the well" thing. Anytime Sailer brings up sensitive cultural or racial issues, this garbage poisons the comment threads. Then, later, leftists can point to the "vile, anti-Semitic language" in the comments as evidence that the ideas in the article can't be taken seriously.

    leftists can point to the “vile, anti-Semitic language” in the comments as evidence that the ideas in the article can’t be taken seriously

    I am glad someone else understands this.

    The “leftists” certainly understand it.

    Since there is minimal moderation, postings by a provocateur could make it difficult to escape the site being described as anti-Semitic and racist. (Not that a provocateur is actually needed.)

    Does it matter if Unz is described as anti-Semitic or racist?

    No, it does not.

    After reading here for a couple of years, it has become obvious to me that few, if any, of the content providers have any thoughts about any political opposition. Not just here at Unz, but this situation prevails in almost any direction one turns and that has to be the main reason that crazies are in full control of our culture and our government. They have no political opposition. They can say and do anything that they want, no matter how crazy, and there is no opposition. None. So, in fact, it doesn’t really matter whether Unz, is, or is not, described as anti-Semitic or racist. Only a few commenters seem concerned and it has no effect in the real world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    "Only a few commenters seem concerned and it has no effect in the real world."
     
    Apply that reasoning to other sites, like that of Theodre Beale (Vox Day). He's the writer who the Sad Puppies allowed to became the face of their movement because they didn't comment forcefully enough on the issue. The commenters on Beale's blog don't object when he voices support for Breivik, so there must be no negative effect to supporting Breivik, right? But that's a measurement bias. It misses the many more people whom you can't see who remove their weight from your causes.

    That's why Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch win against immigration opponents. They'd be willing to defend their supporters if people started building arguments for why their supporters aren't Americans (or Westerners), or don't have human rights.

    One of the best things Mr. Frost could do to support anti-immigration efforts would be to write up his vision on Jews and other high-IQ minorities in a formal article, so he can link to it when the topic recurs in the future. Not wanting high-IQ minorities and their allies on our side is insanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it’s important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel “free riders”, i.e., people who profit from guilt and empathy while giving nothing in return.
     
    This sounds like a group selection argument. How likely is it that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction? It's one thing to be an anti-social sociopath, and quite another to be not so zealous about sacrificing one's own individual reproductive success or kin interests to benefit a large social group. To maintain this cultural system, presumably you'd not only have to punish the free riders but also benefit those who benefit the social group beyond the clan

    “It’s one thing to be an anti-social sociopath, and quite another to be not so zealous about sacrificing one’s own individual reproductive success or kin interests to benefit a large social group. But have you never heard of war?

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it’s important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel “free riders” Germans, like other Northwest Europeans, have a greater tendency to show concern for people beyond one’s immediate kin, but this concern is contingent on compliance with moral norms that apply to everyone. If someone is identified as an “evil” person — a witch, a Jew, or a racist — that person must be expelled and/or killed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldj%C3%A4gerkorps

    By and large the Germans were more self sacrificing in the wars, though cowards were less tolerated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    But have you never heard of war?
     
    That's why I asked how likely it might be that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction.

    Oswald Teichmuller was a brilliant mathematician but such a fervent Nazi that he volunteered to serve on the Eastern Front, where he died at the age of 30.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • speaking of battle, I penned this today responding to a Fw: NYTimes.com: Enter the Age of the Outsiders ( ‘the center cannot hold’ hand wringing by the chosen)
    People

    “As every schoolchild knows, the gravitational pull of the sun helps hold the planets in their orbits. Gravity from the center lends coherence to the whole solar system.
    I mention this because that’s how our political and social systems used to work, but no longer do. In each sphere of life there used to be a few big suns radiating conviction and meaning. The other bodies in orbit were defined by their resistance or attraction to that pull.”

    Let me translate this piece of jewish angst: by the way, Brooks is a crypto name, he is a jew and a half.

    As every jew knows, the gravitas of the jews is what keeps the world and even the cosmos in orbit around , uh, we Jews. It is only the intellectual and spiritual power of jewish intelligence and moral superiority that has held the world together up to now. However, in each sphere of life, the Big Sun of the Jews is starting to fizzle. Conviction and Meaning is no longer inspired by Jews, or even liberals , our servants. The other spheres of life, like culture, private life, the arts, and cosmopolitanism in general, is falling away from us, the Holy People. We are losing our grip. Jehovah may be planning some more punishment for us for losing our way.

