The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
A New, Improved Declaration of Independence for the Current Year
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Commenter FX Enderby updates the Declaration of Independence:

We hold Our Values to be self-evident, that all Billionaires are endowed by The Economy with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Cheap Labor, Open Borders and the repression of contrary opinions. That to secure these rights, Global Financial Oligarchs are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from manufactured consent of the governed. That whenever any act of Congress restricts the free flow of Cheap Labor, it is the Right of the Oligarchs to alter or to abolish it, and to instruct the Supreme Court, or any available court, to ignore such laws.

We, the self appointed Elite Oligarchs of Global Finance, in Davos, Assembled, appealing to the Reified Economy, Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, by Authority of Our Media, solemnly publish and declare, That WE, the Supeme Owners of the United States Government, are, and of Right ought to be, Absolved from all Allegiance to the citizens of the United States and that We have full Power to declare War on, utterly dispossess, replace at whim, or totally dissolve such citizens; and to do all other Acts and Things which Greedy Psychopaths may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Economy, we mutually pledge to greedily increase our Fortunes, by any means necessary regardless of any obsolete conceptions of Honor.

 
Hide 69 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Here is a question.

    The Jewish Neocons are always professing their love for America the Idea, the purely “propositional” country abstracted from certain universalist assertions contained in the Declaration of Independence announcing our reasons for armed rebellion against the British Empire, but they deprecate the idea of an American people or an American nation.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I suggest that notwithstanding their effusive praise of the Declaration of Independence, they would have sided with the globalist imperialists in London. They would have had little sympathy for the prosperous colonists’ resistance to ponying up their share of the expenses for the Seven Years’ War and the effort by the Crown and the oligarchs of their day at the East India Company and other ventures to establish and secure greater global networks of resources and trade.

    And I would guess they would have found very clever the Crown’s strategy of inciting the Indian tribes against the white Christian colonists to open another front in the war.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I think this is actually a harder question than the first one. Would they have allied with Robespierre or would they have insinuated themselves with the Ministers of Court? This one is hard to say.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here's a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/may-17-the-buttonwood-agreement/

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    So, which side you were on was probably a mixed bag back then, as it was in general for people of all ethnicities in 1776.

    Similarly, American Jews during the Civil War tended to side with their neighbors. Jews likely made up a higher percentage of the administrative talent in the Confederacy than in the Union, so Judah P. Benjamin played a much bigger role in the South than any Jew played in the North during the Civil War. But that's a small sample size.

    In general, British Jews in Britain tended to see the British Empire as a good thing. E.g., Disraeli, a convert to Christianity, did much to promote Imperialism as glamorous.

    The Jewish role in South Africa up until 1948 was pretty huge.

    , @Cagey Beast
    Neocons are a faction that developed at the centre of an already well established empire. If their ethnic predecessors found themselves in the American Colonies they could have gone either way. They could have reverted to their Trotskyite instincts and sided with Oliver Cromwell's intellectual heirs. The American Revolution was fuelled, at least in part, by the regicidal Protestant permanent revolution of the century before. This would have drawn a least some of your hypothetical neocons to the rebel side.
    , @Clyde

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?
     
    Hayem Solomon provided crucial financial support to George Washington's army. I was taught this in elementary school. I doubt Jews helped the British on this scale.

    In August 1781, the Continental Army had trapped Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis in the Virginian coastal town of Yorktown. George Washington and the main army and Count de Rochambeau with his French army decided to march from the Hudson Highlands to Yorktown and deliver the final blow. But Washington's war chest was completely empty, as was that of Congress. Without food, uniforms and supplies, Washington's troops were close to mutiny.[9] Washington determined that he needed at least $20,000 to finance the campaign. When Morris told him there were no funds and no credit available, Washington gave him a simple but eloquent order: "Send for Haym Salomon". Salomon raised $20,000, through the sale of bills of exchange. With that, and the $1,400,000 personally loaned by Robert Morris,[10] Washington conducted the Yorktown campaign, which proved to be the final battle of the Revolution.[5]

    From the period of 1781–84, records show Salomon's fundraising and personal lending helped provide over $650,000 (approximately $16,870,212.74 in 2013 dollars [8]) in financing to George Washington in his war effort. His most meaningful financial contribution, however, came immediately prior to the final revolutionary war battle at Yorktown.[9]

    Salomon brokered the sale of a majority of the war aid from France and the Dutch Republic, selling bills of exchange to American merchants. Salomon also personally supported various members of the Continental Congress during their stay in Philadelphia, including James Madison and James Wilson. He requested below-market interest rates, and he never asked for repayment.[11]

    Salomon is believed to have granted outright bequests to men that he thought were unsung heroes of the revolution who had become impoverished during the war. One example is Bodo Otto, a senior surgeon in the continental army. Otto joined the army at the age of 65 and served for the entire war. Among other things, he established the hospital at Valley Forge, where he often used his own funds to purchase medical supplies. Due to Salomon's bequest, Otto was able to rebuild his medical practice in Reading, Pennsylvania at war's end.

    The financier died suddenly and in poverty on January 8, 1785, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after contracting tuberculosis in prison. Due to the failure of governments and private lenders to repay the debt incurred by the war, his family was left penniless at his death at age 44.[9]
     

    , @kaganovitch
    Gershom Sholem , the great historian of Mysticism, posited out sized Jewish (specifically Sabbatian and crypto-Sabbatian influence on the French Revolution. He anticipated devoting a lengthy monograph to the subject, but he never got around to it.. Other historians who looked at the French Revolution did not support Sholem iirc
    , @Pericles

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

     

    It wouldn't surprise me if the Talmud holds the words "Always hedge thy bets. I am the LORD". (OK, maybe not the last part.) This simple maxim, I would say, has served their people well.
    , @MBlanc46
    Jewish neocons and the entire corporate Repub party.
  2. It should be obvious that the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution so that Mark Zuckerberg could import cheap programmers to do the jobs Americans won’t do.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    jobs that Americans have to train their replacements to do.
  3. @Achilles
    Here is a question.

    The Jewish Neocons are always professing their love for America the Idea, the purely "propositional" country abstracted from certain universalist assertions contained in the Declaration of Independence announcing our reasons for armed rebellion against the British Empire, but they deprecate the idea of an American people or an American nation.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I suggest that notwithstanding their effusive praise of the Declaration of Independence, they would have sided with the globalist imperialists in London. They would have had little sympathy for the prosperous colonists' resistance to ponying up their share of the expenses for the Seven Years' War and the effort by the Crown and the oligarchs of their day at the East India Company and other ventures to establish and secure greater global networks of resources and trade.

    And I would guess they would have found very clever the Crown's strategy of inciting the Indian tribes against the white Christian colonists to open another front in the war.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I think this is actually a harder question than the first one. Would they have allied with Robespierre or would they have insinuated themselves with the Ministers of Court? This one is hard to say.

    Here’s a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/may-17-the-buttonwood-agreement/

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    So, which side you were on was probably a mixed bag back then, as it was in general for people of all ethnicities in 1776.

    Similarly, American Jews during the Civil War tended to side with their neighbors. Jews likely made up a higher percentage of the administrative talent in the Confederacy than in the Union, so Judah P. Benjamin played a much bigger role in the South than any Jew played in the North during the Civil War. But that’s a small sample size.

    In general, British Jews in Britain tended to see the British Empire as a good thing. E.g., Disraeli, a convert to Christianity, did much to promote Imperialism as glamorous.

    The Jewish role in South Africa up until 1948 was pretty huge.

    • Replies: @Achilles
    Steve, no question that many of the actual Jews we had back then were patriotic and swayed by the same concerns and arguments as their neighbors.

    Among the merchant houses of Philadelphia there were Jewish firms and without looking it up I seem to recall they tended Patriot. The Levys come to mind. I could be wrong.

    But anyway, the roots of our contemporary neocons are not in those Jews, but rather the wave of Jews from Eastern Europe in the 20th Century.

    So I would respectfully demur on relevancy grounds.
    , @snorlax

    Here’s a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.
     
    Interesting — I was always under the impression that the significant Jewish presence on Wall Street didn't begin until the latter half of the 19th century.

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.
     
    It was quite a statement for a New York banker to openly favor the revolutionaries, since NYC was the loyalist capital (it remained under British occupation for the duration of the war), and the upper classes leaned loyalist.

    Anyway, no doubt the neocons would've been pro-revolution, seeing as the revolutionaries were all about starting wars based on blatant lies and extremist/hypocritical interpretations of abstract ideology.
    , @AndrewR
    Their role up until 1994 was significant too.
    , @Father O'Hara
    For ALL ethnicities? I can think of one that leaned,I'd wager,to the Patriot side by a wide margin.
    , @5371
    The 24 most influential men on the NYSE in 1792 had several orders of magnitude less importance to the US economy as a whole than would the 24 most influential men on the NYSE in 1892 or 1992.
  4. @Steve Sailer
    Here's a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/may-17-the-buttonwood-agreement/

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    So, which side you were on was probably a mixed bag back then, as it was in general for people of all ethnicities in 1776.