    In private life, psychoanalysis has been killed off by goy laughter. Israel has been misunderstood even by our servants, the liberals. In culture, we no longer dominate, although in urban areas we hang onto our power, more or less, but the fly-over zones, the main part of the US and Europe, we have lost our grip. The Internet is also beyond our control, at least for now, but we are working on that, outlawing hate speech being our best bet.

    The main source of Gravitas for Jews, has been the Holocaust and now few care , if the goyim ever did, in these vast areas who do not read the NYT, or care about New York City in the least. The center cannot hold if Jewish Holiness loses its gravitas. The Outsiders, from the German Trump to the Tea-partiers, to the blacks who now hate us after all we have done for them, to the mexicans who don’t even know what we have done for them, and who will not help us…just like the ingrate blacks, and then there are the nationalists, the fascists in Europe, and even those noxious White Nationalists who cannot understand the difference between White Nationalism, and Jewish Nationalism, the former being disintegrative of the human community, while Jewish nationalism provides the vital center of gravity, through its Moral Compass, like the sun, that holds the world together and prevents disintegration.

    The goyim are in revolt. We need to come up with some new protocols to deal with all this. Next year in Jerusalem…no…This year! We need an updated strategy for dominating the White psyche. Project for a new Jewish Century kind of thing. Shalom.

    Joe Webb

    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    Enter the Age of the Outsiders
    BY DAVID BROOKS

    One of today’s most worrying big trends is that the more extreme fringe elements of society are on the rise, in domestic politics, global politics, and beyond.
    Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1klWL4C
    To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Subscription Options.
    To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your address book.
    NYT article by a very nervous jewish person.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I am an anti-semite, just as I am anti-liberal, anti-globalist, anti-femicommie, anti vegetarian inasmuch as every vegetarian I have known looks pasty faced, like liberals…anti-black, anti-mexer, anti-chink, anti-cosmopolitan, and … and anti everything that harms Whites.

    Of course the most harmful of the above is the Jews inasmuch as they have led the Humanists who have in turn led Whites into racial and national suicide.

    Anybody who denies the facts of this particular matter, never mind the other attacks on Whites, is a coward or a fool, or both, or Jewish, which is forgivable cuz jews work for one thing and one thing only, what’s good for the jews. That is proper racial and national hygiene.

    We simply meet them on the field of battle, salute them, and defeat them, or we are finished.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Astuteobservor II
    I just wanna comment that there are only 2 spammers who constantly bring up the jews jews issue, in every fucking article they can find to spam it.

    they act like bots.

    ps: it also protects the jews from real issues, because those 2 bot commenters can be use as the perfect examples of hate.

    I think in some cases, it has to be a “poison the well” thing. Anytime Sailer brings up sensitive cultural or racial issues, this garbage poisons the comment threads. Then, later, leftists can point to the “vile, anti-Semitic language” in the comments as evidence that the ideas in the article can’t be taken seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    leftists can point to the “vile, anti-Semitic language” in the comments as evidence that the ideas in the article can’t be taken seriously
     
    I am glad someone else understands this.

    The "leftists" certainly understand it.

    Since there is minimal moderation, postings by a provocateur could make it difficult to escape the site being described as anti-Semitic and racist. (Not that a provocateur is actually needed.)

    Does it matter if Unz is described as anti-Semitic or racist?

    No, it does not.

    After reading here for a couple of years, it has become obvious to me that few, if any, of the content providers have any thoughts about any political opposition. Not just here at Unz, but this situation prevails in almost any direction one turns and that has to be the main reason that crazies are in full control of our culture and our government. They have no political opposition. They can say and do anything that they want, no matter how crazy, and there is no opposition. None. So, in fact, it doesn't really matter whether Unz, is, or is not, described as anti-Semitic or racist. Only a few commenters seem concerned and it has no effect in the real world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • DK, Nothing wrong in correcting or asking for clarification of others’ comments but I am afraid you did not break the argument up and make logical transitions, thereby losing almost everyone. “How important Reverend Hagee is or is not is utterly beside my point; he is a Zionist”. That is an atrocious sentence. it reads like you cannot be bothered to make it easy on readers to follow the putative point of your mentioning Hagee in a conversation about Canadian human rights tribunals.