    Similarly, American Jews during the Civil War tended to side with their neighbors. Jews likely made up a higher percentage of the administrative talent in the Confederacy than in the Union, so Judah P. Benjamin played a much bigger role in the South than any Jew played in the North during the Civil War. But that's a small sample size.

    In general, British Jews in Britain tended to see the British Empire as a good thing. E.g., Disraeli, a convert to Christianity, did much to promote Imperialism as glamorous.

    The Jewish role in South Africa up until 1948 was pretty huge.

    Steve, no question that many of the actual Jews we had back then were patriotic and swayed by the same concerns and arguments as their neighbors.

    Among the merchant houses of Philadelphia there were Jewish firms and without looking it up I seem to recall they tended Patriot. The Levys come to mind. I could be wrong.

    But anyway, the roots of our contemporary neocons are not in those Jews, but rather the wave of Jews from Eastern Europe in the 20th Century.

    So I would respectfully demur on relevancy grounds.

    • Replies: @JohnnyD
    I think you're right. The Sephardic and Central European Jews tended to be less hostile to the majority American population. A lot of the Zionism and political radicalism came from Eastern European Jews. Paul Gottfried has written a lot about this topic.
    , @Moshe
    "Actual" Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?
  5. @Achilles
    Steve, no question that many of the actual Jews we had back then were patriotic and swayed by the same concerns and arguments as their neighbors.

    Among the merchant houses of Philadelphia there were Jewish firms and without looking it up I seem to recall they tended Patriot. The Levys come to mind. I could be wrong.

    But anyway, the roots of our contemporary neocons are not in those Jews, but rather the wave of Jews from Eastern Europe in the 20th Century.

    So I would respectfully demur on relevancy grounds.

    I think you’re right. The Sephardic and Central European Jews tended to be less hostile to the majority American population. A lot of the Zionism and political radicalism came from Eastern European Jews. Paul Gottfried has written a lot about this topic.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Zack de la Rocha begs to differ
  6. @Steve Sailer
    Here's a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/may-17-the-buttonwood-agreement/

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    So, which side you were on was probably a mixed bag back then, as it was in general for people of all ethnicities in 1776.

    Similarly, American Jews during the Civil War tended to side with their neighbors. Jews likely made up a higher percentage of the administrative talent in the Confederacy than in the Union, so Judah P. Benjamin played a much bigger role in the South than any Jew played in the North during the Civil War. But that's a small sample size.

    In general, British Jews in Britain tended to see the British Empire as a good thing. E.g., Disraeli, a convert to Christianity, did much to promote Imperialism as glamorous.

    The Jewish role in South Africa up until 1948 was pretty huge.

    Here’s a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    Interesting — I was always under the impression that the significant Jewish presence on Wall Street didn’t begin until the latter half of the 19th century.

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    It was quite a statement for a New York banker to openly favor the revolutionaries, since NYC was the loyalist capital (it remained under British occupation for the duration of the war), and the upper classes leaned loyalist.

    Anyway, no doubt the neocons would’ve been pro-revolution, seeing as the revolutionaries were all about starting wars based on blatant lies and extremist/hypocritical interpretations of abstract ideology.

  7. Meanwhile, Soros and company are stirring up trouble in France:

  8. Not enough anti-white contempt and loathing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Agreed -- is there some rhetorical advantage to putting all this on the greedy men behind the curtain and not on the many with the obvious desire to give diversity good and hard to heritage America, right in its zipped-up mouth?

    Are the progressive academics finessing this version of the Constitution when they're screaming about "abolishing white supremacy"?

    But back on topic:


    Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump's Immigration Stance in Annual Letter

    Warren Buffett, in his annual letter, says you don't have to be an economist to understand one of the key factors that has made America great: Immigration.

    Nonetheless, the statement from Buffett, the world's third richest man, may attract some controversy this year. As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to restrict immigration. And now as president, he has been working to introduce stringent limitations on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

    Buffett ... writes that America's economic growth has been "miraculous." He says one of the main reasons for that has been a tide of "talented and ambitious immigrants" to the U.S.
     

  9. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The problem is not just neocons. These days there are lots of people representing elites from all over the world, who are happily and assiduously working away in the bowls of US multinational corporations (which includes Wall Street Banks and Silicon Valley) to further the American World State. (AWS. Hummn.)

    A lot of elites from far-off third world places want the US to be the world empire, as long as they get to be part of the US World State aristocracy. Little details, like who the American people actually were, are presumably eventually to get lost in the telling. All these elites will not only rule, they will get wealthy, prosper, and run the world.

    How did this come to pass? One probable cause is US WWII and Cold War propaganda, with roots in Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about the world order after WWI.

    The US did not really have a catchy ideology or a story to counter communism. Communism was clearly attractive to third-world elites (the first world being the West and the second world the communists); when given the chance afer WWII many newly independent third world countries went communist (although it turned out it was often one man, one vote, one time).

    So the shapers of US grand strategy, such as “the 6 Wise Men”, painted a story of, at least with respect to the world’s elites, an Open Society, a borderless world, a version of H.G.Wells
    “New World Order”. An America above nationalism and beyond looking out for its own. An America in which a sufficiently rich and well enough player from anywhere in the world (including the communist world) could freely move and do well and come to realize that they were having a better time (and hey, getting prettier girls) than back in their own nation or communist utopia.

    It’s dangerous to live your own propaganda. But that’s what America has been trying to do.

    The people who thought of this were not elected. They were themselves honorable, selfless men, mostly of wealth, who lived lives of public service (that is, they were professional civil servants and policy wonks with government careers, that came out of the Wilson tradition). Men such as “The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made”, Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, 1986. Not everyone can afford to be as selfless as these powerful players.

    (The 6 friends the title of the above book references were Dean Acheson, Charles E. Bohlen, W. Averell Harriman, George F. Kennan, Robert A. Lovett, and John J. McCloy. They were not alone, but they are probably representative.)

    Over half a century on, and with the Cold War won, there are no men of similar stature or eye to global strategy to subtly put the brakes back on. So we probably have to explicitly do it ourselves.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    Over half a century on, and with the Cold War won, there are no men of similar stature or eye to global strategy to subtly put the brakes back on. So we probably have to explicitly do it ourselves.
     
    James Baker and George Shultz are probably the last examples of the breed. Larry Summers tries to impersonate the type. For a brief moment in the 1990s, he managed to convince some, but his cover has been blown for a long time now —with the exception of Obama who bought his line.
  10. Dead Kennedys – California Über Alles

    • Replies: @Anonym
    I was going to post that back when we were talking about dams, decided against it.
  11. @Achilles
    Here is a question.

    The Jewish Neocons are always professing their love for America the Idea, the purely "propositional" country abstracted from certain universalist assertions contained in the Declaration of Independence announcing our reasons for armed rebellion against the British Empire, but they deprecate the idea of an American people or an American nation.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I suggest that notwithstanding their effusive praise of the Declaration of Independence, they would have sided with the globalist imperialists in London. They would have had little sympathy for the prosperous colonists' resistance to ponying up their share of the expenses for the Seven Years' War and the effort by the Crown and the oligarchs of their day at the East India Company and other ventures to establish and secure greater global networks of resources and trade.

    And I would guess they would have found very clever the Crown's strategy of inciting the Indian tribes against the white Christian colonists to open another front in the war.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I think this is actually a harder question than the first one. Would they have allied with Robespierre or would they have insinuated themselves with the Ministers of Court? This one is hard to say.

    Neocons are a faction that developed at the centre of an already well established empire. If their ethnic predecessors found themselves in the American Colonies they could have gone either way. They could have reverted to their Trotskyite instincts and sided with Oliver Cromwell’s intellectual heirs. The American Revolution was fuelled, at least in part, by the regicidal Protestant permanent revolution of the century before. This would have drawn a least some of your hypothetical neocons to the rebel side.

  12. OT: Google AI that shows you how racist you are, so you can self-censor:

    http://perspectiveapi.com

  13. You going to need that Independence charter, the T-coats are coming!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/24/my-7-year-old-daughter-henry-is-transgender-shed-change-trumps-mind/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.27a1db804869

    I particularly liked this part

    We had told Henry that she could use whatever bathroom she wanted because the president said so. Well, the former president said so. The new president said no.

    Talk about outsourcing parent-hood.

  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Kylie
    Not enough anti-white contempt and loathing.

    Agreed — is there some rhetorical advantage to putting all this on the greedy men behind the curtain and not on the many with the obvious desire to give diversity good and hard to heritage America, right in its zipped-up mouth?

    Are the progressive academics finessing this version of the Constitution when they’re screaming about “abolishing white supremacy”?

    But back on topic:

    Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump’s Immigration Stance in Annual Letter

    Warren Buffett, in his annual letter, says you don’t have to be an economist to understand one of the key factors that has made America great: Immigration.

    Nonetheless, the statement from Buffett, the world’s third richest man, may attract some controversy this year. As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to restrict immigration. And now as president, he has been working to introduce stringent limitations on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

    Buffett … writes that America’s economic growth has been “miraculous.” He says one of the main reasons for that has been a tide of “talented and ambitious immigrants” to the U.S.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump’s Immigration Stance in Annual Letter
    Warren Buffett, in his annual letter, says you don’t have to be an economist to understand one of the key factors that has made America great: Immigration.
     
    Apres moi le deluge.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump’s Immigration Stance in Annual Letter."

    Proving, yet again, that nobody nowadays seems to know the meaning of the word "refute".
  15. @Achilles
    Steve, no question that many of the actual Jews we had back then were patriotic and swayed by the same concerns and arguments as their neighbors.

    Among the merchant houses of Philadelphia there were Jewish firms and without looking it up I seem to recall they tended Patriot. The Levys come to mind. I could be wrong.

    But anyway, the roots of our contemporary neocons are not in those Jews, but rather the wave of Jews from Eastern Europe in the 20th Century.

    So I would respectfully demur on relevancy grounds.

    “Actual” Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?

    • Replies: @Amasius
    I used to work with a Sephardic Jewish guy and I overheard him tell someone, presumably Sephardic also, that the Ashkenazim were "wannabe Jews," maybe because of the European admixture; but I never followed up with him. I wonder if that's a common attitude among Sephardim or that was just his personal opinion.
    , @Achilles

    “Actual” Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?
     
    No, I was distinguishing the actual Jews who lived back then from my hypothetically transported-back-in-time Neocon Jews of today.

    My question was whether these Neocon Jews of today, who claim to be so enamored of the American Declaration of Independence but are manifestly rather less so of the legacy American people, would in the event have sided with the American people had they actually been around in those times.

    I suggest that when one considers their worldview in full, it would have fit better with the globalist outlook of the imperialist commercial interests in London rather than the American colonists.

    And doesn't it go without saying that our latter-day Neocon Jews like the David Brookses and Jennifer Rubins and Bill Kristols and Jonah Goldbergs and Bret Stephenses are not representative of American Jews generally?

    Most American Jews are not neoconservative. Though they are and have been very influential in media, politics and government, the Jewish Neocons represent a rather small thread among American Jews.

    , @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?"
    I looked up 'Khazar Milkers' on the Internet. Seems legit to me.
  16. @Achilles
    Here is a question.

    The Jewish Neocons are always professing their love for America the Idea, the purely "propositional" country abstracted from certain universalist assertions contained in the Declaration of Independence announcing our reasons for armed rebellion against the British Empire, but they deprecate the idea of an American people or an American nation.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I suggest that notwithstanding their effusive praise of the Declaration of Independence, they would have sided with the globalist imperialists in London. They would have had little sympathy for the prosperous colonists' resistance to ponying up their share of the expenses for the Seven Years' War and the effort by the Crown and the oligarchs of their day at the East India Company and other ventures to establish and secure greater global networks of resources and trade.

    And I would guess they would have found very clever the Crown's strategy of inciting the Indian tribes against the white Christian colonists to open another front in the war.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I think this is actually a harder question than the first one. Would they have allied with Robespierre or would they have insinuated themselves with the Ministers of Court? This one is hard to say.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    Hayem Solomon provided crucial financial support to George Washington’s army. I was taught this in elementary school. I doubt Jews helped the British on this scale.

    In August 1781, the Continental Army had trapped Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis in the Virginian coastal town of Yorktown. George Washington and the main army and Count de Rochambeau with his French army decided to march from the Hudson Highlands to Yorktown and deliver the final blow. But Washington’s war chest was completely empty, as was that of Congress. Without food, uniforms and supplies, Washington’s troops were close to mutiny.[9] Washington determined that he needed at least $20,000 to finance the campaign. When Morris told him there were no funds and no credit available, Washington gave him a simple but eloquent order: “Send for Haym Salomon”. Salomon raised $20,000, through the sale of bills of exchange. With that, and the $1,400,000 personally loaned by Robert Morris,[10] Washington conducted the Yorktown campaign, which proved to be the final battle of the Revolution.[5]

    From the period of 1781–84, records show Salomon’s fundraising and personal lending helped provide over $650,000 (approximately $16,870,212.74 in 2013 dollars [8]) in financing to George Washington in his war effort. His most meaningful financial contribution, however, came immediately prior to the final revolutionary war battle at Yorktown.[9]

    Salomon brokered the sale of a majority of the war aid from France and the Dutch Republic, selling bills of exchange to American merchants. Salomon also personally supported various members of the Continental Congress during their stay in Philadelphia, including James Madison and James Wilson. He requested below-market interest rates, and he never asked for repayment.[11]

    Salomon is believed to have granted outright bequests to men that he thought were unsung heroes of the revolution who had become impoverished during the war. One example is Bodo Otto, a senior surgeon in the continental army. Otto joined the army at the age of 65 and served for the entire war. Among other things, he established the hospital at Valley Forge, where he often used his own funds to purchase medical supplies. Due to Salomon’s bequest, Otto was able to rebuild his medical practice in Reading, Pennsylvania at war’s end.

    The financier died suddenly and in poverty on January 8, 1785, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after contracting tuberculosis in prison. Due to the failure of governments and private lenders to repay the debt incurred by the war, his family was left penniless at his death at age 44.[9]

    • Replies: @Millennial
    Wow. Just Wow.

    Here's the truth of Solomon's involvement in the war, from the Journal of the American Revolution. Recent, original research.

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/

    Summary: he actually didn't help finance the war at all. Certain people lied and said he did, and repeated lies in secondary sources.

    The article is really a nice expose of historical retconning.

    Haym Solomon as the financier of the Revolution is about as accurate as Alexander Hamilton, Caribbean immigrant.
  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Buffett … writes that America’s economic growth has been “miraculous.” He says one of the main reasons for that has been a tide of “talented and ambitious immigrants” to the U.S.

    It’s been 130 years since the start of the Great Wave of immigration and we still haven’t assimilated many of them! One could argue that every non-English group still holds significant resentments toward the founding stock.

    The New Great Wave is much much larger in absolute numbers! And it is much more alien in genetic and cultural distance from core America.

    The most annoying thing about Buffet’s comments is that he JUST DOESN’T CARE how much immigration has already taken place recently or otherwise. This is akin to a doctor prescribing drugs to a patient with no regard to the patient’s medical history.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Buffett is 86 years old. 86 year olds may have a good recollection of events but I would never trust their fluid intelligence.
  18. @Anonymous
    Agreed -- is there some rhetorical advantage to putting all this on the greedy men behind the curtain and not on the many with the obvious desire to give diversity good and hard to heritage America, right in its zipped-up mouth?

    Are the progressive academics finessing this version of the Constitution when they're screaming about "abolishing white supremacy"?

    But back on topic:


    Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump's Immigration Stance in Annual Letter

    Warren Buffett, in his annual letter, says you don't have to be an economist to understand one of the key factors that has made America great: Immigration.

    Nonetheless, the statement from Buffett, the world's third richest man, may attract some controversy this year. As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to restrict immigration. And now as president, he has been working to introduce stringent limitations on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

    Buffett ... writes that America's economic growth has been "miraculous." He says one of the main reasons for that has been a tide of "talented and ambitious immigrants" to the U.S.
     

    Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump’s Immigration Stance in Annual Letter
    Warren Buffett, in his annual letter, says you don’t have to be an economist to understand one of the key factors that has made America great: Immigration.

    Apres moi le deluge.

  19. OT, but a great addition to iSteve’s collection of white Mexican politicians. Probably the whitest yet. I give you Arturo Escobar y Vega, green party MP from Mexico City of all places.

    http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134469-Classify-this-blond-Mexican-male-politician

    Came across him looking for the pomo anthropologist Arturo Escobar (who is more averagely white for a Latin American, to the point he may be 1/8 or so indigenous.

  20. @anonymous
    The problem is not just neocons. These days there are lots of people representing elites from all over the world, who are happily and assiduously working away in the bowls of US multinational corporations (which includes Wall Street Banks and Silicon Valley) to further the American World State. (AWS. Hummn.)

    A lot of elites from far-off third world places want the US to be the world empire, as long as they get to be part of the US World State aristocracy. Little details, like who the American people actually were, are presumably eventually to get lost in the telling. All these elites will not only rule, they will get wealthy, prosper, and run the world.

    How did this come to pass? One probable cause is US WWII and Cold War propaganda, with roots in Woodrow Wilson's ideas about the world order after WWI.

    The US did not really have a catchy ideology or a story to counter communism. Communism was clearly attractive to third-world elites (the first world being the West and the second world the communists); when given the chance afer WWII many newly independent third world countries went communist (although it turned out it was often one man, one vote, one time).

    So the shapers of US grand strategy, such as "the 6 Wise Men", painted a story of, at least with respect to the world's elites, an Open Society, a borderless world, a version of H.G.Wells
    "New World Order". An America above nationalism and beyond looking out for its own. An America in which a sufficiently rich and well enough player from anywhere in the world (including the communist world) could freely move and do well and come to realize that they were having a better time (and hey, getting prettier girls) than back in their own nation or communist utopia.

    It's dangerous to live your own propaganda. But that's what America has been trying to do.

    The people who thought of this were not elected. They were themselves honorable, selfless men, mostly of wealth, who lived lives of public service (that is, they were professional civil servants and policy wonks with government careers, that came out of the Wilson tradition). Men such as "The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made", Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, 1986. Not everyone can afford to be as selfless as these powerful players.