    Peter has been saying for months that he does not agree with commenters who have a mono-causal view of anti-racism. He is not moderating, so he tries to add reality checks to counteract such comments for the unwary reader. You patronizingly implied Peter had failed to comprehend the purport of a comment, but then cited the lengthy quote not the fragment in the context of the Rehmat comment being countered. It was not a misinterpretation . You say ” “Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish”. But on any straightforward reading Rehmat was at the very least saying something similar (to what you deny your meaning was) and Peter was right to keep the casual reader aware he does not agree.

    Hagees relation to Israel is not ethnic, neither is Murdoch’s, but both are in their way highly successful, and televangelist Hagee’s stance on Israel might well be a business decision (in the same way that Murdoch’s Sun newspaper regularly featuring 16 year old girls exposing their breasts over the entire Page Three was not a sign that Murdoch was a pervert). You brought up Hagee, and his importance is surely relevant for your thesis of gentiles being the main Zionists. Hagee’s interpretation of the Bible is a mutation of accepted Christian theology. Hagee being anti-Zionist like he is actually anti Catholic would certainly not be a business decision, but his loony anti Arab stance is no problem to him at all

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • (1) Doff the hat = recognise someone for their contribution
    (2) Tip the hat = tip someone
    Although ‘tip of the hat’ is also sometimes used to mean (1) by some people – wearing caps or not.(I believe you meant the yarmulke, which I do wear on appropriate occasions)

    The phrase ‘I reckon’, ..well it means ‘I estimate’ or something very similar.

    Cheque or check – I use them interchangeably these days, so suit yourself.

    The “cheque to AIPAC” was meant to be humourous, as I am not at all a supporter of their activities.

    got it? ;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    "It doesn’t seem that guilt proneness, etc., are the real drivers of population replacement..."

    They can be, depending on the circumstances of the country. With a nation that has its back to the wall (Israel) the people's guilt proneness comes through as sacrificing for the greater good through contributing to tight national cohesion, and replacement immigration doesn't happen. In a safe country (Canada) it takes other forms such as unbounded altruism, and base commercial considerations of private profit can come to the fore.

    The Germans are still the Germans, but they behave differently now because they are in a different situation. They moved from living in a world of enemies to being safe with no potential enemies on their borders.

    The Germans are still the Germans, but they behave differently now because they are in a different situation. They moved from living in a world of enemies to being safe with no potential enemies on their borders.

    You are saying that national cohesion cannot be obtained or maintained unless there is a severe external threat.

    If that is true then all of the Western countries can hang it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Yes, apart from Ukraine. Maybe there is no point in a Spartan type of cohesion if you are in a nonmilitary commercial competition . I think that the modern policies are aimed at a type of strength. Adding population is a type of power and the Economist was gloating a while ago about how Britain would overtake Germany as the most populous country in the EU. The Globalists' house journal seem to argue for something that has nothing to do with free movement of labor and capital and only really matters in a political conflict between countries. At bottom they are still using the old calculus of relative power, in which Germany is in a zero sum game with Britain.

    There is a great deal of concern with the relative power arguments such as "Diversity makes Us Stronger". But why do we need to be stronger than other countries within the West? Underneath it all the capitalists in big states are still worrying about how they measure up to potential rivals.

    It might be an interesting project to give a Devil's advocate argument genetic for mass immigration and how it might improve the quality of the population. The Canadian immigration policy is supposed to have resulted in an incipient over-class of migrants. I know about half of those studying law and similar subjects in Canada are Asian. We could look at the lowest social classes of whites especially the men, and how them never reproducing could work to raise the genetic quality of the population. A genetic argument against white men and for an imported higher quality population of immigrants could prove tricky for people like Bryan Caplan to argue about. It seems likely that immigration is eliminating some whites from and reducing the fertility of others, and the Caplan school of thought has it that immigrants have no genetic advantage. Just focus on the beneficial genetic consequences and point out how an immigration policy achieves them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama
    :-)

    You would be right if I meant what you thought. Doff, I did not my hat....small change and the cheque!