    (The 6 friends the title of the above book references were Dean Acheson, Charles E. Bohlen, W. Averell Harriman, George F. Kennan, Robert A. Lovett, and John J. McCloy. They were not alone, but they are probably representative.)

    Over half a century on, and with the Cold War won, there are no men of similar stature or eye to global strategy to subtly put the brakes back on. So we probably have to explicitly do it ourselves.

    Over half a century on, and with the Cold War won, there are no men of similar stature or eye to global strategy to subtly put the brakes back on. So we probably have to explicitly do it ourselves.

    James Baker and George Shultz are probably the last examples of the breed. Larry Summers tries to impersonate the type. For a brief moment in the 1990s, he managed to convince some, but his cover has been blown for a long time now —with the exception of Obama who bought his line.

  21. @Anonymous
    Agreed -- is there some rhetorical advantage to putting all this on the greedy men behind the curtain and not on the many with the obvious desire to give diversity good and hard to heritage America, right in its zipped-up mouth?

    Are the progressive academics finessing this version of the Constitution when they're screaming about "abolishing white supremacy"?

    But back on topic:


    Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump's Immigration Stance in Annual Letter

    Warren Buffett, in his annual letter, says you don't have to be an economist to understand one of the key factors that has made America great: Immigration.

    Nonetheless, the statement from Buffett, the world's third richest man, may attract some controversy this year. As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge to restrict immigration. And now as president, he has been working to introduce stringent limitations on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

    Buffett ... writes that America's economic growth has been "miraculous." He says one of the main reasons for that has been a tide of "talented and ambitious immigrants" to the U.S.
     

    “Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump’s Immigration Stance in Annual Letter.”

    Proving, yet again, that nobody nowadays seems to know the meaning of the word “refute”.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Yeah, the "refutes" thing gets me all the time.

    I also cringe when I hear "beg the question" and "disinterested".

    I'd say that the unifying theme is that each of these (and there are others that don't spring to mind) should be making out a key distinction to our thinking and modes of argument. These really are cases in which, when a society loses the term, it likely loses the ability to think about the things they're pointing to.
  22. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Warren Buffet. Who is this guy?

    “…second wealthiest person in the United States…

    …endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election…

    …Buffett disowned his son Peter’s adopted daughter, Nicole, in 2006 after she participated in the Jamie Johnson documentary The One Percent

    …He pledged about the equivalent of 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately US$30.7 billion as of June 23, 2006), making it the largest charitable donation in history, and Buffett one of the leaders of philanthrocapitalism

    …Buffett joined the Gates Foundation’s board…

    …Buffett, Bill Gates, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg signed a promise they called the “Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge”, in which they promise to donate to charity at least half of their wealth, and invite other wealthy people to follow suit…

    …Buffett endorsed and made campaign contributions to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign…

    …Some critics argued that Buffett (through Berkshire Hathaway) has a personal interest in the continuation of the estate tax, since Berkshire Hathaway benefited from the estate tax in past business dealings and had developed and marketed insurance policies to protect policy holders against future estate tax payments…

    …in March 2005, he predicted that in another ten years’ time the net ownership of the U.S. by outsiders would amount to $11 trillion.

    “Americans … would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an ‘ownership society’ will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a ‘sharecropping society’.”

    “I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty.”

    A Father of Philanthro-capitalism. $30 billion. When the Ford Foundation types get their hands on it you know what will happen. Wonderful.

    Donate all your wealth to me! I’ll only be on the board, of course.

    And we’re pretty much at the point of the sharecropper society.

    I guess when you manage that much money you can’t avoid being all tied up in politics (and tax policy).

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    And Buffett also co-authored this plea for more immigration in the NYT with Bill Gates and Sheldon Adelson.
  23. • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There is a sizable overlap between modern transmania and steroid cheating.
    , @res
    Interesting that this wasn't the story I expected from the headline: "The family of Mack Beggs has said he would rather be wrestling boys, but state policy calls for students to wrestle against the gender listed on their birth certificates." Intriguing how the MSM points out the lunacy in a way that attacks what seems like a reasonable law. And it probably would be, except...

    So taking steroids is OK in high school (girls!) wrestling?! Remember that in at least some venues having a doctor's prescription does not make taking PEDs OK (e.g. Sharapova).
  24. @Mike P.
    ESPN has become a rich source of iSteve material...

    http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/18767310/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-euless-trinity-wins-texas-state-girls-wrestling-title?addata=espn:frontpage

    There is a sizable overlap between modern transmania and steroid cheating.

    • Replies: @NickG
    Yup...PEDs engender a high drag coefficient...
  25. @Moshe
    "Actual" Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?

    I used to work with a Sephardic Jewish guy and I overheard him tell someone, presumably Sephardic also, that the Ashkenazim were “wannabe Jews,” maybe because of the European admixture; but I never followed up with him. I wonder if that’s a common attitude among Sephardim or that was just his personal opinion.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    It's not his actual opinion either. He's We Was Kangz!'ing
  26. It’s pretty funny that when you consider that the “It’s the $CURRENT_YEAR!” started in 2016 AFAICR, both Brexit and Trump happened in 2016, both massive blows to $CURRENT_YEARism.

    It reminds me of the dot com bubble. “Throw out all the old assumptions – it’s the new economy! Look at my pro forma profit statement!!!1!one” The most crazy stuff tends to be said right when the bubble pops. It’s kind of tautological when you think about it.

  27. @anonymous
    Warren Buffet. Who is this guy?


    "...second wealthiest person in the United States...

    ...endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election...

    ...Buffett disowned his son Peter's adopted daughter, Nicole, in 2006 after she participated in the Jamie Johnson documentary The One Percent...

    ...He pledged about the equivalent of 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately US$30.7 billion as of June 23, 2006), making it the largest charitable donation in history, and Buffett one of the leaders of philanthrocapitalism...

    ...Buffett joined the Gates Foundation's board...

    ...Buffett, Bill Gates, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg signed a promise they called the "Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge", in which they promise to donate to charity at least half of their wealth, and invite other wealthy people to follow suit...

    ...Buffett endorsed and made campaign contributions to Barack Obama's presidential campaign...

    ...Some critics argued that Buffett (through Berkshire Hathaway) has a personal interest in the continuation of the estate tax, since Berkshire Hathaway benefited from the estate tax in past business dealings and had developed and marketed insurance policies to protect policy holders against future estate tax payments...

    ...in March 2005, he predicted that in another ten years' time the net ownership of the U.S. by outsiders would amount to $11 trillion.


    "Americans ... would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an 'ownership society' will not find happiness in – and I'll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a 'sharecropping society’."

     



    "I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty."

     


     
    A Father of Philanthro-capitalism. $30 billion. When the Ford Foundation types get their hands on it you know what will happen. Wonderful.

    Donate all your wealth to me! I'll only be on the board, of course.

    And we're pretty much at the point of the sharecropper society.

    I guess when you manage that much money you can't avoid being all tied up in politics (and tax policy).

    And Buffett also co-authored this plea for more immigration in the NYT with Bill Gates and Sheldon Adelson.

  28. In 1999 white, Hispanic, and black OD death rates were nearly the same. Now whites die at four times the rate as blacks and Hispanics.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-americans-are-at-the-greatest-risk-from-dying-from-drug-overdoses-2017-02-24

  29. @Moshe
    "Actual" Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?

    “Actual” Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?

    No, I was distinguishing the actual Jews who lived back then from my hypothetically transported-back-in-time Neocon Jews of today.

    My question was whether these Neocon Jews of today, who claim to be so enamored of the American Declaration of Independence but are manifestly rather less so of the legacy American people, would in the event have sided with the American people had they actually been around in those times.

    I suggest that when one considers their worldview in full, it would have fit better with the globalist outlook of the imperialist commercial interests in London rather than the American colonists.

    And doesn’t it go without saying that our latter-day Neocon Jews like the David Brookses and Jennifer Rubins and Bill Kristols and Jonah Goldbergs and Bret Stephenses are not representative of American Jews generally?

    Most American Jews are not neoconservative. Though they are and have been very influential in media, politics and government, the Jewish Neocons represent a rather small thread among American Jews.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    Ah, I thought you meant something else but I couldn't figure out what.

    So far as Patriot vs. Loyalist (talk about branding!) business I don't particularly care which one people supported or would support. It's a boring bit of history for me and I don't have a team. If pressed though, I would say that the so to speak "patriots" were the overclass war makers while the underclass would have been better off without the war.

    Ever been to Canada? It has all of the amenities of being an American with none of the stress or twitchy trigger finger.

    Again, I know very little about the war but if I had to guess I would say that George Washington was the 1776 version of a neocon.
  30. Nicely done, FX Enderby. Your parody covered Invite The World, so I hope you might entertain the suggestion to incorporate in it a clause about Invade The World.

    • Replies: @FX Enderby
    Thanks. The idea was inspired by Buzz Mohawk's excellent Bill of Wrongs comment here which includes "invade the world."
  31. @Moshe
    "Actual" Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?

    “Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?”
    I looked up ‘Khazar Milkers’ on the Internet. Seems legit to me.

  32. @Anonymous
    Buffett … writes that America’s economic growth has been “miraculous.” He says one of the main reasons for that has been a tide of “talented and ambitious immigrants” to the U.S.

    It's been 130 years since the start of the Great Wave of immigration and we still haven't assimilated many of them! One could argue that every non-English group still holds significant resentments toward the founding stock.

    The New Great Wave is much much larger in absolute numbers! And it is much more alien in genetic and cultural distance from core America.

    The most annoying thing about Buffet's comments is that he JUST DOESN'T CARE how much immigration has already taken place recently or otherwise. This is akin to a doctor prescribing drugs to a patient with no regard to the patient's medical history.

    Buffett is 86 years old. 86 year olds may have a good recollection of events but I would never trust their fluid intelligence.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Well, one 88 year old who seemed to have some pretty intact fluid intelligence was Freeman Dyson, who, at that age, managed to discover a major advance in the theory of iterated Prisoner's dilemma:

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428920/the-emerging-revolution-in-game-theory/

    I gather Dyson came up with his solution over a weekend, after his ultimate partner in the work, William Press, described the long outstanding problem to him.

  33. @newrouter
    Dead Kennedys - California Über Alles

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIqESwzCGg4

    I was going to post that back when we were talking about dams, decided against it.

  34. @Steve Sailer
    Here's a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/may-17-the-buttonwood-agreement/

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    So, which side you were on was probably a mixed bag back then, as it was in general for people of all ethnicities in 1776.

    Similarly, American Jews during the Civil War tended to side with their neighbors. Jews likely made up a higher percentage of the administrative talent in the Confederacy than in the Union, so Judah P. Benjamin played a much bigger role in the South than any Jew played in the North during the Civil War. But that's a small sample size.

    In general, British Jews in Britain tended to see the British Empire as a good thing. E.g., Disraeli, a convert to Christianity, did much to promote Imperialism as glamorous.

    The Jewish role in South Africa up until 1948 was pretty huge.

    Their role up until 1994 was significant too.

  35. @JohnnyD
    I think you're right. The Sephardic and Central European Jews tended to be less hostile to the majority American population. A lot of the Zionism and political radicalism came from Eastern European Jews. Paul Gottfried has written a lot about this topic.

    Zack de la Rocha begs to differ

  36. @Steve Sailer
    Here's a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/may-17-the-buttonwood-agreement/

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    So, which side you were on was probably a mixed bag back then, as it was in general for people of all ethnicities in 1776.

    Similarly, American Jews during the Civil War tended to side with their neighbors. Jews likely made up a higher percentage of the administrative talent in the Confederacy than in the Union, so Judah P. Benjamin played a much bigger role in the South than any Jew played in the North during the Civil War. But that's a small sample size.

    In general, British Jews in Britain tended to see the British Empire as a good thing. E.g., Disraeli, a convert to Christianity, did much to promote Imperialism as glamorous.

    The Jewish role in South Africa up until 1948 was pretty huge.

    For ALL ethnicities? I can think of one that leaned,I’d wager,to the Patriot side by a wide margin.

  37. anon • Disclaimer says:

    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them. But black people agree to debate Spencer, cheerfully, and oblivious to how silly they will look in comparison to Spencer. See here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL40CjOrRL1hfFi43j_y6iRqGnbs_snpsc&v=bvg9VJ15CR4

    It’s painfully obvious that Spencer’s brain is ticking along much more quickly than the black guy’s.

    But if “Stereotype Threat’ is a thing, why aren’t blacks ducking out of debating Spencer, out of a sense of intellectual inadequacy?

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Spencer has been thinking about the things he was talking about for months and years. He has had a little bit of a head start on the other gentleman.

    And good grief: Spencer continues to promote himself with the disputed claim that he coined the term "Alt Right."

    , @Shine a Light
    I thought Diante Johnson did fine. What he lacked in high octane intelligence he made up for in calm demeanor and pointed questions.

    What it seems to come down to is that they agree that America was not better when one race is oppressed. In other words the changes of the past century allowing blacks to fulfill their potential are positive changes. But of course no one really knows where that magic point is where each race is living up to their potential so various racial groups will make endless demands for race based privilege for as long as whites will agree to grant these privileges.

    They also both seem to agree that identitarian politics are positive for their own tribes. Spencer should have specifically asked Johnson his opinion on whether whites have the right to engage in identity politics. Spencer surely agrees that blacks have a right to identity politics.

    I think Spencer should be more specific about the rights of a race to defend its demographic position within a society. Does a race have the right to resist becoming a minority?
    , @Chrisnonymous

    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them
     
    Let me guess: Spencer is posting at iSteve as "anon".
    , @FX Enderby
    The young Black guy has no fear of catching KKKooties from proximity to Richard, who btw is getting really good at this stuff.
    , @Anon
    I don't see the point of debating with blacks or cuckservatives.

    They will believe what they believe, and that's fine.
    No sense trying to win over the other side or the enemies.

    What Spencer should try to do is reach out to people who are amenable to what he has to offer.
    Don't try to sell dog food to cats. Just target the dogs.

    Who cares about blacks think? They have their own interests, and let them serve their own kind. No problem with that.

    As for cuckservatives, they are too far gone. The idea that someone like Rich Lowry or David French could have sense knocked into their heads is silly.

    But there are people sitting on the fence, and they can be reached by direct appeal. Not much sense in tangling with black conservatives(who, btw, are insignificant in the black community) or cuckservatives who are either gutless morons or paid shills of the globalist think-tanks.
  38. @Steve Sailer
    Here's a list of the founders of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792. Five of the 24 were Jewish.

    https://jewishcurrents.org/may-17-the-buttonwood-agreement/

    One is identified as a Loyalist, while a commenter points out that another belonged to a synagogue that sided with the Patriots. No information is given on the other 3.

    So, which side you were on was probably a mixed bag back then, as it was in general for people of all ethnicities in 1776.

    Similarly, American Jews during the Civil War tended to side with their neighbors. Jews likely made up a higher percentage of the administrative talent in the Confederacy than in the Union, so Judah P. Benjamin played a much bigger role in the South than any Jew played in the North during the Civil War. But that's a small sample size.

    In general, British Jews in Britain tended to see the British Empire as a good thing. E.g., Disraeli, a convert to Christianity, did much to promote Imperialism as glamorous.

    The Jewish role in South Africa up until 1948 was pretty huge.

    The 24 most influential men on the NYSE in 1792 had several orders of magnitude less importance to the US economy as a whole than would the 24 most influential men on the NYSE in 1892 or 1992.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Those 24 guys were not the 24 "most influential" brokers in NY in 1792. They were ALL of the brokers, period. The stock market was much smaller then. The era of canal, railroads and industrial enterprises came later.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that more of the brokers were not Jewish, even given the small # of Jews in NY at that point. Perhaps because the Buttonwood Agreement related only to stocks. The most important financial instruments traded at that time were not stocks but "bills of exchange", similar to what we would call "commercial paper" today. These were short term notes issued at a discount by businessmen (and governments) to finance working capital and this business was especially dominated by Jews, as was the pawn brokerage business. The figure of the "Jew broker" , his pockets bulging with Bills of Exchange, was a well known stock image.

    http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/collection_images/2009BX/2009BX1953.jpg

  39. Anyone old enough to have been paying attention to American ideologies since the Reagan era would recognize the criticism of a “Reified Economy” as a profoundly left-wing concept (ie, Thomas Frank’s “One Market Under God”, and yet here it is on iSteve, by all accounts a right-wing blog.

    Once again, I can’t tell left from right anymore.

  40. @anon
    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them. But black people agree to debate Spencer, cheerfully, and oblivious to how silly they will look in comparison to Spencer. See here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL40CjOrRL1hfFi43j_y6iRqGnbs_snpsc&v=bvg9VJ15CR4

    It's painfully obvious that Spencer's brain is ticking along much more quickly than the black guy's.

    But if "Stereotype Threat' is a thing, why aren't blacks ducking out of debating Spencer, out of a sense of intellectual inadequacy?

    Spencer has been thinking about the things he was talking about for months and years. He has had a little bit of a head start on the other gentleman.

    And good grief: Spencer continues to promote himself with the disputed claim that he coined the term “Alt Right.”

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    And good grief: Spencer continues to promote himself with the disputed claim that he coined the term “Alt Right.”

    It's not like Richard Spencer is claiming he invented the photocopier or something. "Alt-Right" is an easy thing to come up with and Spencer's paperwork is in order.
  41. @anon
    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them. But black people agree to debate Spencer, cheerfully, and oblivious to how silly they will look in comparison to Spencer. See here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL40CjOrRL1hfFi43j_y6iRqGnbs_snpsc&v=bvg9VJ15CR4

    It's painfully obvious that Spencer's brain is ticking along much more quickly than the black guy's.

    But if "Stereotype Threat' is a thing, why aren't blacks ducking out of debating Spencer, out of a sense of intellectual inadequacy?

    I thought Diante Johnson did fine. What he lacked in high octane intelligence he made up for in calm demeanor and pointed questions.

    What it seems to come down to is that they agree that America was not better when one race is oppressed. In other words the changes of the past century allowing blacks to fulfill their potential are positive changes. But of course no one really knows where that magic point is where each race is living up to their potential so various racial groups will make endless demands for race based privilege for as long as whites will agree to grant these privileges.