    I meant that although you seem to be a person that would reckon, you do not seem to be a person who would use the word in conversation. The people that I hear using the word usually wear caps. Of course they write checks so that may explain it.

    Can you help me reconcile the following:

    off I go to post that cheque to AIPAC
    I am not attempting to whitewash the deleterious influence of the Lobby

    Do they allow you to specify that your contribution cannot be used in a deleterious manner?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    I give up: why was that reply of yours directed at me, in general, and why in response to that comment of mine, in particular?

    DK, I am very surprised that you can not see the connection between your insistence that Zionists are typically gentiles and my response showing that I had already made the point that pro-Israel intellectuals are often the ones opposing replacement immigration.

    I gave several examples of how in France the very few public intellectual critics of anti-racism are all strong supporters of Israel: Jews and Gentiles. It is the same in Canada Ezra Levant on Israel ….

    I don’t think my response was at all unrelated or difficult to follow, and find it strange that you don’t understand the reply as having anything to do with your own comment thread, which is going round in ever decreasing circles about definitions and the Gottfried quote. It is not as if you have multiple ideas on the go here to keep track of. You are reiterating one, not particularly on-topic, point that is presumably understood by yourself at least. I took the trouble to make a pertinent reply only for you to accuse me of stupid misinterpretation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Someone ('iffen') asked me:

    "How do you separate the regular anti-Semites from the wing-nut types?"

    I replied:

    "That was Dr. Gottfried’s chosen phrase that you are quoting back at me. He posts on this Web site, including among us lowly commenters, so I would suggest that you ask him the question that you are posing to me!?! (After all, he is Jewish, whereas I am merely related to his people by marriage.)"

    You then wrote a long reply to me, having nothing at all to do with the issue of that preceding exchange; and, you began that long reply with a quote, as if that were what you were responding to, when that quote was neither mine nor one that I had quoted, here or anywhere else. I did not accuse you of "stupid misinterpretation;" I merely asked you to explain why you had written that long reply to me, at all, let alone in reply to that particular comment of mine, made in answer to someone else's question to me. I could not understand it then; I cannot understand it now. Your claim, now, that it was a natural follow-up to my stating that most Zionists are gentiles strikes me as a bit odd-- for the simple reason that I had yet to say that when you posted that reply to me!?!

    The entire point of my first comment to the boreal professor, above, is summed up in its closing:

    "The comment to which you replied did not claim that Mr. Murdoch was Jewish; it claimed, quite correctly, that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist."

    I simply was defending Rehmat's labeling of Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist-- nothing more. Instead of proving that Rehmat's claim about Australia was wrong, the professor merely asserted the (questionable) claim that Mr. Murdoch is not Jewish, as if that settled the entire issue that Rehmat had raised about Australia. The professor did so in a way as to make it sound as if it were ludicrous, to the point of unbelievability, that anyone even could dare to assert that Mr. Murdoch is a Zionist. (As we later established, dispositively, the professor himself did not even know what a Zionist actually is!) In answer to Rehmat's pointing out that the new Australian prime minister had previously made the claim that his own mother was Jewish-- a claim that is far more dubious than anyone's claim that Rupert Murdoch's late mother was Jewish!-- the professor replied only to make a snide joke about his own mother's family being freemasons. That apparently is his idea of refuting an argument. As my own late mother would have advised: "Consider the source." (Of course, she was of Catholic stock, not the daughter of a freemason.)

    You are at least right, Sean, in noticing that I have been largely reiterating a lone issue: that of Rupert Murdoch's Zionism. You are wrong, however, in stating that it has been "not particularly on-topic." By replying to Rehmat as he did, the professor himself made it a relevant topic. My own reiterations, which you find so inscrutable, merely have been to defend my own original point in commenting here, in this string: whether Rehmat's opening statement about Australian history and Zionism is right or wrong, per se, he was absolutely correct in his listing Rupert Murdoch as a Zionist. As Unz.com's own Dr. Paul Gottfried commented, elsewhere, back in July of 2011:

    "The reason Murdoch is identified as a Jew is not that no one believes that a WASP can be a press baron. It is because Murdoch sounds like a quintessential New York Jew in his political utterances, from his blame-the-Christians- for -European -anti-Semitism attitude to his over-the-top Zionism."