    They also both seem to agree that identitarian politics are positive for their own tribes. Spencer should have specifically asked Johnson his opinion on whether whites have the right to engage in identity politics. Spencer surely agrees that blacks have a right to identity politics.

    I think Spencer should be more specific about the rights of a race to defend its demographic position within a society. Does a race have the right to resist becoming a minority?

  42. @anon
    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them. But black people agree to debate Spencer, cheerfully, and oblivious to how silly they will look in comparison to Spencer. See here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL40CjOrRL1hfFi43j_y6iRqGnbs_snpsc&v=bvg9VJ15CR4

    It's painfully obvious that Spencer's brain is ticking along much more quickly than the black guy's.

    But if "Stereotype Threat' is a thing, why aren't blacks ducking out of debating Spencer, out of a sense of intellectual inadequacy?

    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them

    Let me guess: Spencer is posting at iSteve as “anon”.

  43. @Amasius
    I used to work with a Sephardic Jewish guy and I overheard him tell someone, presumably Sephardic also, that the Ashkenazim were "wannabe Jews," maybe because of the European admixture; but I never followed up with him. I wonder if that's a common attitude among Sephardim or that was just his personal opinion.

    It’s not his actual opinion either. He’s We Was Kangz!’ing

  44. Not yet is all lost:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/25/trumps-embattled-revolution/

    Pat Lang, a former senior U.S. Defense Intelligence officer, notes how a small shift in bureaucratic “group think” from one paradigm to another can bring crucial change, simply by virtue of approaching a problem from a different direction:
    “1. General Dunford, USMC, the uniformed head of the US armed forces, is meeting the week at Baku in Azarbaijan with General Gerasimov, the head of the Russian General Staff.

    “2. My sources tell me that US and Russian air forces are increasingly coordinating and de-conflicting their air actions in Syria and Iraq. This can clearly be seen in USAF and US Navy air attacks on ‘moderate’ (in fact jihadi forces) in Idlib Province. These obviously have been coordinated with Russian air defenses.

    “3. The CIA has stopped providing assistance to aforesaid ‘moderate’ jihadi and FSA forces in Syria. They would not have done that without instructions from outside and above CIA.

    All of that tells me that sanity reigns in the Trump Administration no matter what lunatics like Schumer, Waters and McCain may do, think or say.

  45. @Achilles
    Here is a question.

    The Jewish Neocons are always professing their love for America the Idea, the purely "propositional" country abstracted from certain universalist assertions contained in the Declaration of Independence announcing our reasons for armed rebellion against the British Empire, but they deprecate the idea of an American people or an American nation.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I suggest that notwithstanding their effusive praise of the Declaration of Independence, they would have sided with the globalist imperialists in London. They would have had little sympathy for the prosperous colonists' resistance to ponying up their share of the expenses for the Seven Years' War and the effort by the Crown and the oligarchs of their day at the East India Company and other ventures to establish and secure greater global networks of resources and trade.

    And I would guess they would have found very clever the Crown's strategy of inciting the Indian tribes against the white Christian colonists to open another front in the war.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I think this is actually a harder question than the first one. Would they have allied with Robespierre or would they have insinuated themselves with the Ministers of Court? This one is hard to say.

    Gershom Sholem , the great historian of Mysticism, posited out sized Jewish (specifically Sabbatian and crypto-Sabbatian influence on the French Revolution. He anticipated devoting a lengthy monograph to the subject, but he never got around to it.. Other historians who looked at the French Revolution did not support Sholem iirc

  46. @Achilles

    “Actual” Jews? Are you referring to the eidiculous and roundly debunked theory that Ashkenazim are Turkic Khazars?
     
    No, I was distinguishing the actual Jews who lived back then from my hypothetically transported-back-in-time Neocon Jews of today.

    My question was whether these Neocon Jews of today, who claim to be so enamored of the American Declaration of Independence but are manifestly rather less so of the legacy American people, would in the event have sided with the American people had they actually been around in those times.

    I suggest that when one considers their worldview in full, it would have fit better with the globalist outlook of the imperialist commercial interests in London rather than the American colonists.

    And doesn't it go without saying that our latter-day Neocon Jews like the David Brookses and Jennifer Rubins and Bill Kristols and Jonah Goldbergs and Bret Stephenses are not representative of American Jews generally?

    Most American Jews are not neoconservative. Though they are and have been very influential in media, politics and government, the Jewish Neocons represent a rather small thread among American Jews.

    Ah, I thought you meant something else but I couldn’t figure out what.

    So far as Patriot vs. Loyalist (talk about branding!) business I don’t particularly care which one people supported or would support. It’s a boring bit of history for me and I don’t have a team. If pressed though, I would say that the so to speak “patriots” were the overclass war makers while the underclass would have been better off without the war.

    Ever been to Canada? It has all of the amenities of being an American with none of the stress or twitchy trigger finger.

    Again, I know very little about the war but if I had to guess I would say that George Washington was the 1776 version of a neocon.

  47. @anon
    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them. But black people agree to debate Spencer, cheerfully, and oblivious to how silly they will look in comparison to Spencer. See here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL40CjOrRL1hfFi43j_y6iRqGnbs_snpsc&v=bvg9VJ15CR4

    It's painfully obvious that Spencer's brain is ticking along much more quickly than the black guy's.

    But if "Stereotype Threat' is a thing, why aren't blacks ducking out of debating Spencer, out of a sense of intellectual inadequacy?

    The young Black guy has no fear of catching KKKooties from proximity to Richard, who btw is getting really good at this stuff.

  48. @Auntie Analogue
    Nicely done, FX Enderby. Your parody covered Invite The World, so I hope you might entertain the suggestion to incorporate in it a clause about Invade The World.

    Thanks. The idea was inspired by Buzz Mohawk’s excellent Bill of Wrongs comment here which includes “invade the world.”

  49. @Mike P.
    ESPN has become a rich source of iSteve material...

    http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/18767310/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-euless-trinity-wins-texas-state-girls-wrestling-title?addata=espn:frontpage

    Interesting that this wasn’t the story I expected from the headline: “The family of Mack Beggs has said he would rather be wrestling boys, but state policy calls for students to wrestle against the gender listed on their birth certificates.” Intriguing how the MSM points out the lunacy in a way that attacks what seems like a reasonable law. And it probably would be, except…

    So taking steroids is OK in high school (girls!) wrestling?! Remember that in at least some venues having a doctor’s prescription does not make taking PEDs OK (e.g. Sharapova).

  50. @Mr. Anon
    "Warren Buffett Refutes Donald Trump’s Immigration Stance in Annual Letter."

    Proving, yet again, that nobody nowadays seems to know the meaning of the word "refute".

    Yeah, the “refutes” thing gets me all the time.

    I also cringe when I hear “beg the question” and “disinterested”.

    I’d say that the unifying theme is that each of these (and there are others that don’t spring to mind) should be making out a key distinction to our thinking and modes of argument. These really are cases in which, when a society loses the term, it likely loses the ability to think about the things they’re pointing to.

  51. @Anonym
    Buffett is 86 years old. 86 year olds may have a good recollection of events but I would never trust their fluid intelligence.

    Well, one 88 year old who seemed to have some pretty intact fluid intelligence was Freeman Dyson, who, at that age, managed to discover a major advance in the theory of iterated Prisoner’s dilemma:

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428920/the-emerging-revolution-in-game-theory/

    I gather Dyson came up with his solution over a weekend, after his ultimate partner in the work, William Press, described the long outstanding problem to him.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    That's pretty cool. Exceptions, they prove the rule.

    I link to the following because of the quote: "There are simply no great octogenarian investors." It is by Phil Fischer's son Ken. The article I haven't read. Maybe Buffett is exceptional too - the article is old and I haven't followed recent Buffett.

    https://foragerfunds.com/bristlemouth/bristlemouthhas-warren-buffett-lost-his-marbles/
  52. @5371
    The 24 most influential men on the NYSE in 1792 had several orders of magnitude less importance to the US economy as a whole than would the 24 most influential men on the NYSE in 1892 or 1992.

    Those 24 guys were not the 24 “most influential” brokers in NY in 1792. They were ALL of the brokers, period. The stock market was much smaller then. The era of canal, railroads and industrial enterprises came later.

    Frankly, I’m surprised that more of the brokers were not Jewish, even given the small # of Jews in NY at that point. Perhaps because the Buttonwood Agreement related only to stocks. The most important financial instruments traded at that time were not stocks but “bills of exchange”, similar to what we would call “commercial paper” today. These were short term notes issued at a discount by businessmen (and governments) to finance working capital and this business was especially dominated by Jews, as was the pawn brokerage business. The figure of the “Jew broker” , his pockets bulging with Bills of Exchange, was a well known stock image.

  53. @candid_observer
    Well, one 88 year old who seemed to have some pretty intact fluid intelligence was Freeman Dyson, who, at that age, managed to discover a major advance in the theory of iterated Prisoner's dilemma:

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428920/the-emerging-revolution-in-game-theory/

    I gather Dyson came up with his solution over a weekend, after his ultimate partner in the work, William Press, described the long outstanding problem to him.

    That’s pretty cool. Exceptions, they prove the rule.

    I link to the following because of the quote: “There are simply no great octogenarian investors.” It is by Phil Fischer’s son Ken. The article I haven’t read. Maybe Buffett is exceptional too – the article is old and I haven’t followed recent Buffett.

    https://foragerfunds.com/bristlemouth/bristlemouthhas-warren-buffett-lost-his-marbles/

  54. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    And Buffett also co-authored this plea for more immigration in the NYT with Bill Gates and Sheldon Adelson.

    “Break the Immigration Impasse”: Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on Immigration Reform, New York Times, SHELDON G. ADELSON, WARREN E. BUFFETT and BILL GATES, JULY 10, 2014:

    “…We believe it borders on insanity to train intelligent and motivated people in our universities — often subsidizing their education — and then to deport them when they graduate…

    …let’s roll out the welcome mat…

    …Americans are a forgiving and generous people…

    …the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” created by Congress in 1990 …intended to allow a limited number of foreigners with financial resources or unique abilities to move to our country, bringing with them substantial and enduring purchasing power. Reports of fraud have surfaced with this program, and we believe it should be reformed to prevent abuse but also expanded to become more effective…

    …help us jolt the demand side of our economy…

    …A Congress that does nothing about these problems is extending an irrational policy…”

    Can’t argue with the irrational part.

    Emphasis on demand side stuff always seems like prostitution logic. Where does it end? And you know eventually we will be blamed for ruining countries via brain drain.

    It’s one thing to be forgiving and generous, another to be suicidal.

    Then to one of the cruxes of the problem. The universities expanded after WWII to keep up with the baby boom. Over the next few decades entire fields, such as computer science and Black Studies rapidly came into being.

    A huge higher-education structure exists, the best in the world. But it expects continued expansion and feeds on baby-boom rates of student growth. Where to get these students?

    And so parts of the universities and colleges have become immigration pipelines. Their business models depend on immigration. The academics probably aren’t fighting for immigration so much as fighting for their jobs and ability to expand the number of juniors they manage. Really cheap immigrant research assistants? Great White Father likes!

    • Replies: @FX Enderby
    This is so infuriating.Why are "we" educating so many foreign students in the 1st place? Buffet & Gates should fund scholarships to "train intelligent and motivated" American kids.

    Apparently blank-slatism means that all students have the same educational potential unless they are Americans, in which case they suck and must relinquish their university slots to magic foreigners who are obviously better and more deserving. That's what "borders on insanity".

    "Americans are a forgiving and generous people" - so why should they be allowed to go to college when we can screw them and give their opportunities away to foreigners?

    Reports of fraud have surfaced with the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” - so we believe it should be expanded! Let’s roll out the welcome mat...

    What motivates these depraved lunatics? Many White identity types believe that e.g. organized Jewry promotes this agenda because they want to advance their interests at the expense of Whites but Gates & Buffet are not Jewish. So what gives?
  55. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    A lot of white people refuse to debate Richard Spencer because they know that Spencer is in a way higher verbal IQ echelon than them. But black people agree to debate Spencer, cheerfully, and oblivious to how silly they will look in comparison to Spencer. See here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL40CjOrRL1hfFi43j_y6iRqGnbs_snpsc&v=bvg9VJ15CR4

    It's painfully obvious that Spencer's brain is ticking along much more quickly than the black guy's.

    But if "Stereotype Threat' is a thing, why aren't blacks ducking out of debating Spencer, out of a sense of intellectual inadequacy?

    I don’t see the point of debating with blacks or cuckservatives.

    They will believe what they believe, and that’s fine.
    No sense trying to win over the other side or the enemies.

    What Spencer should try to do is reach out to people who are amenable to what he has to offer.
    Don’t try to sell dog food to cats. Just target the dogs.

    Who cares about blacks think? They have their own interests, and let them serve their own kind. No problem with that.

    As for cuckservatives, they are too far gone. The idea that someone like Rich Lowry or David French could have sense knocked into their heads is silly.

    But there are people sitting on the fence, and they can be reached by direct appeal. Not much sense in tangling with black conservatives(who, btw, are insignificant in the black community) or cuckservatives who are either gutless morons or paid shills of the globalist think-tanks.

  56. @Achilles
    Here is a question.

    The Jewish Neocons are always professing their love for America the Idea, the purely "propositional" country abstracted from certain universalist assertions contained in the Declaration of Independence announcing our reasons for armed rebellion against the British Empire, but they deprecate the idea of an American people or an American nation.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I suggest that notwithstanding their effusive praise of the Declaration of Independence, they would have sided with the globalist imperialists in London. They would have had little sympathy for the prosperous colonists' resistance to ponying up their share of the expenses for the Seven Years' War and the effort by the Crown and the oligarchs of their day at the East India Company and other ventures to establish and secure greater global networks of resources and trade.

    And I would guess they would have found very clever the Crown's strategy of inciting the Indian tribes against the white Christian colonists to open another front in the war.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I think this is actually a harder question than the first one. Would they have allied with Robespierre or would they have insinuated themselves with the Ministers of Court? This one is hard to say.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the Talmud holds the words “Always hedge thy bets. I am the LORD”. (OK, maybe not the last part.) This simple maxim, I would say, has served their people well.

  57. “Those who own the country ought to govern it.” Founding Father John Jay, at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia. In many ways he was a visionary.

  58. @Clyde

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?
     
    Hayem Solomon provided crucial financial support to George Washington's army. I was taught this in elementary school. I doubt Jews helped the British on this scale.

    In August 1781, the Continental Army had trapped Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis in the Virginian coastal town of Yorktown. George Washington and the main army and Count de Rochambeau with his French army decided to march from the Hudson Highlands to Yorktown and deliver the final blow. But Washington's war chest was completely empty, as was that of Congress. Without food, uniforms and supplies, Washington's troops were close to mutiny.[9] Washington determined that he needed at least $20,000 to finance the campaign. When Morris told him there were no funds and no credit available, Washington gave him a simple but eloquent order: "Send for Haym Salomon". Salomon raised $20,000, through the sale of bills of exchange. With that, and the $1,400,000 personally loaned by Robert Morris,[10] Washington conducted the Yorktown campaign, which proved to be the final battle of the Revolution.[5]

    From the period of 1781–84, records show Salomon's fundraising and personal lending helped provide over $650,000 (approximately $16,870,212.74 in 2013 dollars [8]) in financing to George Washington in his war effort. His most meaningful financial contribution, however, came immediately prior to the final revolutionary war battle at Yorktown.[9]

    Salomon brokered the sale of a majority of the war aid from France and the Dutch Republic, selling bills of exchange to American merchants. Salomon also personally supported various members of the Continental Congress during their stay in Philadelphia, including James Madison and James Wilson. He requested below-market interest rates, and he never asked for repayment.[11]

    Salomon is believed to have granted outright bequests to men that he thought were unsung heroes of the revolution who had become impoverished during the war. One example is Bodo Otto, a senior surgeon in the continental army. Otto joined the army at the age of 65 and served for the entire war. Among other things, he established the hospital at Valley Forge, where he often used his own funds to purchase medical supplies. Due to Salomon's bequest, Otto was able to rebuild his medical practice in Reading, Pennsylvania at war's end.

    The financier died suddenly and in poverty on January 8, 1785, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after contracting tuberculosis in prison. Due to the failure of governments and private lenders to repay the debt incurred by the war, his family was left penniless at his death at age 44.[9]
     

    Wow. Just Wow.

    Here’s the truth of Solomon’s involvement in the war, from the Journal of the American Revolution. Recent, original research.

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/

    Summary: he actually didn’t help finance the war at all. Certain people lied and said he did, and repeated lies in secondary sources.

    The article is really a nice expose of historical retconning.

    Haym Solomon as the financier of the Revolution is about as accurate as Alexander Hamilton, Caribbean immigrant.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Go revise Hayem Solomon's wikipedia entry.
  59. @Achilles
    Here is a question.

    The Jewish Neocons are always professing their love for America the Idea, the purely "propositional" country abstracted from certain universalist assertions contained in the Declaration of Independence announcing our reasons for armed rebellion against the British Empire, but they deprecate the idea of an American people or an American nation.

    My question is, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in the American Colonies at the time of the Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I suggest that notwithstanding their effusive praise of the Declaration of Independence, they would have sided with the globalist imperialists in London. They would have had little sympathy for the prosperous colonists' resistance to ponying up their share of the expenses for the Seven Years' War and the effort by the Crown and the oligarchs of their day at the East India Company and other ventures to establish and secure greater global networks of resources and trade.

    And I would guess they would have found very clever the Crown's strategy of inciting the Indian tribes against the white Christian colonists to open another front in the war.

    A separate question would be, had the Jewish Neocons actually lived in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, which side would they have supported?

    I think this is actually a harder question than the first one. Would they have allied with Robespierre or would they have insinuated themselves with the Ministers of Court? This one is hard to say.

    Jewish neocons and the entire corporate Repub party.

  60. @Opinionator
    Spencer has been thinking about the things he was talking about for months and years. He has had a little bit of a head start on the other gentleman.

    And good grief: Spencer continues to promote himself with the disputed claim that he coined the term "Alt Right."