    If I were an agnostic on the issue, otherwise, I would take the word of Professor Gottfried over that of Professor Frost, on the issue of any given public figure's being a Zionist or not. How about you, Sean? (Or, was your own mother a freemason's daughter, too?)

    If it makes you feel happy or superior, Sean, to blame me for someone else's repeatedly asking me to explain what "anti-Semitic nuts" are, and how they compare to other anti-Semites, while I reiterated that the phrase was Dr. Gottfried's, not mine, and was wholly immaterial to why I had quoted him, regardless, then fine! I have bigger problems to worry about-- like a five-run deficit in the seventh inning of an elimination game, where my future mother watched four World Series games, seventy years ago this month....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @D. K.
    Read 'em and weep, Professor:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Zionism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispositive

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiterate
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    If you are going to reckon you will need to tip a cap rather than a hat.

    :-)

    You would be right if I meant what you thought. Doff, I did not my hat….small change and the cheque!

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I meant that although you seem to be a person that would reckon, you do not seem to be a person who would use the word in conversation. The people that I hear using the word usually wear caps. Of course they write checks so that may explain it.

    Can you help me reconcile the following:

    off I go to post that cheque to AIPAC
    I am not attempting to whitewash the deleterious influence of the Lobby

    Do they allow you to specify that your contribution cannot be used in a deleterious manner?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Like in the UK, where until Blair left wing politics was mostly about economic issues, the Canadian left had different priorities from their American equivalents. The American hyper PCness I read about in Chronicles and National Review was fringe at my university; it was also less common in the UK than in the US – though they’ve obviously caught up since then.

    This was also my experience at university. There was an antiracist movement within the political left, but it was peripheral and largely concerned about economic issues. With the disintegration of the "old left," antiracism took on a life of its own, as was the case with much of what people call "Cultural Marxism"

    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question

    This isn't a genealogical forum. It may be that Rupert Murdoch's maternal grandfather had Jewish ancestors. I don't know and, frankly, the issue is irrelevant to the subject of my column.

    Do you even know what a Zionist is, Dr. Frost? Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation?

    A Zionist is a Jewish nationalist. Is it possible for a non-Jew to be a Jewish nationalist? Can I, as a Canadian, be an American nationalist? I don't think so. At most, I can be a friend and admirer of the U.S.

    Would you care to read that speech given to the Museum of Jewish Heritage: A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, a few years back, by Rupert Murdoch, cited by me above, and publicly declare, here and now, that Rupert Murdoch is not a Zionist, and could never be a Zionist, unless and until it were dispositively proven that he is of Jewish descent himself?


    No, I wouldn't care to read that speech, and I have no idea what "dispositively" means. I will publicly declare, however, that Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. He may be a friend of Israel but he is no more a Zionist than my late mother (who collected books on Israel).

    how do you answer the obvious objection that the supposedly guilt prone, empathetic, unclannish Germans were the ones to embrace the opposite in the form of Naziism?

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it's important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel "free riders", i.e., people who profit from guilt and empathy while giving nothing in return.

    Thus, in addition to guilt proneness and affective empathy, there is a third behavioral adaptation: greater susceptibility to belief in universal moral norms, as opposed to relativistic kin-based morality. People who violate such norms are treated as moral outcastes.

    Germans, like other Northwest Europeans, have a greater tendency to show concern for people beyond one's immediate kin, but this concern is contingent on compliance with moral norms that apply to everyone. If someone is identified as an "evil" person -- a witch, a Jew, or a racist -- that person must be expelled and/or killed.

    Being a "racist" in Germany today is like being a "Jew" in Germany in the 1930s. It's the same mindset. This point is made by Pierre-André Taguieff:

    If the racist is no longer an ignorant person but rather a villain, and if he is defined by his impulses or negative passions (hate, aggressive intolerance, etc.), then the evil is in him, and his case seems hopeless. The antiracist’s task is no longer to lead the "racist" towards goodness, but rather to isolate him as a carrier of evil. The "racist" must be singled out and stigmatized.

     

    Taguieff, P-A. (2013). Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme, Paris: PUF.

    What has changed in Germany between then and now is that the moral system has been radically reprogrammed. The mindset is still the same but it is now responding to new notions of right and wrong.

    it is interesting that Mr. Frost resorts to childish rhetoric when attacking anti-semites…”nuts” and “Jews, Jews” , Jews”

    I didn't call you a "nut." I said that certain commenters in this section are "obsessive." You and perhaps a half-dozen commenters are so narcissistic that you don't even see that you're speaking off-topic. As far as you're concerned there is only one topic. And that topic is Jews, Jews, Jews.

    You guys ruin almost every comment thread by insisting on your "right" to talk about your pet obsession. You're not so much offensive as dreadfully boring. You bore the rest of us to tears and cause many commenters to go elsewhere.

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it’s important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel “free riders”, i.e., people who profit from guilt and empathy while giving nothing in return.

    This sounds like a group selection argument. How likely is it that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction? It’s one thing to be an anti-social sociopath, and quite another to be not so zealous about sacrificing one’s own individual reproductive success or kin interests to benefit a large social group. To maintain this cultural system, presumably you’d not only have to punish the free riders but also benefit those who benefit the social group beyond the clan

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "It’s one thing to be an anti-social sociopath, and quite another to be not so zealous about sacrificing one’s own individual reproductive success or kin interests to benefit a large social group. But have you never heard of war?

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it’s important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel “free riders” Germans, like other Northwest Europeans, have a greater tendency to show concern for people beyond one’s immediate kin, but this concern is contingent on compliance with moral norms that apply to everyone. If someone is identified as an “evil” person — a witch, a Jew, or a racist — that person must be expelled and/or killed.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldj%C3%A4gerkorps

    By and large the Germans were more self sacrificing in the wars, though cowards were less tolerated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Like in the UK, where until Blair left wing politics was mostly about economic issues, the Canadian left had different priorities from their American equivalents. The American hyper PCness I read about in Chronicles and National Review was fringe at my university; it was also less common in the UK than in the US – though they’ve obviously caught up since then.

    This was also my experience at university. There was an antiracist movement within the political left, but it was peripheral and largely concerned about economic issues. With the disintegration of the "old left," antiracism took on a life of its own, as was the case with much of what people call "Cultural Marxism"

    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question

    This isn't a genealogical forum. It may be that Rupert Murdoch's maternal grandfather had Jewish ancestors. I don't know and, frankly, the issue is irrelevant to the subject of my column.

    Do you even know what a Zionist is, Dr. Frost? Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation?

    A Zionist is a Jewish nationalist. Is it possible for a non-Jew to be a Jewish nationalist? Can I, as a Canadian, be an American nationalist? I don't think so. At most, I can be a friend and admirer of the U.S.

    Would you care to read that speech given to the Museum of Jewish Heritage: A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, a few years back, by Rupert Murdoch, cited by me above, and publicly declare, here and now, that Rupert Murdoch is not a Zionist, and could never be a Zionist, unless and until it were dispositively proven that he is of Jewish descent himself?


    No, I wouldn't care to read that speech, and I have no idea what "dispositively" means. I will publicly declare, however, that Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. He may be a friend of Israel but he is no more a Zionist than my late mother (who collected books on Israel).

    how do you answer the obvious objection that the supposedly guilt prone, empathetic, unclannish Germans were the ones to embrace the opposite in the form of Naziism?

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it's important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel "free riders", i.e., people who profit from guilt and empathy while giving nothing in return.

    Thus, in addition to guilt proneness and affective empathy, there is a third behavioral adaptation: greater susceptibility to belief in universal moral norms, as opposed to relativistic kin-based morality. People who violate such norms are treated as moral outcastes.

    Germans, like other Northwest Europeans, have a greater tendency to show concern for people beyond one's immediate kin, but this concern is contingent on compliance with moral norms that apply to everyone. If someone is identified as an "evil" person -- a witch, a Jew, or a racist -- that person must be expelled and/or killed.

    Being a "racist" in Germany today is like being a "Jew" in Germany in the 1930s. It's the same mindset. This point is made by Pierre-André Taguieff:

    If the racist is no longer an ignorant person but rather a villain, and if he is defined by his impulses or negative passions (hate, aggressive intolerance, etc.), then the evil is in him, and his case seems hopeless. The antiracist’s task is no longer to lead the "racist" towards goodness, but rather to isolate him as a carrier of evil. The "racist" must be singled out and stigmatized.

     

    Taguieff, P-A. (2013). Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme, Paris: PUF.

    What has changed in Germany between then and now is that the moral system has been radically reprogrammed. The mindset is still the same but it is now responding to new notions of right and wrong.

    it is interesting that Mr. Frost resorts to childish rhetoric when attacking anti-semites…”nuts” and “Jews, Jews” , Jews”

    I didn't call you a "nut." I said that certain commenters in this section are "obsessive." You and perhaps a half-dozen commenters are so narcissistic that you don't even see that you're speaking off-topic. As far as you're concerned there is only one topic. And that topic is Jews, Jews, Jews.

    You guys ruin almost every comment thread by insisting on your "right" to talk about your pet obsession. You're not so much offensive as dreadfully boring. You bore the rest of us to tears and cause many commenters to go elsewhere.
    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-102/the-last-romantic-zionist-gentile
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Thank you for your comments and responses. I do not have an obsession with anti-Semitism. I simply desire a better understanding of it. I saw where you used the phrase, “anti-Semitic nuts,” which led me to think that you might have some understanding or insight regarding the subject. I can see that we have very different styles of inquiry, so I will not trouble you any further.

    For the umpteenth time, I did not use the phrase “anti-Semitic nuts;” I quoted Dr. Paul Gottfried, who is now a contributor at this Web site, from a comment that he had left, in response to Steve Sailer, also now of this Web site, at another Web site, back in July of 2011. Dr. Gottfried’s use of that term was utterly immaterial to the obvious reason that I quoted his entire comment. Only Dr. Gottfried himself can tell you what he means, or meant, in using the term “anti-Semitic nuts,” and whether or not he himself believes that there are any other kinds of “anti-Semites”– which, again, to me, as someone formally trained in English, History, Psychology and Law, inter alia, appears to have no social-scientifically valid and reliable definition, such that anyone, anywhere, would be able to categorize a person as either an “anti-Semite” or not, and that categorization would, by definition, match one made by anyone else, anywhere. In other words, “anti-Semite” itself, while supposedly a straightforwardly descriptive term, is, in fact, used primarily as just a slur– just as the slang usage of the common noun “nut(s)” itself is, by default! Thus, to my mind, “anti-Semitic nuts” is nothing but a compound slur. In the way that Dr. Gottfried was using it, I see nothing at all wrong with it. I am not against using slurs, per se; I am merely particular about when, where and how they are employed. I do not myself refer, in public, to people with severe mental illness as “nuts.” In a legal setting, they are “insane.” In a clinical setting, they are “psychotic.” When I do choose to tell someone that he is “nuts,” I am not saying to him that he is literally “insane” and/or “psychotic;” I am merely slurring him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama
    During the past six months as a frequent reader of the UR, I reckon I have learned much, discovered a new appreciation of my identity as a Jew, and for now, I do revel, secure in the knowledge of that deep, devilish wellspring of power I am endowed with.

    Hat tip to all, off I go to post that cheque to AIPAC.

    If you are going to reckon you will need to tip a cap rather than a hat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    :-)

    You would be right if I meant what you thought. Doff, I did not my hat....small change and the cheque!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Like in the UK, where until Blair left wing politics was mostly about economic issues, the Canadian left had different priorities from their American equivalents. The American hyper PCness I read about in Chronicles and National Review was fringe at my university; it was also less common in the UK than in the US – though they’ve obviously caught up since then.

    This was also my experience at university. There was an antiracist movement within the political left, but it was peripheral and largely concerned about economic issues. With the disintegration of the “old left,” antiracism took on a life of its own, as was the case with much of what people call “Cultural Marxism”

    Neither above nor anywhere else have I affirmatively asserted that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I consider the possibility of his being Jewish by matrilineal descent to be an open question

    This isn’t a genealogical forum. It may be that Rupert Murdoch’s maternal grandfather had Jewish ancestors. I don’t know and, frankly, the issue is irrelevant to the subject of my column.

    Do you even know what a Zionist is, Dr. Frost? Do you know that most people who consider themselves to be Zionists are not themselves Jewish, in any sense of that designation?

    A Zionist is a Jewish nationalist. Is it possible for a non-Jew to be a Jewish nationalist? Can I, as a Canadian, be an American nationalist? I don’t think so. At most, I can be a friend and admirer of the U.S.

    Would you care to read that speech given to the Museum of Jewish Heritage: A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, a few years back, by Rupert Murdoch, cited by me above, and publicly declare, here and now, that Rupert Murdoch is not a Zionist, and could never be a Zionist, unless and until it were dispositively proven that he is of Jewish descent himself?

    No, I wouldn’t care to read that speech, and I have no idea what “dispositively” means. I will publicly declare, however, that Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. He may be a friend of Israel but he is no more a Zionist than my late mother (who collected books on Israel).

    how do you answer the obvious objection that the supposedly guilt prone, empathetic, unclannish Germans were the ones to embrace the opposite in the form of Naziism?

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it’s important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel “free riders”, i.e., people who profit from guilt and empathy while giving nothing in return.

    Thus, in addition to guilt proneness and affective empathy, there is a third behavioral adaptation: greater susceptibility to belief in universal moral norms, as opposed to relativistic kin-based morality. People who violate such norms are treated as moral outcastes.

    Germans, like other Northwest Europeans, have a greater tendency to show concern for people beyond one’s immediate kin, but this concern is contingent on compliance with moral norms that apply to everyone. If someone is identified as an “evil” person — a witch, a Jew, or a racist — that person must be expelled and/or killed.

    Being a “racist” in Germany today is like being a “Jew” in Germany in the 1930s. It’s the same mindset. This point is made by Pierre-André Taguieff:

    If the racist is no longer an ignorant person but rather a villain, and if he is defined by his impulses or negative passions (hate, aggressive intolerance, etc.), then the evil is in him, and his case seems hopeless. The antiracist’s task is no longer to lead the “racist” towards goodness, but rather to isolate him as a carrier of evil. The “racist” must be singled out and stigmatized.

    Taguieff, P-A. (2013). Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme, Paris: PUF.

    What has changed in Germany between then and now is that the moral system has been radically reprogrammed. The mindset is still the same but it is now responding to new notions of right and wrong.

    it is interesting that Mr. Frost resorts to childish rhetoric when attacking anti-semites…”nuts” and “Jews, Jews” , Jews”

    I didn’t call you a “nut.” I said that certain commenters in this section are “obsessive.” You and perhaps a half-dozen commenters are so narcissistic that you don’t even see that you’re speaking off-topic. As far as you’re concerned there is only one topic. And that topic is Jews, Jews, Jews.

    You guys ruin almost every comment thread by insisting on your “right” to talk about your pet obsession. You’re not so much offensive as dreadfully boring. You bore the rest of us to tears and cause many commenters to go elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Read 'em and weep, Professor:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Zionism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispositive

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiterate
    , @Anonymous

    Guilt proneness and affective empathy are means of building social solidarity beyond the circle of close kinship ties, i.e., beyond the clan. To maintain this cultural system, it’s important to identify, discipline and, if necessary, expel “free riders”, i.e., people who profit from guilt and empathy while giving nothing in return.
     
    This sounds like a group selection argument. How likely is it that guilt proneness and effective empathy evolved as instruments of aiding non-kin or non-individual reproduction? It's one thing to be an anti-social sociopath, and quite another to be not so zealous about sacrificing one's own individual reproductive success or kin interests to benefit a large social group. To maintain this cultural system, presumably you'd not only have to punish the free riders but also benefit those who benefit the social group beyond the clan
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    What has changed in Germany between then and now is that the moral system has been radically reprogrammed. The mindset is still the same but it is now responding to new notions of right and wrong.
     
    Then Naziism was a universalistic doctrine despite being racially clannish. I suppose it would be universalistic at a meta level, in that distinctions of clan are elevated into having universal significance. The contrast between the meta-universalistic and the clannish: 'Canadian jobs for Canadians' is a "clannish" slogan, but hbd [like Naziism] is a universalistic doctrine that would motivate and justify clannish behavior. [Outbred substitutes for 'Aryan.']
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.