    And good grief: Spencer continues to promote himself with the disputed claim that he coined the term “Alt Right.”

    It’s not like Richard Spencer is claiming he invented the photocopier or something. “Alt-Right” is an easy thing to come up with and Spencer’s paperwork is in order.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    He doesn't for "the AltRight" but he may have some claim to "Alternative Right". It's the AltRight, not the Alternative Right. Moreover, that phrase, as and when used by Spencer, did not denote the movement that people nowadays think of as the AltRight. Case in point, two to four years ago, when that movement was beginning to cohere, people were still brainstorming what to call it. Spencer used his term to describe something in 2008 or 2009. How could he have coined the term for something that did not exist?

    Even setting aside the difference in terminology, to "coin" something, there should be a fidelity between the term and the referent. Not the case here.

    There's enough doubt that he should just drop the matter. Doesn't he have more important points to make in any case?

  61. @Millennial
    Wow. Just Wow.

    Here's the truth of Solomon's involvement in the war, from the Journal of the American Revolution. Recent, original research.

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/

    Summary: he actually didn't help finance the war at all. Certain people lied and said he did, and repeated lies in secondary sources.

    The article is really a nice expose of historical retconning.

    Haym Solomon as the financier of the Revolution is about as accurate as Alexander Hamilton, Caribbean immigrant.

    Go revise Hayem Solomon’s wikipedia entry.

  62. @anonymous
    And Buffett also co-authored this plea for more immigration in the NYT with Bill Gates and Sheldon Adelson.

    "Break the Immigration Impasse": Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on Immigration Reform, New York Times, SHELDON G. ADELSON, WARREN E. BUFFETT and BILL GATES, JULY 10, 2014:


    "...We believe it borders on insanity to train intelligent and motivated people in our universities — often subsidizing their education — and then to deport them when they graduate...

    ...let’s roll out the welcome mat...

    ...Americans are a forgiving and generous people...

    ...the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” created by Congress in 1990 ...intended to allow a limited number of foreigners with financial resources or unique abilities to move to our country, bringing with them substantial and enduring purchasing power. Reports of fraud have surfaced with this program, and we believe it should be reformed to prevent abuse but also expanded to become more effective...

    ...help us jolt the demand side of our economy...

    ...A Congress that does nothing about these problems is extending an irrational policy..."

     

    Can't argue with the irrational part.

    Emphasis on demand side stuff always seems like prostitution logic. Where does it end? And you know eventually we will be blamed for ruining countries via brain drain.

    It's one thing to be forgiving and generous, another to be suicidal.

    Then to one of the cruxes of the problem. The universities expanded after WWII to keep up with the baby boom. Over the next few decades entire fields, such as computer science and Black Studies rapidly came into being.

    A huge higher-education structure exists, the best in the world. But it expects continued expansion and feeds on baby-boom rates of student growth. Where to get these students?

    And so parts of the universities and colleges have become immigration pipelines. Their business models depend on immigration. The academics probably aren't fighting for immigration so much as fighting for their jobs and ability to expand the number of juniors they manage. Really cheap immigrant research assistants? Great White Father likes!

    This is so infuriating.Why are “we” educating so many foreign students in the 1st place? Buffet & Gates should fund scholarships to “train intelligent and motivated” American kids.

    Apparently blank-slatism means that all students have the same educational potential unless they are Americans, in which case they suck and must relinquish their university slots to magic foreigners who are obviously better and more deserving. That’s what “borders on insanity”.

    “Americans are a forgiving and generous people” – so why should they be allowed to go to college when we can screw them and give their opportunities away to foreigners?

    Reports of fraud have surfaced with the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” – so we believe it should be expanded! Let’s roll out the welcome mat…

    What motivates these depraved lunatics? Many White identity types believe that e.g. organized Jewry promotes this agenda because they want to advance their interests at the expense of Whites but Gates & Buffet are not Jewish. So what gives?

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Buffet & Gates should fund scholarships to “train intelligent and motivated” American kids.
     
    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a scholarship program for American college students. It is called Millennium Scholars and is only open to minorities. Whites are not eligible. But A Chinese kid can move from Mainland China to the US at age 15, attend a US high school and apply for one.

    GMS – The Gates Millennium Scholars Program
    www.gmsp.org
    Gates Millennium Scholars Program. Promoting Academic Excellence + Providing Opportunities + Reducing Financial Barriers. For 20,000 outstanding students of color.
    Scholar Portals · GMS Program · Scholar Profiles · Distinguished Scholars · Contact Us · FAQs

    btw-- Melinda Gates is who really runs the Gates Foundation. He earned it, she spends it, plus Warren Buffets money. He has paid and pledged his billions to The Gates Foundation instead of starting his own foundation.
    , @unpc downunder
    I think part of this irrationality can be explained by urban loyalty. Instead of feeling an affiliation with their country, as provincial whites do, whites in large metropolitan cities only feel a sense of loyalty to their city. They also feel a stronger affinity to people in other city-states around the world than with their co-ethnics living in the hinterland.

    It's interestingly that the rise of anti-ethnocentric white liberalism coincided with an urbanisation tipping point (someone in the late 60s) when the majority of the population of western countries ended up living in large cities.
  63. @Cagey Beast
    And good grief: Spencer continues to promote himself with the disputed claim that he coined the term “Alt Right.”

    It's not like Richard Spencer is claiming he invented the photocopier or something. "Alt-Right" is an easy thing to come up with and Spencer's paperwork is in order.

    He doesn’t for “the AltRight” but he may have some claim to “Alternative Right”. It’s the AltRight, not the Alternative Right. Moreover, that phrase, as and when used by Spencer, did not denote the movement that people nowadays think of as the AltRight. Case in point, two to four years ago, when that movement was beginning to cohere, people were still brainstorming what to call it. Spencer used his term to describe something in 2008 or 2009. How could he have coined the term for something that did not exist?

    Even setting aside the difference in terminology, to “coin” something, there should be a fidelity between the term and the referent. Not the case here.

    There’s enough doubt that he should just drop the matter. Doesn’t he have more important points to make in any case?

  64. @FX Enderby
    This is so infuriating.Why are "we" educating so many foreign students in the 1st place? Buffet & Gates should fund scholarships to "train intelligent and motivated" American kids.

    Apparently blank-slatism means that all students have the same educational potential unless they are Americans, in which case they suck and must relinquish their university slots to magic foreigners who are obviously better and more deserving. That's what "borders on insanity".

    "Americans are a forgiving and generous people" - so why should they be allowed to go to college when we can screw them and give their opportunities away to foreigners?

    Reports of fraud have surfaced with the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” - so we believe it should be expanded! Let’s roll out the welcome mat...

    What motivates these depraved lunatics? Many White identity types believe that e.g. organized Jewry promotes this agenda because they want to advance their interests at the expense of Whites but Gates & Buffet are not Jewish. So what gives?

    Buffet & Gates should fund scholarships to “train intelligent and motivated” American kids.

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a scholarship program for American college students. It is called Millennium Scholars and is only open to minorities. Whites are not eligible. But A Chinese kid can move from Mainland China to the US at age 15, attend a US high school and apply for one.

    GMS – The Gates Millennium Scholars Program
    http://www.gmsp.org
    Gates Millennium Scholars Program. Promoting Academic Excellence + Providing Opportunities + Reducing Financial Barriers. For 20,000 outstanding students of color.
    Scholar Portals · GMS Program · Scholar Profiles · Distinguished Scholars · Contact Us · FAQs

    btw– Melinda Gates is who really runs the Gates Foundation. He earned it, she spends it, plus Warren Buffets money. He has paid and pledged his billions to The Gates Foundation instead of starting his own foundation.

  65. @FX Enderby
    This is so infuriating.Why are "we" educating so many foreign students in the 1st place? Buffet & Gates should fund scholarships to "train intelligent and motivated" American kids.

    Apparently blank-slatism means that all students have the same educational potential unless they are Americans, in which case they suck and must relinquish their university slots to magic foreigners who are obviously better and more deserving. That's what "borders on insanity".

    "Americans are a forgiving and generous people" - so why should they be allowed to go to college when we can screw them and give their opportunities away to foreigners?

    Reports of fraud have surfaced with the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” - so we believe it should be expanded! Let’s roll out the welcome mat...

    What motivates these depraved lunatics? Many White identity types believe that e.g. organized Jewry promotes this agenda because they want to advance their interests at the expense of Whites but Gates & Buffet are not Jewish. So what gives?

    I think part of this irrationality can be explained by urban loyalty. Instead of feeling an affiliation with their country, as provincial whites do, whites in large metropolitan cities only feel a sense of loyalty to their city. They also feel a stronger affinity to people in other city-states around the world than with their co-ethnics living in the hinterland.

    It’s interestingly that the rise of anti-ethnocentric white liberalism coincided with an urbanisation tipping point (someone in the late 60s) when the majority of the population of western countries ended up living in large cities.

  66. @Steve Sailer
    There is a sizable overlap between modern transmania and steroid cheating.

    Yup…PEDs engender a high drag coefficient…

  67. @JohnnyD
    It should be obvious that the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution so that Mark Zuckerberg could import cheap programmers to do the jobs Americans won't do.

    jobs that Americans have to train their replacements to do.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS