The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Immigration and Diversity Are Destabilizing America
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

I never paid much attention to the growing BDS movement because I’m not into bondage, domination, and submission. But it turns out that BDS is actually a decade-old Palestinian rights movement that targets Israel for boycott, divestment, and sanctions. These are the same tools that student protestors, such as Barack Obama, demanded be implemented against white rule in South Africa in the 1980s.

That worked out well for Obama (although not so well for the Boers).

While fairly mainstream in other parts of the world (for example, physicist Stephen Hawking boycotted a conference in Israel to protest occupation of the West Bank), BDS hasn’t yet become respectable in the United States. The main exception has been in the playpen of student government on California college campuses, where the much-celebrated diversity has furnished fertile ground for undergraduate demagogues.

Devin Murphy elected UCLA student president

So far, BDS resolutions have been passed by eight student governments, Loyola of Chicago and seven California schools: private Stanford and a half dozen public University of California campuses, including Berkeley and UCLA, both of which are of symbolic importance. (Tellingly, a BDS resolution was defeated at UC Santa Barbara, which has the whitest UC student body at 36 percent.)

In California, the state with the largest number and greatest diversity of newcomers, immigration is destabilizing the American order in which Jews have thrived.

Read the whole thing there.

 
    []
  1. eah says:

    One quibble: it should read have destabilized, not are destabilizing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/immigration-and-diversity-are-destabilizing-america/#comment-893779
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    I’m curious about how some younger Jewish intellectuals, with less attachment to Israel, feel about this. Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn’t in the top 5 of countries he cared about. I’d send him a link to your Taki column and ask, but he gets mad sometimes when I mention your name.

    In any case, what I wonder is whether they are untroubled by the BDS movement, seeing it just as an anti-Israel thing, or as the first taste of a more assertive hostility toward Jews from recent 3rd world immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Judeo-Bolshevists never cared about Israel, there is a article by Winston Churchill about their war with the Zionists for the "soul of the Jewish people".

    It just seens that the Bolsheviks have won the soul of the diaspora, at least. Israel has become an embarassment. A militarized state of farmers is just too much like the goyim of their nightmares for them to admire.
    , @Anon
    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/how-charles-murray-changed-my-mind.html

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/movie-review-django-unchained.html

    , @Anon
    "Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn’t in the top 5 of countries he cared about."

    Never judge people by what they say. Judge them by what they do.

    Also, it may be to Jewish advantage to focus less on Israel as it's becoming too closely associated with attack on Palestinians and Netanhayu's boorishness that is welcome to the much loathed GOP.

    Focus more on OTHER nations with problems... like evil Russia.

    , @Jack D
    It may be that these fools are deluding themselves that the left is not anti-Semitic, only anti-Zionist (this used to go on in the Soviet Union also) but that's all it is - a delusion. It's a short step from excluding Israelis from academia to excluding supporters of Israel to excluding Jews in general as PRESUMED supporters of Israel. Maybe if the Jew in question takes a pledge in which he publicly professes not just that he is indifferent to Israel but that he HATE HATE HATES the Israeli oppressors, he might get an exemption as an honorary anti-Zionist. But we could never REALLY trust him or put him in a position of authority. He might always go back to blood.

    Now if there's one thing that Jewish leftists are, it's oblivious to certain things, despite their supposed smarts. Once you are wearing your ideological blinders, you can't see what's coming at you from your own side.

    And Steve is right that 3rd worlders are immune to the magic Jewish Holocaust guilt-trip mojo that works so well on whites. They see themselves as having no responsibility for that, so whatever happened 70 years ago has NOTHING to do with their attitude towards Israel and Zionists.

    Have Jewish leftists painted the Jews into a corner? It wouldn't be the first time - Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union. Will it happen in the US? It has already - in case you haven't noticed, Barack Obama is no great friend of Israel.
    , @Anonymous
    Noah Smith isn't attached to Israel like some Jews are, but he is pro-Jewish and pro-Jewish diaspora. He prioritizes the diaspora and the sort of open immigration environment that the diaspora thrives in over the Israeli nation-state.
    , @Eternal Vigilance
    BDS is a convenient merger of anti-semites with Muslims who subscribe to wiping Israel off the map and the murder of all Jews.

    Racism is being spawned within our universities and importing those who already subscribe to racism and anti-Semitism only feeds these antagonisms.
  3. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A very interesting conundrum.
    The histrionics of the embryonic totem-pole and the infant totem pole defenders – how happen to be the most vicious and brainless of the defenders, confronts the cold, hard, concrete reality of Jewish power and Jewish wealth, in the USA, at least, rather in the same way as the fantasy world of dreams must be subsumed when confronting the cold, hard, reality of the wakeful world.
    Yes, we all know it’s the play-pen, as Steve so aptly puts it, and the wanky left histrionics have all the intellectual depth of an episode of Sesame Street, but one would be a fool to dismiss it all out of hand. After all, recent history has shown us that wanky left play-pen politics, no matter how nutty it seemed at the time, eventually, inevitably triumphs in the end. Powers approaching Jewish money interest in power band control were eventually brought to their knees by wanky leftdom.
    Just food for thought.

    Read More
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    To answer your question, Steve, perhaps it’s worthwhile to look at France.
    In France you have the burgeoning Muslim/non-white population soon slated to become the numerical majority. Also you have a long-established rich and successful Jewish population.
    Apart from being more or less openly hated and despised by the Muslims/non-whites, French Jews are looked upon as some sort of ‘super-whites’, in that they seem to exemplify epitomise the power, money, control and ‘privilege’ that the immigrants find so galling and envy inducing in everyday garden variety French whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Pretty much--Asians seem to view Jews as some sort of super-white person (often not entirely negatively, as they lack the cultural prohibitions against usury, etc), but they are still going to compete for elite spots. Hispanics have the usual old-school Catholic prejudices. And Muslims, of course, love knifing Jews in the streets of France.

    Good luck convincing Chuck Schumer of any of this.
    , @Ivy
    The French education system has long included anti-Anglo Saxon themes. Look at English texts au lycée to see the overt denigration of Americans and American history and culture in particular. Some of that reflects influences of the self-regard (amour propre) of Frenchness dating at least from Napoleon, and some from de Gaulle's explicit third way (not the US, not the USSR, we're French you see, with our very own Force de Frappe nukes, delivered via Peugeots).

    Their geography next to Germany and across from North Africa has presented some challenges for the past century or so, dating back to the disastrous Franco-Prussian War, then compounded with generations lost in WWI and WWII, with more in Indochine and Algérie.

    The French have a love-hate relationship with the English, given centuries of warfare and other cultural exchanges. Young French graduates headed to London, New York (recall Goldman's Fabulous Fab Tourre) and elsewhere demonstrate the benefits of the rigorous baccalauréat and Grandes Écoles educations to ply their trades. Who will compete for those places from the MENA or sub-Saharan communities? The Jews may leave, to be replaced by whom? (Side note, is Jewish exit from France and points beyond to Israel reminiscent of aliens doing Men in Black-style warp jumps in advance of Arquillian Battle Cruisers? Wonder what they know that we don't?)

    France is losing the essence of what made it such a wonderful and unique country, to unwashed hordes that are not capable of recognizing, let alone acknowledging why it developed and flowered in prior years. Behind a lot of their posturing and preening is a type of anxiety about the viability of French culture.

    Therein is a cautionary tale for Americans as their elected representatives open the borders seemingly without a care as to history or precedent.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    …the power, money, control and ‘privilege’ that the immigrants find so galling and envy inducing in everyday garden variety French whites.
     
    Or Gaulling.
  5. SFG says:
    @Anonymous
    To answer your question, Steve, perhaps it's worthwhile to look at France.
    In France you have the burgeoning Muslim/non-white population soon slated to become the numerical majority. Also you have a long-established rich and successful Jewish population.
    Apart from being more or less openly hated and despised by the Muslims/non-whites, French Jews are looked upon as some sort of 'super-whites', in that they seem to exemplify epitomise the power, money, control and 'privilege' that the immigrants find so galling and envy inducing in everyday garden variety French whites.

    Pretty much–Asians seem to view Jews as some sort of super-white person (often not entirely negatively, as they lack the cultural prohibitions against usury, etc), but they are still going to compete for elite spots. Hispanics have the usual old-school Catholic prejudices. And Muslims, of course, love knifing Jews in the streets of France.

    Good luck convincing Chuck Schumer of any of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Hispanics have the usual old-school Catholic prejudices.
     
    I've never seen any evidence of this. Mexican anti-semitism I've seen comes from the anti-white far left BDS element.
  6. Well, they won’t be able to say they weren’t warned:

    http://cis.org/ImmgrationEffectsOnAmericanJewry

    Morons. I have pointed this out to Jews for years (including to the head of a very prominent civil rights group that considers Steve a “hater” and an antisemite. No luck. The Jewish secular elite, many of them anyway, consider religion and ethnic affiliation beneath them, in a weird way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The problem isn't whether or not they understand and are warned. The problem is that they do understand it, but they understand it through a persecution narrative that says that every place is anti-Semitic or will be anti-Semitic, that this is the way of the world and an inextricable part of Jewish identity, that there's nothing that can be done aside from moving to a new place, etc. It's a kind of fatalistic narrative that prevents them from dealing with the problem more directly and sensibly.
    , @iffen
    Steve is not an anti-Semite!

    He is has no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Methodists cannot make good movies!
  7. Blobby5 says:

    Great article, am so sickened by Bibi’s dancing monkeys in Congress. Would be nice if a chink in the armor developed. Perhaps in other cultures there IS a better business than Shoah business.

    Read More
  8. Lot says:

    The problem at UC schools is not “Asians” but Asian muslims.

    A Chinese immigrant programmer will have kids with high IQs who majors in a hard science, wants to marry white, and identifies with white friends. An Egyptian or Muslim Indian programmer’s kid will regress toward a 90 IQ mean, study humanities since they are too dumb for hard sciences, and join the anti-white victim Olympics with all their free time.

    Their daughters are also far more likely to wear burkas, and they make the campus environment seedy, hostile and foreign, like every Muslim neighborhood I’ve been to in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Like I've been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago. The big change is the influx from West Asia and parts of East Europe. It's heavily Muslim, but there are lots of other groups like Christians, Jews, and Miscellaneous (e.g., Sikhs).
  9. Lot says:
    @SFG
    Pretty much--Asians seem to view Jews as some sort of super-white person (often not entirely negatively, as they lack the cultural prohibitions against usury, etc), but they are still going to compete for elite spots. Hispanics have the usual old-school Catholic prejudices. And Muslims, of course, love knifing Jews in the streets of France.

    Good luck convincing Chuck Schumer of any of this.

    Hispanics have the usual old-school Catholic prejudices.

    I’ve never seen any evidence of this. Mexican anti-semitism I’ve seen comes from the anti-white far left BDS element.

    Read More
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    I'm curious about how some younger Jewish intellectuals, with less attachment to Israel, feel about this. Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn't in the top 5 of countries he cared about. I'd send him a link to your Taki column and ask, but he gets mad sometimes when I mention your name.

    In any case, what I wonder is whether they are untroubled by the BDS movement, seeing it just as an anti-Israel thing, or as the first taste of a more assertive hostility toward Jews from recent 3rd world immigrants.

    Judeo-Bolshevists never cared about Israel, there is a article by Winston Churchill about their war with the Zionists for the “soul of the Jewish people”.

    It just seens that the Bolsheviks have won the soul of the diaspora, at least. Israel has become an embarassment. A militarized state of farmers is just too much like the goyim of their nightmares for them to admire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    In the first couple of decades after WWII, the left here was mostly Zionist, I think. The '60s were the turning point. The creation of the PLO in '64, the Six Day War, the Arabs becoming more closely allied with the soviets and Israel with the U.S., etc.
  11. Lot says:

    Looks like Jews already joined the white/right-wing (relatively speaking) party at UCLA.

    Here is the “UCLA United” slate:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rgtHEqt6dLEJ:www.bruinsunited.com/candidate/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth, and normal looking men.

    Here is the all-minority LET’S ACT student party, running on “social justice, equity, and inclusion”

    http://www.voteletsact.com/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The presidential candidate for UCLA United appears to be a Bobby Jindal clone and there appear to be no white Christians on the ticket.
    , @Anonymous
    Why are we doing this to our country? We built a nice country and now we're turning it over to people who have nothing to do with its creation. And, we've been doing this during a time when we've been strong. It's self-destructive.
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    Love the gang signs/diva hand gestures.
    , @Truth
    "I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth,"

    Dude, we both know Kevin Patterson is boning all three of them.
  12. iffen says:

    “because something is happening here, but they don’t know what it is,”

    When the truth is found to be lies
    And all the joy within you dies

    Read More
  13. Anonymous: Of course Jews are Super White. What’s whiter than J. Press and Ralph Lauren?

    To the American Jews and Israelis I know, the 0bamacult’s hostility to Israel seems as clear as their hostility to America’s founding population. But the left has always had this issue to some degree.

    I’m interested in the Jewish supporters of BDS. In the SJW world ( let’s face it, the entire world), you don’t know anything until you’ve had some yenta explain it to you. What will the old freedom rider/SDS types do when the BDS types accidentally slip a ‘J’ word instead of the definitely not antisemitic ‘Z’ word?

    Norman Finkelstein has a pretty funny encounter with a BDS guy on youtube somewhere. He talks about being a young Maoist and how they were always convinced that the revolution was right around the corner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    What’s whiter than J. Press and Ralph Lauren?
     
    Brooks Brothers?
  14. Jack D says:

    But immigration has brought us great poets such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Here is the poetry he wrote on the side of the boat he was hiding in:

    “I’m jealous of my brother who
    ha (bullethole) ceived the reward of jannutul Firdaus (inshallah) before me. I do not mourn because his soul is very much alive. God has a plan for each person. Mine was to hide in his boat and shed some light on our actions I ask Allah to make me a shahied (iA) to allow me to return to him and be among all the righteous people in the highest levels of heaven.
    He who Allah guides no one can misguide
    A (bullethole) bar!
    I bear witness that there is no God but Allah
    and that Muhammad is his
    messenger (bullethole) r actions came
    with (bullethole) a (bullethole) ssage and that
    is (bullethole) ha Illalah. The U.S.
    Government is killing our innocent
    civilians but most of you already
    know that. As a M (bullethole) I can’t
    stand to see such evil go unpunished,
    we Muslims are one body, you hurt
    one you hurt us all, well at least that’s
    how Muhammad (pbuh) wanted it to be (bullethole) ever,
    the ummah is beginning to rise/awa (bullethole)
    has awoken the mujahideen, know you are
    fighting men who look into the barrel of your
    gun and see heaven, now how can you compete
    with that. We are promised victory and we
    will surely get it. Now I don’t like killing
    innocent people it is forbidden in Islam
    but due to said (bullethole) it is allowed.
    All credit goes (bullethole)”

    I would give this poem a C-. Mostly he is just echoing bulletpoints (cough,cough) that he must have picked up from jihadist preachers and his brother. Clearly the “liberal” education that he received in Cambridge did not stick.

    The boat looks like Bonnie & Clyde’s V8 – once you’ve killed a cop, the other cops are going to do their best. How the Joker lived, I’ll never know – A (bullethole) must have been with him that day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    The boat looks like Bonnie & Clyde’s V8 – once you’ve killed a cop, the other cops are going to do their best.

    I've never seen such alarmingly inept police work as the manhunt for the Tsarnaevs. Pumping a fusillade of 5.56 mm rounds at the boat in someone's backyard really took the cake. From Wikipedia: ". . . police began a large volume of gunfire at the boat, stopping only after the Superintendent on the scene called for a cease fire. . . . According to Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, and Watertown Police Chief Deveau, Tsarnaev was shooting from inside the boat at police, 'exchanging fire for an hour.' After he was captured, Tsarnaev was found not to have any weapons."

    Not that I care about Tsarnaev, but there were dozens of bullet holes in neighboring houses.
  15. Sunbeam says:

    I think it is going to be interesting to see Jews have to deal with groups that are equally as clannish as they are, and who have the general intelligence to gain admission to the lucrative niches they have carved out for themselves.

    Diamond cutting isn’t rocket science, but they have been muscled out of that. My personal take is that the financial sector is coming.

    Be interesting to see what happens in Hollywood. You just have to wonder whether a Bollywood guy might make the jump one day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Who muscled them out of diamond cutting?
    , @Terrahawk
    I think it is already happening in Hollywood at least on the TV side. I have noticed that a lot of the more family friendly/non-sexually loaded TV shows have a sprinkling of Indian sounding names in the producer/writer slots. It is still a small number but they seem to be making inroads.
  16. Mike Zwick [AKA "Dahinda"] says:

    “It’s uncomfortable for liberal Jews to admit that the massive immigration they’ve backed so viscerally is destabilizing the America in which they’ve attained such a central role.”

    “The ADL recently announced that over a billion foreigners were anti-Semites; but the organization still supports heavy immigration to America from anti-Semitic cultures for reasons of nostalgia”

    I always tell people that political correctness is a white thing and when whites are a minority, political correctness will be dead.

    When the chickens come home to roost do you make chicken soup for the soul in the same way that when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade?

    Read More
  17. Immigration and Diversity Are Destabilizing America

    imho, it’s the opposite. The countries that have had the most riots and protests, such as Greece and Turkey for example, are the most homogeneous. Birds of a feather flock together.

    Read More
  18. JS123 says:

    If you’re “not into bondage, domination, and submission” you might still find fascinating the most disturbing thing I’ve ever stumbled upon on the internet, and that’s saying a lot–”race play.” It’s white supremacist S&M promoted by racial minorities, and, yes, it a real thing.

    Read More
  19. A very poignant and well delivered message. It seems that a lot of immigration enthusiasts focus on the fact that Jews are so prosperous and are only 3% of the population. So why fear being reduced to a minority? But in every situation outside of Israel where Jews are prosperous, it’s not about their percentage of the population, but rather the white percentage.

    Read More
  20. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    So those Jews who suggest that the Jews should decamp to China might need to rethink that idea, eh?

    Read More
  21. syonredux says: • Website

    Yeah, the The Atlantic article was quite interesting:

    Second, the conflation of Jews with Israel seems to be an element of many cases. Some, though of course not all, opposition to Israeli policies is tinged with or rooted in anti-Semitism,

    MMM, and, of course, some, but not all, opposition to South African policies in the ’80s was rooted in anti-White racism.

    but opposition to Israeli policies can also flow in the other direction, transforming into anti-Semitism. That’s particularly dangerous for American Jews in an environment where opposition to Israeli policy seems to be growing, especially on campuses. Jewish students find themselves called on to defend a government they may feel very little connection to, or may simply be associated with, as happened to Rachel Beyda.

    MMM, don’t things like Birthright Israel play into that? Then there’s Netanyahu, who expends a lot of energy reminding Jews that Israel is their national home….

    Kosmin noted that the words used to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the media can unintentionally encourage this—like referring to those building in the West Bank as “Jewish settlers.” “Aren’t they Israeli settlers?”

    There are Arab Israelis, dear fellow.Last time I checked, the settlers tended to be Jewish Israelis.For that matter, did the MSM back in the ’80s refer to White South Africans as just South Africans?Or did they make sure to point out their Whiteness?

    “It’s not animus, it’s ignorance,” Kosmin said, arguing that part of the problem is a blind spot in the complex of political correctness. “The message has gone out [on campuses] that certain types of victimization, or victims, are privileged. The young people have picked up that Jews aren’t on the list of protected species.”

    So, Jews need to get out the message that Jews are on the official victims list?

    One reason for that is assimilation: “The Jewish community is regarded as part of the privileged white community,”

    Love the use of “regarded.” See, we’re obviously not really privileged.You guys just think that we are.Heck, my great-grandad didn’t even get into Skull and Bones!He had to settle for just being an ordinary Yale grad.Deep wounds, man.the kind of thing that you never get over.

    just as other ethnic groups have become part of an undifferentiated white mass.

    Gotta unpack that “White mass.” Those bastard WASPs are trying to trick you noble POC folk, make you see Jews as White oppressors.We’re your allies people!

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/uclas-troubling-question-for-jewish-students-everywhere/387091/

    Read More
  22. Busby says:

    Don’t all radical social movements experience a denouement between the extremists and the moderates?

    Read More
  23. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    In recent months, Jewish centrists such as journalists Jonathan Chait and Jamie Kirchick have become increasingly alarmed over whether the Obama Coalition’s identity politics jihad against white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege, and now even cisgender privilege will eventually turn against the privileges of the single richest and most influential ethnic group in America: Jews.

    Ahhh, so that is why prominent Rethuglicans support Immigration Reform.

    Read More
  24. Houston immigrant growth ‘in a class by itself’
    Two journeys with different endings illustrate most diverse metro in U.S. Yeah and Steve promotes Houston all the time. I bet in 10 years some whites in the conservative burbs move out to Arizona, Oklahoma and some other states. Houston Texas the new LA, only the housing is cheaper,,lol.

    Read More
  25. McFly says:

    This was interesting:

    “As an Afro-Cuban queer male, the toll that the stresses of this campus has had on my mental, physical and emotional health is nothing any student should ever have to go through – but this is unfortunately something with which many students of color deal.”

    The reigning leftist ideology preached on college campuses causes mental illness.

    Read More
  26. But its defection to the BDS side remains an alarming emblem for Jewish Baby Boomer liberals because something is happening here

    my brain filled in “and what it is ain’t exactly clear”

    Also, Ron seems to have moved some of the Java from this site to RonUnz.net

    Read More
  27. UCSF, University of California San Francisco, is a purely graduate school,
    predominantly medical and bio-medical.
    For personal reasons, I was happy to learn that UCSF is not mentioned
    in the list of University of California campuses,
    which are involved in energetic (for the lack of better word) student discussions.
    Very serious article by Sailer there in Takimag.

    Read More
  28. syonredux says: • Website

    RE: Said,

    1.As you said, Steve, one way to interpret his “Orientalism” notions is to see it as an attempt to reconcile his love of Western Lit with his political beliefs: “No, no.I’m not just enjoying Vanity Fair.I’m critically engaging with the text, analyzing the ways that it reinforces Western hegemony, etc”

    Along these lines, during the final months of his life ( he had chronic lymphocytic leukæmia) Said read Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories over and over again.I doubt that he was “critically engaging with the text.”No, it was comfort food.As he approached death, he wanted to read something that he had loved since he was a boy.

    2.Back in graduate school, I had a teacher who was one of Said’s students.He commented that Said would get really annoyed with the Social Justice Warrior type of grad student.These were the people who took one of his classes because they hated the White Man’s literature.When it came time to present to the seminar, they would just spew a torrent of PC tropes: the other, orientalism, phallogocentrism, etc.According to my old teacher, this kind of thing really disheartened Said.Evidently, he had trouble accepting that he had helped to create a purer breed of scholar, one who was not vitiated by a genuine love for the Western Canon.

    Read More
  29. Thanks for the good news, Mr. Sailer. Let’s hope that America continues to decline towards a “Third World” hellhole. We Euro-Americans, though greatly reduced in material circumstances, will no longer be ruled by foreigners. …

    Read More
  30. RH says:

    Actually, I’ve had experience with college campuses, and, with the exception of Berkley, the California ones are less aggressively leftist than white utopias like Madison, Minneapolis, and Boulder. Hispanic and Asian students are generally not very passionate about American politics either way, while these homogenous white enclaves derive their identity from hating the larger society. At UCLA, you may see ethnic politics in student government, but the vast majority of students don’t care.

    BDS is probably at least partly driven by the large number of Muslim students, rather than diversity per se. And believe it or not, a lot of the pro-BDS movement is itself Jewish.

    Read More
  31. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The wanky left is forever going on and on about the ‘injustice’ of Palestinians being displaced and divested of their native ancestral homeland by another ethnicity who came in as usurpers and conquerors. This is held by them to be the biggest evil possible in the modern world.
    Yet, curiously, the displacement and usurpation of Englishmen in their native ancestral homeland by usurpers from the third world is held by the same wanky leftists as being ‘the highest progressive value possible’, and anyone who dares question it is vilified and branded as unspeakably evil.

    Read More
  32. GW says:

    “It’s uncomfortable for liberal Jews to admit that the massive immigration they’ve backed so viscerally is destabilizing the America in which they’ve attained such a central role.”

    It’s really powerful liberals in general that are responsible for the destabilization–sure Jews tend to be more powerful and more liberal than the average white American–but they didn’t wreck this country’s demographics alone.

    I also noticed something I previously hadn’t after reading this column, namely acute vulnerability among (mostly white and Jewish) coastal liberals regarding immigration destabilization that real Americans in the middle hardly face. Sure, there are little Somalias and towns full of Mexicans popping up more and more, but outside of large cities and the coasts most areas are still comfortable white. A farmer in Iowa sees less conflict from non-white immigration than a young professional in LA or NY does.

    Read More
  33. bomag [AKA "doombuggy"] says:

    May 1st brings us the next Marvel movie, “Age of Ultron”, where the creation threatens the creator.

    We’ve got that here, and in other ways in this wonderful world. We’ve industrialized food production and transportation, so that those so inclined can travel anywhere; survive; and procreate, often to the demise of those who created that technology. Now that we’ve industrialized dissent, those with any kind of grievance can spool up sympathy beyond what the creators of the Social Justice movement can manage.

    Once again, unintended consequences rears its pesky head.

    Read More
  34. SPMoore8 says:

    I remember having a conversation about this with a nice elderly Jewish lady about 20 years ago and her attitude was that America should become more multiculti because then it was less likely that people would go after the Jews. I remember she leaned in and whispered this to me sotto voce like it was a Big Secret.

    I didn’t bother trying to explain to her that the more non-Westerners we import, the more Jewish people will be perceived as “Western”, with the result that they will lose their outsider status and become just like the rest of white folks (nominally or otherwise.) I mean, it’s not a coincidence that Wonder Bread makes bagels, which basically are hamburger buns with holes in them.

    But these are the reasons why I believe more and more Jewish people will align themselves against multiculturalism in the future, and accordingly become more conservative. I mean there’s something like 5 billion people who really don’t know or care about the difference between a Jewish person and some ordinary white person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Wonder Bread makes bagels, which basically are hamburger buns with holes in them.

    Spoken like someone who has never had a good bagel.
  35. syonredux says: • Website

    I just want to reflect as the only person on this council who is actually invested in this conversation in the sense that I am an Israeli citizen and that I was born in Israel 21 years ago … Do not ever, ever frame this conflict as an indigenous versus non-indigenous [issue], and I don’t care where you stand on this issue because when you frame this issue in that way you’re saying that I don’t actually matter, that I don’t have a place in my homeland, and I would never, ever take that from anybody. …

    Yeah, we all know what’s happening to the Afrikaners right now.They’ve been in South Africa since the 17th century, but they ended up on the doubleplus ungood side of the “indigenous versus non-indigenous” question…. Of course, Jewish activists seemed somewhat unconcerned about that.Who-whom, I suppose….

    Read More
    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    "Of course, Jewish activists seemed somewhat unconcerned about that."

    "Somewhat unconcerned" is an understatement. From Joe Slovo (no peace be upon him) to Helen Suzman to Harry Schwarz, South African Jews were at the forefront of anti-apartheid activity, leading of course to the current miserable state of affairs there for whites in general and Boer farmers in particular.
  36. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    I'm curious about how some younger Jewish intellectuals, with less attachment to Israel, feel about this. Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn't in the top 5 of countries he cared about. I'd send him a link to your Taki column and ask, but he gets mad sometimes when I mention your name.

    In any case, what I wonder is whether they are untroubled by the BDS movement, seeing it just as an anti-Israel thing, or as the first taste of a more assertive hostility toward Jews from recent 3rd world immigrants.
    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    This says it all:

    First of all, The Bell Curve, of which I've only read part (the part about race), strikes me as relatively unimportant and counterproductive.
     

    But The Bell Curve is not the Murray book that changed my thinking. That book was Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.
     

    First of all, the "white" part in the title didn't bother me a bit - in fact, I saw it as an attempt to atone for the excessive focus on race in The Bell Curve.
     
    Since he only read the part on race, I would say that he is the one with an "excessive focus on race"

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/how-charles-murray-changed-my-mind.html
    , @Anon
    DJANGO is white revenge fantasy?

    So, if someone made a movie about a German-Jew killing a whole bunch of evil nasty Zionist Israeli Jews, it would be a 'Jewish revenge fantasy'?
  37. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    I'm curious about how some younger Jewish intellectuals, with less attachment to Israel, feel about this. Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn't in the top 5 of countries he cared about. I'd send him a link to your Taki column and ask, but he gets mad sometimes when I mention your name.

    In any case, what I wonder is whether they are untroubled by the BDS movement, seeing it just as an anti-Israel thing, or as the first taste of a more assertive hostility toward Jews from recent 3rd world immigrants.

    “Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn’t in the top 5 of countries he cared about.”

    Never judge people by what they say. Judge them by what they do.

    Also, it may be to Jewish advantage to focus less on Israel as it’s becoming too closely associated with attack on Palestinians and Netanhayu’s boorishness that is welcome to the much loathed GOP.

    Focus more on OTHER nations with problems… like evil Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @keypusher
    If you're a pundit, what you say IS what you do.
  38. nglaer says:

    Is it just me, or are there other Isteve readers who find Sheldon Adelson as repugnant as all the Ferguson SJW’s, and actually more dangerous because more powerful? Jamie Kirchik a centrist? You must be joking, Steve. He’s a neocon, light in loafers category, whose main interest is getting the United States to fight wars he or his friends or friends children will never, ever, fight.
    Frankly, if all these Mexican immigrants undermined Israeli power, that would validate them for me. Unfortunately, they’re just as likely to want to demonstrate their patriotism and become Marine canon fodder.

    Read More
  39. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I'm curious about how some younger Jewish intellectuals, with less attachment to Israel, feel about this. Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn't in the top 5 of countries he cared about. I'd send him a link to your Taki column and ask, but he gets mad sometimes when I mention your name.

    In any case, what I wonder is whether they are untroubled by the BDS movement, seeing it just as an anti-Israel thing, or as the first taste of a more assertive hostility toward Jews from recent 3rd world immigrants.

    It may be that these fools are deluding themselves that the left is not anti-Semitic, only anti-Zionist (this used to go on in the Soviet Union also) but that’s all it is – a delusion. It’s a short step from excluding Israelis from academia to excluding supporters of Israel to excluding Jews in general as PRESUMED supporters of Israel. Maybe if the Jew in question takes a pledge in which he publicly professes not just that he is indifferent to Israel but that he HATE HATE HATES the Israeli oppressors, he might get an exemption as an honorary anti-Zionist. But we could never REALLY trust him or put him in a position of authority. He might always go back to blood.

    Now if there’s one thing that Jewish leftists are, it’s oblivious to certain things, despite their supposed smarts. Once you are wearing your ideological blinders, you can’t see what’s coming at you from your own side.

    And Steve is right that 3rd worlders are immune to the magic Jewish Holocaust guilt-trip mojo that works so well on whites. They see themselves as having no responsibility for that, so whatever happened 70 years ago has NOTHING to do with their attitude towards Israel and Zionists.

    Have Jewish leftists painted the Jews into a corner? It wouldn’t be the first time – Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union. Will it happen in the US? It has already – in case you haven’t noticed, Barack Obama is no great friend of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    "It’s a short step from excluding Israelis from academia to excluding supporters of Israel to excluding Jews in general as PRESUMED supporters of Israel. Maybe if the Jew in question takes a pledge in which he publicly professes not just that he is indifferent to Israel but that he HATE HATE HATES the Israeli oppressors, he might get an exemption as an honorary anti-Zionist. But we could never REALLY trust him or put him in a position of authority. He might always go back to blood."

    Sheesh, talk about histrionics. Where in the West is this supposed to be happening, to get you so hysterical about it? Too many Shoah movies, buddy. You need to start changing your viewing habits.

    "It wouldn’t be the first time – Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union."

    Most of the "irreparable harm" done during the days of the USSR was to Russian gentiles, and very often it was one of the Jewish communists you yourself mentioned doing the harm. The great Aleksander Solzhenitsyn even wrote about this.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    "Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union."

    Many of the Bolsheviks were Jews - Felix Dhershinski (sp?) for instance. And many of them died thinking, "If only Stalin knew". Talk about useful idiots.
  40. Will Jews get the message if Rahm Emanuel loses in Chicago? Probably not! Still, it’s nice watching the rainbow coalition turn on Jews a bit. Jews, not zionists, destroyed America, and I’m not going to forget that any time soon..

    Read More
  41. Ivy says:
    @Anonymous
    To answer your question, Steve, perhaps it's worthwhile to look at France.
    In France you have the burgeoning Muslim/non-white population soon slated to become the numerical majority. Also you have a long-established rich and successful Jewish population.
    Apart from being more or less openly hated and despised by the Muslims/non-whites, French Jews are looked upon as some sort of 'super-whites', in that they seem to exemplify epitomise the power, money, control and 'privilege' that the immigrants find so galling and envy inducing in everyday garden variety French whites.

    The French education system has long included anti-Anglo Saxon themes. Look at English texts au lycée to see the overt denigration of Americans and American history and culture in particular. Some of that reflects influences of the self-regard (amour propre) of Frenchness dating at least from Napoleon, and some from de Gaulle’s explicit third way (not the US, not the USSR, we’re French you see, with our very own Force de Frappe nukes, delivered via Peugeots).

    Their geography next to Germany and across from North Africa has presented some challenges for the past century or so, dating back to the disastrous Franco-Prussian War, then compounded with generations lost in WWI and WWII, with more in Indochine and Algérie.

    The French have a love-hate relationship with the English, given centuries of warfare and other cultural exchanges. Young French graduates headed to London, New York (recall Goldman’s Fabulous Fab Tourre) and elsewhere demonstrate the benefits of the rigorous baccalauréat and Grandes Écoles educations to ply their trades. Who will compete for those places from the MENA or sub-Saharan communities? The Jews may leave, to be replaced by whom? (Side note, is Jewish exit from France and points beyond to Israel reminiscent of aliens doing Men in Black-style warp jumps in advance of Arquillian Battle Cruisers? Wonder what they know that we don’t?)

    France is losing the essence of what made it such a wonderful and unique country, to unwashed hordes that are not capable of recognizing, let alone acknowledging why it developed and flowered in prior years. Behind a lot of their posturing and preening is a type of anxiety about the viability of French culture.

    Therein is a cautionary tale for Americans as their elected representatives open the borders seemingly without a care as to history or precedent.

    Read More
  42. Hal says:

    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    Some commenters conflate Arab with Muslim. Arabs are people who speak Arabic. Muslims are people who practice Islam. Palestinians are people who are native to Palestine.

    Some commenters conflate olive skinned Mediterraneans with sub-Saharan blacks. Mediterraneans have had civilizations for 5-1o thousand years. Sub-Saharan blacks lived in tropical forests until a few hundred years ago. Northern Europeans lived in northern forests until 2,000 years ago. Also, Arabs can’t jump.

    There isn’t much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham, radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That makes no sense. Jews certainly have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa, so it makes no sense to claim that the Boers have greater claim to South Africa on grounds of indigeneity than the Jews do to Palestine.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    There isn’t much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham…
     
    After 4,000 years, everyone on the planet is descended from Abraham. Except, perhaps, the Andaman Islanders.

    …radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.
     
    Big difference: radical Christians leave the swording to Jesus.
    , @Whiskey
    Yes, who can forget that time Pat Robertson, Shmuley Boteach, and the Pope beheaded Muslims on a beach? I see moral equivalence drawn all the time, the President is fond of citing Medieval Crusading Christians to justify the latest ISIS horror, but its moral equivalence at its most lazy and stupid.

    Christianity for better and worse, is at the heart of the West as being Greek/Hellenistic Humanism writ onto Jewish monotheism. With given the Trinity more of the Hellenistic Humanism than the monotheism. Hating Christianity is hating Hellenism, you can read any of the Greek philosophers and they echo much of the New Testament and Jesus teaching specifically. Its why Nietzsche hated Christianity calling it a slave religion (accurate too) and preferring the Greek Heroic tradition. But Achilles was a literal dead end and the power of the West comes from not sulking in a tent denied glory in battle but male cooperation from Christianity.

    Its as dumb to hate Christianity as it is to believe America fought for Israel (Pat Buchanon has to be one of the all time worst peddlers of this -- so stupid he believes like Obama his own BS). Presidents hostile to Israel (FDR, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Bush I), indifferent (Nixon, Carter, Clinton), and friendly (Truman, Reagan, Bush II) have overthrown Mossadegh, armed Saddam, bombed Saddam, fought Saddam and kicked him out of Kuwait, overthrown Saddam, sank the Iranian Navy, all in service to the US dominating the Gulf and protecting America's most vital ally: the House of Saud and its oil that can be pumped out of the ground at a budget-break even point for them at around $60-70, purely economic at around $20-30 (putting aside regime survival based on patronage). But then you'd have to stop believing in magic and understand the world runs on oil and how much it costs.

    Israel is a marginally ally of usefulness like the Egyptians, but a sideshow to the House of Saud and Gulf domination. Of course Obama has thrown away 70+ years of Persian Gulf domination to make himself feel good, a result of racial change: not enough White people wanting cheap gas and too many Asians viewing America as a rental Apartment Complex and Hispanics as apathetic and mildly hostile to White America.

    Why do White people care about Iran getting nukes? They don't want to move to South Central LA -- America's racial segregation depends on cheap (enough) oil and gas.

    Its always at the bottom, about the money.
    , @Art Deco
    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    No, and no. The antique population in South Africa would be Bushmen and Hottentot. The latter are largely extinct, though South Africa's Coloured population is derived from them. The Bushmen are found in Namibia and Botswana but not South Africa in appreciable numbes. Bantu populations were fairly recent arrivals in South Africa at the time of the Boer colonization, but neither much predated the other.

    As for 'Palestinians', the use of the term would be anachronistic for describing any population there present prior to 1921, and, truth be told, prior to 1968 (as no such identity as 'Palestinian'was prevalent prior to that date). Mandatory Palestine was an assemblage of three Ottoman sanjaks which had themselves not had absolutely fixed boundaries over the previous 50 years. Large swaths of it had been quite sparsely populated and two different spectra of Arabic vernaculars were spoken therein. There was not much distinction between the extant population of those sanjaks and those to the north and northeast. The same spectra of dialects is found, though the balance between confessions varied then (as it does today). Also, there was during the mandatory period considerable immigration from surrounding territories. There were also counter currents. Neither Yasir Arafat nor Edward Said grew up in mandatory Palestine, and people who heard him speak reported that Edward Said spoke flawless Egyptian Arabic, as one might expect of a man who had grown up there.

    And there was no Jewish 'invasion' of 'Palestine'. They immigrated legally and bought land off the local owners.

  43. Luke Lea says:

    American popular support for the state of Israel and for Jews generally is rooted in our Protestant traditions. It was naive for major American Jewish Organizations to assume that a multi-racial, multi-cultural America based on mass immigration from Asia and Latin America would be good for the Jews over the long-run. It’s time for American Jewish leaders to re-read Irving Krystol’s essay, “The Political Stupidity of the Jews.” And while they are at it they might consider championing the interests of the American people for a change, at least when it comes to the twin pocket-book issues of trade and immigration. Nobody speaks up for them now. If you want a friend, you need to be a friend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    Instead of writing that American Jewish leaders should start championing the interests of the "American people" I should have written "American working people." Not that there is a whole lot of difference between the two.
  44. Luke Lea says:
    @Luke Lea
    American popular support for the state of Israel and for Jews generally is rooted in our Protestant traditions. It was naive for major American Jewish Organizations to assume that a multi-racial, multi-cultural America based on mass immigration from Asia and Latin America would be good for the Jews over the long-run. It's time for American Jewish leaders to re-read Irving Krystol's essay, "The Political Stupidity of the Jews." And while they are at it they might consider championing the interests of the American people for a change, at least when it comes to the twin pocket-book issues of trade and immigration. Nobody speaks up for them now. If you want a friend, you need to be a friend.

    Instead of writing that American Jewish leaders should start championing the interests of the “American people” I should have written “American working people.” Not that there is a whole lot of difference between the two.

    Read More
  45. Hal says:

    Here are a few inconvenient truths:

    It is not allowed to say that Jews have control of the media or disproportionate influence in government, banking, or entertainment. This is because Jews have control of the media and disproportionate influence in government, banking, and entertainment.

    It is not allowed to question black’s overall moral judgment, and it infuriates blacks when pointed out that they do not reason adequately, are impulsive, and generally disregard laws. When infuriated, they tend to become even more irrational, act out impulsively, and often break laws. This is because blacks generally lack moral judgment, self control, and do not reason at a level that allows them to understand laws.

    It is foolish to allow Jews, who form groups to advocate for Jewish interests at the expense of society at large (AIPAC), to monitor and determine society’s moral compass. As a group, Jews are incapable of rendering an opinion on society at large because as a group, Jews comprehend society at large as the other. Individual Jews often escape from this mindset, but this comment refers to the group.

    It is foolish to allow blacks to render moral judgments because the vast majority understand morality only on the basis of immediate interest. Some understand concrete examples such as “do not put your hand on the hot stove because when I did it, it hurt.” Very, very few blacks understand the abstractions necessary to formulate or evaluate moral questions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marty
    I have actual experience that if you suggest to a black that his group is violent, he will refute you with - - violence.
  46. I apologize to you, Mr. Sailer, and to all your readers for the tone of my previous post. Seeing Bibi speak before “our” Congress knowing full well that their loyalty (to Israel) has been purchased by the likes of Sheldon Adelson does not sit well with most goyim-Americans. So, please forgive the apparent anti-Semitism.

    Read More
  47. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    I'm curious about how some younger Jewish intellectuals, with less attachment to Israel, feel about this. Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn't in the top 5 of countries he cared about. I'd send him a link to your Taki column and ask, but he gets mad sometimes when I mention your name.

    In any case, what I wonder is whether they are untroubled by the BDS movement, seeing it just as an anti-Israel thing, or as the first taste of a more assertive hostility toward Jews from recent 3rd world immigrants.

    Noah Smith isn’t attached to Israel like some Jews are, but he is pro-Jewish and pro-Jewish diaspora. He prioritizes the diaspora and the sort of open immigration environment that the diaspora thrives in over the Israeli nation-state.

    Read More
  48. MLK says:

    A terrific column! Penny ante college politics as emblematic of wider world trends, not consequential in and of themselves.

    A couple of recent events offer some insight into where we may be heading. Waxman was replaced by Ted Lieu, an Asian. He ran up the middle as the other members of the diversity coalition were blocking and tackling each other. In other words, Asians seem to be benefiting from being the compromise minority, given their apolitical ethnic image.

    The quick halt to the effort to repeal Proposition 209 is also emblematic. It demonstrated that Democrats as a whole, but Hispanic Democrats in particular, didn’t want to pressure Asian politicians out of their coalition. After all, do the Asians really ask for that much?

    We can surmise that Jews and the rest of the Democratic Coalition will attempt to muddle through, waiting for the air to come out of the balloon that is the Lumpen end of their coalition. After all, Jews won the BDS battle of UCLA. The coverage that has followed makes it clear the wider world cares. If you were some UCLA undergrad, having your name prominently associated with these events, do you think you’re going to do better getting a career going in Los Angeles as a BDS opponent or supporter? I guess that depends on whether you want a well-paying job with good career prospects in Entertainment, Finance, Real Estate. . . . , or you’re looking to drive your father’s cab, work at his gas station, or in his gardening business.

    Read More
  49. OhComeOn says:

    I think Germanics are Jews only natural enemies and that hispanics/asians/muslims can be outsmarted and controlled.

    Brazil is probably anti-semitic, but the Jews own that country. So? ‘Hate us all you want little brown people, we still own you!’

    Read More
  50. “Second, the conflation of Jews with Israel seems to be an element of many cases. ”

    Those American Jews who put Israel first have no one to blame for this conflation but themselves.

    Read More
  51. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    Steven Spielberg is going to make a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence about the journalist Lindsay Addario. I wonder if he’ll put in the part about Addario being forced by the Israeli military to go through an xray machine 3 times going in and out of Gaza.

    Looks like it will be an interesting movie, if he returns to form and can get her to tone it down a bit.

    Read More
  52. Twinkie says:

    I agree with Derbyshire on this. Diversity is like salt in a soup. A little bit makes the soup more interesting and tasty, but too much ruins the soup. And social science is pretty clear on this: high levels of diversity erode social cohesion.

    Having stated that, I’d posit that diversity (even a little bit of it), depending on the type, has a different impact on social cohesion and common interests. The following article about a fight over the American flag at a California university campus is emblematic of what I mean: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/08/uc-irvine-students-just-banned-the-american-flag-on-campus-for-a-little-while-anyway/

    On the one hand:

    On March 3, the Associated Students of the University of California passed a resolution that would ban national flags from the lobby and offices of student government, according to a statment posted on UCI News.

    Penned by Matthew Guevara, a student in the school of social ecology, the resolution stated: “Designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidentially.”

    “The American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” the resolution continued. “Flags not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.”

    The resolution noted that in certain spaces “freedom of speech” can be interpreted as “hate speech.” [Bold face mine.]

    You could not make it up. This budding anti-American revolutionary actually has the surname “Guevara.”

    On the opposing side:

    On Friday, state Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Santa Ana) told the AP that legislators may introduce a state constitutional amendment prohibiting “state-funded universities and college campuses from banning the United States flag.”

    The resolution also sparked outrage among some military veterans and students, the Times reported. UCI junior Daniel La, 21, told the Times that he didn’t think the vote was “representative of the school.”

    “There’s a lot of students that aren’t happy about it,” he said. “I don’t personally agree with it either.” [Boldface mine.]

    So, to put rather crudely, the Hispanic activist says the Old Glory is evil while the Vietnamese-American legislator and the Korean-American student are supporting the flag (it’s not an accident, of course, that Vietnamese- and Korean-Americans are the most Republican-leaning Asians in the United States).

    Now, getting back to the topic of the original post above, ask yourself a question: on which side of this debate would liberal Jews (I repeat myself) fall? And what about the majority of non-Jewish whites?

    Not all diversity is the same; not all diversity is ideologically compatible with the American Jewry or, for that matter, non-Jewish whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can't get it back.

    , @iffen

    A little bit makes the soup more interesting and tasty, but too much ruins the soup.
     
    He would think along these lines wouldn't he?
  53. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    The official ideology like to see politics in terms of:

    Conservatism vs Liberalism.

    But…

    We might well ask… WHICH LIBERALISM?

    There are Liberal Jewish-Americans and Liberal Palestinians-Americans. Both groups mostly vote Democratic, but they don’t see eye-to-eye on history, Israel/Palestine conflict, and the Middle East. They may agree on individual self-determination, but if most Jewish-American individuals support the Zionist cause and if most Palestinian-American individuals support the Palestinian cause, where does that leave us? Also, as there are many more powerful Jewish-American individuals than there are powerful Palestinian-American individuals (Edward Said was a rare exception), the Liberal Individualism of Jews will have far greater sway than the Liberalism Individualism of Palestinians.

    Black Liberalism is very tribal and racial. So, is Brown Liberalism of the La Raza ilk. And Homosexuals are very much into homosexual identity and empowerment.

    If anything, American Liberalism, via the neo-tribalism of ‘multi-culturalism’, has encouraged every minority group to see itself in terms of its tribal-victim-hood under straight white gentile males.

    In a way, this served Jewish interests as well.

    After all, if Jewish-American Liberals had fully accepted assimilationist and universalist doctrine of abstract liberalism, then they would have had no reason to preserve their Jewish identity, interests, history, and politics, especially in relation to the Holocaust and Israel. Victim-hood, no less than ‘racism’, is tribalist. Victimology is rarely about all of humanity suffering under oppression. Rather, it emphasizes WE or OUR TRIBE victimized by THEM or SOME OTHER TRIBE. Thus, victimology can never be truly liberal. A true liberal would say, regardless of which group harmed which other group, it was really just a case of one bunch of people harming another bunch of people since all nations, cultures, and even race are just ‘social constructs’. But victimology doesn’t work that way. It collectively sanctifies one tribe as holy victims of another tribe that is made out to be wicked vermin.

    The Holocaust narrative doesn’t say one people (who mistakenly saw themselves as ‘Aryans’) harmed another people (who mistakenly saw themselves as ‘Jews’, another ‘social construct’). It says, evil GERMANS–and their gentile white collaborators–killed innocent JEWS.

    Victimology blames an entire people for the ‘sins’ of some of their ancestors while elevating another entire people for what some of their ancestors had suffered. So, even Germans who opposed Nazism are to be blamed for the Holocaust whereas even Jews in America and elsewhere who weren’t endangered by the Holocaust get to play the Noble Victim card.

    There was once a time when leftism and liberalism sought to bring all people together as cosmopolitan individuals. But it didn’t work out that way since it takes money, privilege, and intelligence for people to become cosmopolitans. Most people never had the means to be so sophisticated.

    But then, even people who did become cosmopolitan and liberal didn’t entirely give up their tribalism. There are black cosmopolitans who stick to black power and identity. Eric Holder and Charles Blow. And Jewish cosmopolitans are pro-Zionist. And Latin-American elite cosmopolitans play the anti-gringo card all the time. And homo-cosmopolitans or coshomopolitans are all about ‘gay power’.

    Anyway, since the Left had problems pulling all the minority groups together as one abstract demography of proles or ‘oppressed’, it played the neo-tribalist card through multi-culturalism.

    This way, each group—blacks, browns, yellows, homos, Muslims, American Indians, feminists, , and etc, etc—would get to play up their tribalism BUT as victims of straight white gentile males. That way, the Liberal alliance would get to enjoy their own tribalisms while attacking the tribalism of straight white gentile males. So, the narrative goes on and on about ‘white privilege’, it is very shush about ‘Jewish privilege’ or ‘homo privilege’ or ‘mulatto privilege’.

    But then, this is the problem of Liberalism. It has too many contentious tribalisms in its own rank. They are held together in alliance only by shared hatred of the common enemy: straight white gentile males. But if white straight gentile males were to vanish from the planet, there’s no way the Liberal coalition could stay together. Angry blacks, rich Jews, sneering homos, bitchy feminists, bitter Muslims, gorky Asians, and etc. don’t have much in common. And without ‘white privilege’ to focus on, most people would begin to notice Jewish power and privilege.

    Indeed, Liberalism is now defined by contradiction of cultural separatism and racial mix-ism.

    Multi-culturalism says every cultural identity should be preserved instead of being soft-genocided via assimilationist process of the melting pot. So, each cultural identity should guard and preserve itself instead of melding with white mainstream Americanism.

    On the other hand, Liberalism says all races should mixed and be mongrelized and mulattoized and mestizo-ized.

    Now, how can separate cultures be maintained if all the races are mixed? If someone is 1/8 Bantu, 1/8 Mexican, 1/8 Chinese, 1/8 Jewish, 1/8 Arab, 1/8 Armenian, 1/8 Indian, and 1/8 German, what culture does he belong to and what culture should he preserve?

    Liberalism, as it currently exists, makes no sense. It’s more about tactical machinations than principles based on abstract vision of truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA
    Get rid of human rights. That'll straighten things out faster than you can say shakedown.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    there are many more powerful Jewish-American individuals than there are powerful Palestinian-American individuals (Edward Said was a rare exception)
     
    Don't forget Sirhan Sirhan. And Nidal Hasan.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Excellent description!

    White male gentiles are the scapegoat, the center around which everyone else can organize and focus their energies. Jewish people served a similar purpose in Nazi Germany.

    So far our Kristallnachts have been confined to places like Ferguson, The Most Important Place in the World (TM). I sometimes ask why they don't just start rounding us up and putting us in camps. (The grid would shut down if they did. Maybe they sense that.)

    It is easier to organize and motivate a mob in oppostion to an enemy than it is to work together toward some positive, productive goal.

    I don't think the Coalition of All Others realizes that they are tearing down the very thing they want: the white gentile standard of living. And non-gentile leaders don't seem to be looking ahead to what their future holds: riding heard atop a third world mob, right here in the ol' USA.

  54. syonredux says: • Website
    @Anon
    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/how-charles-murray-changed-my-mind.html

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/movie-review-django-unchained.html

    This says it all:

    First of all, The Bell Curve, of which I’ve only read part (the part about race), strikes me as relatively unimportant and counterproductive.

    But The Bell Curve is not the Murray book that changed my thinking. That book was Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.

    First of all, the “white” part in the title didn’t bother me a bit – in fact, I saw it as an attempt to atone for the excessive focus on race in The Bell Curve.

    Since he only read the part on race, I would say that he is the one with an “excessive focus on race”

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/how-charles-murray-changed-my-mind.html

    Read More
  55. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/how-charles-murray-changed-my-mind.html

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/movie-review-django-unchained.html

    DJANGO is white revenge fantasy?

    So, if someone made a movie about a German-Jew killing a whole bunch of evil nasty Zionist Israeli Jews, it would be a ‘Jewish revenge fantasy’?

    Read More
  56. @syonredux

    I just want to reflect as the only person on this council who is actually invested in this conversation in the sense that I am an Israeli citizen and that I was born in Israel 21 years ago ... Do not ever, ever frame this conflict as an indigenous versus non-indigenous [issue], and I don’t care where you stand on this issue because when you frame this issue in that way you’re saying that I don’t actually matter, that I don’t have a place in my homeland, and I would never, ever take that from anybody. …

     

    Yeah, we all know what's happening to the Afrikaners right now.They've been in South Africa since the 17th century, but they ended up on the doubleplus ungood side of the "indigenous versus non-indigenous" question.... Of course, Jewish activists seemed somewhat unconcerned about that.Who-whom, I suppose....

    “Of course, Jewish activists seemed somewhat unconcerned about that.”

    “Somewhat unconcerned” is an understatement. From Joe Slovo (no peace be upon him) to Helen Suzman to Harry Schwarz, South African Jews were at the forefront of anti-apartheid activity, leading of course to the current miserable state of affairs there for whites in general and Boer farmers in particular.

    Read More
  57. @Lot
    The problem at UC schools is not "Asians" but Asian muslims.

    A Chinese immigrant programmer will have kids with high IQs who majors in a hard science, wants to marry white, and identifies with white friends. An Egyptian or Muslim Indian programmer's kid will regress toward a 90 IQ mean, study humanities since they are too dumb for hard sciences, and join the anti-white victim Olympics with all their free time.

    Their daughters are also far more likely to wear burkas, and they make the campus environment seedy, hostile and foreign, like every Muslim neighborhood I've been to in Europe.

    Like I’ve been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago. The big change is the influx from West Asia and parts of East Europe. It’s heavily Muslim, but there are lots of other groups like Christians, Jews, and Miscellaneous (e.g., Sikhs).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Like I’ve been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago."

    Japanese immigration dried up long ago. With Korea with record low birthrates, immigration from there has slowed too. Taiwan as well.

    That really leaves China as the only East Asian nation sending lots of immigrants, but maybe Chinese are less into concentrating on moving to LA as there are other places in the US they can settle and find work.
    , @MLK
    Hah! You're channeling The Simpsons:

    Rev. Lovejoy: No Homer, God didn't burn your house down, but he was working in the hearts of your friends be they Christian, Jew, or... miscellaneous.

    Apu: Hindu. There are seven hundred million of us.

    Rev. Lovejoy: Aww, that's super.
  58. Jack D says:
    @Twinkie
    I agree with Derbyshire on this. Diversity is like salt in a soup. A little bit makes the soup more interesting and tasty, but too much ruins the soup. And social science is pretty clear on this: high levels of diversity erode social cohesion.

    Having stated that, I'd posit that diversity (even a little bit of it), depending on the type, has a different impact on social cohesion and common interests. The following article about a fight over the American flag at a California university campus is emblematic of what I mean: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/08/uc-irvine-students-just-banned-the-american-flag-on-campus-for-a-little-while-anyway/

    On the one hand:


    On March 3, the Associated Students of the University of California passed a resolution that would ban national flags from the lobby and offices of student government, according to a statment posted on UCI News.

    Penned by Matthew Guevara, a student in the school of social ecology, the resolution stated: “Designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidentially.”

    “The American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” the resolution continued. “Flags not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.”

    The resolution noted that in certain spaces “freedom of speech” can be interpreted as “hate speech.” [Bold face mine.]
     

    You could not make it up. This budding anti-American revolutionary actually has the surname "Guevara."

    On the opposing side:


    On Friday, state Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Santa Ana) told the AP that legislators may introduce a state constitutional amendment prohibiting “state-funded universities and college campuses from banning the United States flag.”

    The resolution also sparked outrage among some military veterans and students, the Times reported. UCI junior Daniel La, 21, told the Times that he didn’t think the vote was “representative of the school.”

    “There’s a lot of students that aren’t happy about it,” he said. “I don’t personally agree with it either.” [Boldface mine.]
     

    So, to put rather crudely, the Hispanic activist says the Old Glory is evil while the Vietnamese-American legislator and the Korean-American student are supporting the flag (it's not an accident, of course, that Vietnamese- and Korean-Americans are the most Republican-leaning Asians in the United States).

    Now, getting back to the topic of the original post above, ask yourself a question: on which side of this debate would liberal Jews (I repeat myself) fall? And what about the majority of non-Jewish whites?

    Not all diversity is the same; not all diversity is ideologically compatible with the American Jewry or, for that matter, non-Jewish whites.

    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can’t get it back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there?
     
    When the ingredients weren't mixed, you couldn't call it salt in a soup, could you?

    America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can’t get it back.
     
    Not only do I believe in the Virgin Birth, I also believe that a woman possessed by seven demons could become a saint, "an Apostle to the Apostles."

    No, you cannot get virginity back, but that doesn't mean you should remain a harlot. You can be chaste again.

    The point is, just because South Carolina was 58% black at one point doesn't mean it should be that way again or that it should be 58% Hispanic.

    My children didn't institute slavery and neither did the children of all other American parents today. I would like to make sure my kids and their peers live in a free, harmonious, and pleasant society, and I think a high degree of immigration is harmful to that goal.

    By the way, a "whitopia" doesn't have to be exclusively white, just mostly so.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black.
     
    That state could have been expelled from the Union as soon as the 1820 census was collated.

    States outside the South were 98%+ white in 1860.
    , @iSteveFan

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can’t get it back.
     
    I think you are off base on this. The complaint about too much diversity is not about the legacy slave population that we have to live with. The complaint about too much diversity is about the post-1965 push to increase the non-white population. The pre-1965 America was around 88 percent European, with the bulk of the rest comprised of the descendants of slaves. The post-1965 America has become over one-third non-European with trends suggesting that they will become a majority in 20 to 30 years.

    That is what people are complaining about. I don't see how your argument supports the case for turning an 88 percent Euro nation into a non-Euro one.

    And speaking of losing one's moral standing, how do the descendants of Africans, who sold their fellow Africans into slavery, have the moral standing to come to the USA and qualify for affirmative action? How do North Africans and Turks, who enslaved millions of Europeans, have the moral standing to come to Europe and demand the locals let them in?

    I doubt many people have moral standing if you dig deep enough into their past.
    , @ben tillman

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity?
     
    What do you call it when someone can't recognize that people who aren't Black aren't Black? Complaints about diversity aren't about Blacks.
    , @MavinGuy
    Only 388,000 slaves were brought into North America from Africa. Not millions.

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2012/10/how_many_slaves_came_to_america_fact_vs_fiction.html
  59. Marissa says:

    I’ve never seen any evidence of this. Mexican anti-semitism I’ve seen comes from the anti-white far left BDS element.

    Mexico outlawed Catholicism from the 1920s through the 1990s, I believe. Among them, there is probably more “Liberation Theology” types who are anti-semitic than pre-conciliar traditionalists.

    Read More
  60. Marissa says:

    outh African Jews were at the forefront of anti-apartheid activity, leading of course to the current miserable state of affairs there for whites in general and Boer farmers in particular.

    It’s also pretty miserable for the rest of the population. South Africa has one of the world’s highest rape rates. There is a slang word “jackrolling” for the gangs of men who run around gang-raping women.

    Read More
  61. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Lot
    Looks like Jews already joined the white/right-wing (relatively speaking) party at UCLA.

    Here is the "UCLA United" slate:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rgtHEqt6dLEJ:www.bruinsunited.com/candidate/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth, and normal looking men.

    Here is the all-minority LET'S ACT student party, running on "social justice, equity, and inclusion"

    http://www.voteletsact.com/

    The presidential candidate for UCLA United appears to be a Bobby Jindal clone and there appear to be no white Christians on the ticket.

    Read More
  62. George says:

    I don’t think your argument that new immigrants are more anti Semitic or less pro Israel than the native US population is not demonstrated. There are a mix of new immigrants only a few of which are Muslim. It is not clear at all that immigrants from South America are anti Israel or anti Semitic, is there any polling about this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't think Hispanics are or will be very anti-Semitic, certainly nothing like Muslims. Jews seem to do fine in Latin America and not any worse than any other upper-middle and upper class people there.

    Also lots of Hispanics are converting to evangelical and pentecostal sects which tend to be pro-Israel and pro-Jewish people.
    , @Southfarthing

    It is not clear at all that immigrants from South America are anti Israel or anti Semitic, is there any polling about this?
     
    Yes, anti-Semitism is predominately a non-Asian minority thing, with those groups having 600% higher rates than Whites and Asians:

    Less than 5% of whites, Asians, and “others” (including Native Americans) combined hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, compared to over 30% of African Americans and Latinos. ... Of the 12% of Americans who hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, 9% or so [75%] are African Americans or Latinos.
     
  63. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Charlesz Martel
    Well, they won't be able to say they weren't warned:
    http://cis.org/ImmgrationEffectsOnAmericanJewry

    Morons. I have pointed this out to Jews for years (including to the head of a very prominent civil rights group that considers Steve a "hater" and an antisemite. No luck. The Jewish secular elite, many of them anyway, consider religion and ethnic affiliation beneath them, in a weird way.

    The problem isn’t whether or not they understand and are warned. The problem is that they do understand it, but they understand it through a persecution narrative that says that every place is anti-Semitic or will be anti-Semitic, that this is the way of the world and an inextricable part of Jewish identity, that there’s nothing that can be done aside from moving to a new place, etc. It’s a kind of fatalistic narrative that prevents them from dealing with the problem more directly and sensibly.

    Read More
  64. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @George
    I don't think your argument that new immigrants are more anti Semitic or less pro Israel than the native US population is not demonstrated. There are a mix of new immigrants only a few of which are Muslim. It is not clear at all that immigrants from South America are anti Israel or anti Semitic, is there any polling about this?

    I don’t think Hispanics are or will be very anti-Semitic, certainly nothing like Muslims. Jews seem to do fine in Latin America and not any worse than any other upper-middle and upper class people there.

    Also lots of Hispanics are converting to evangelical and pentecostal sects which tend to be pro-Israel and pro-Jewish people.

    Read More
  65. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Hal
    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    Some commenters conflate Arab with Muslim. Arabs are people who speak Arabic. Muslims are people who practice Islam. Palestinians are people who are native to Palestine.

    Some commenters conflate olive skinned Mediterraneans with sub-Saharan blacks. Mediterraneans have had civilizations for 5-1o thousand years. Sub-Saharan blacks lived in tropical forests until a few hundred years ago. Northern Europeans lived in northern forests until 2,000 years ago. Also, Arabs can't jump.

    There isn't much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham, radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.

    That makes no sense. Jews certainly have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa, so it makes no sense to claim that the Boers have greater claim to South Africa on grounds of indigeneity than the Jews do to Palestine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Jews certainly have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa, so it makes no sense to claim that the Boers have greater claim to South Africa on grounds of indigeneity than the Jews do to Palestine.
     
    The genetics would seem to indicate that Ashkenazi Jews have not been in the ME for something like 1,500 years.

    Do they still have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa?
  66. @Jack D
    It may be that these fools are deluding themselves that the left is not anti-Semitic, only anti-Zionist (this used to go on in the Soviet Union also) but that's all it is - a delusion. It's a short step from excluding Israelis from academia to excluding supporters of Israel to excluding Jews in general as PRESUMED supporters of Israel. Maybe if the Jew in question takes a pledge in which he publicly professes not just that he is indifferent to Israel but that he HATE HATE HATES the Israeli oppressors, he might get an exemption as an honorary anti-Zionist. But we could never REALLY trust him or put him in a position of authority. He might always go back to blood.

    Now if there's one thing that Jewish leftists are, it's oblivious to certain things, despite their supposed smarts. Once you are wearing your ideological blinders, you can't see what's coming at you from your own side.

    And Steve is right that 3rd worlders are immune to the magic Jewish Holocaust guilt-trip mojo that works so well on whites. They see themselves as having no responsibility for that, so whatever happened 70 years ago has NOTHING to do with their attitude towards Israel and Zionists.

    Have Jewish leftists painted the Jews into a corner? It wouldn't be the first time - Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union. Will it happen in the US? It has already - in case you haven't noticed, Barack Obama is no great friend of Israel.

    “It’s a short step from excluding Israelis from academia to excluding supporters of Israel to excluding Jews in general as PRESUMED supporters of Israel. Maybe if the Jew in question takes a pledge in which he publicly professes not just that he is indifferent to Israel but that he HATE HATE HATES the Israeli oppressors, he might get an exemption as an honorary anti-Zionist. But we could never REALLY trust him or put him in a position of authority. He might always go back to blood.”

    Sheesh, talk about histrionics. Where in the West is this supposed to be happening, to get you so hysterical about it? Too many Shoah movies, buddy. You need to start changing your viewing habits.

    “It wouldn’t be the first time – Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union.”

    Most of the “irreparable harm” done during the days of the USSR was to Russian gentiles, and very often it was one of the Jewish communists you yourself mentioned doing the harm. The great Aleksander Solzhenitsyn even wrote about this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    >Where in the West is this supposed to be happening

    Well, I imagine that it will start at leftist dominated universities and specifically at student run organizations to start with. We are not that far from this right now. How far it will spread I can't say.
  67. Corvinus says:

    “It is not allowed to say that Jews have control of the media or disproportionate influence in government, banking, or entertainment. This is because Jews have control of the media and disproportionate influence in government, banking, and entertainment.”

    What’s your point? You would want whites—however you define this racial group—to take over from Jews to lead in those areas, correct? So, what is the different if this tribe is in control over another tribe, assuming what you say is definitively true? Some hard core numbers would be appropriate here on your part.

    “It is not allowed to question black’s overall moral judgment, and it infuriates blacks when pointed out that they do not reason adequately, are impulsive, and generally disregard laws. When infuriated, they tend to become even more irrational, act out impulsively, and often break laws. This is because blacks generally lack moral judgment, self control, and do not reason at a level that allows them to understand laws.”

    Considering that white males have historically created and destroyed civilization, it is observably true that they make laws they break, engage in barbaric acts, and effectively play the victim card.

    “It is foolish to allow Jews, who form groups to advocate for Jewish interests at the expense of society at large (AIPAC), to monitor and determine society’s moral compass. As a group, Jews are incapable of rendering an opinion on society at large because as a group, Jews comprehend society at large as the other. Individual Jews often escape from this mindset, but this comment refers to the group.”

    Using your logic, it would be foolish for ANY group to advocate for their own interests. Care to rethink your position.

    “It is foolish to allow blacks to render moral judgments because the vast majority understand morality only on the basis of immediate interest. Some understand concrete examples such as “do not put your hand on the hot stove because when I did it, it hurt.” Very, very few blacks understand the abstractions necessary to formulate or evaluate moral questions.”

    Do people have the liberty to make their own decisions? Do people have the liberty as to who and who is not enable people to make judgements based on the principles of morality? If you say yes to both questions, then it is clear that blacks are able to render moral judgements. If you say no to both questions, then you are fascist who is attempting to impress your own way of life onto others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal
    You were so busy with your righteous indignation that you a) didn't bother to read and comprehend what I had written, and b) fell into the trap. Your logical errors are such that I should not respond, but just for fun, here is one rebuttal by analogy

    Do people have the liberty to make their own decisions?
     
    The issue is not whether people have the liberty to make their own decisions, but whether they should make moral decisions for me.

    Do people have the liberty to make their own decisions? Hmmmm. If we were running the particle accelerators at CERN, and you had a Ph.D. in physics and I was a political hire incapable of basic arithmetic, would my decision be as valid as yours? Would you say, "Well Hal is capable of making decisions even though he thinks 2 plus 2 is 22, and so we need to take his viewpoint (such as it is) into consideration." If you and I disagreed, and you criticized me because you have a Ph.D and I cannot do long division, would you accept a reprimand because it is cruel and egoist to disparage the non-capable non-thinkers?
    According to your logic, you would.

    It is foolish to place the moral compass into hands of the tribe that does not reason sufficiently well to solve their own violence issues.

    As for the rest of your drivel, it fails to rise to the test of "worthy of response."
  68. Twinkie says:
    @Jack D
    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can't get it back.

    Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there?

    When the ingredients weren’t mixed, you couldn’t call it salt in a soup, could you?

    America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can’t get it back.

    Not only do I believe in the Virgin Birth, I also believe that a woman possessed by seven demons could become a saint, “an Apostle to the Apostles.”

    No, you cannot get virginity back, but that doesn’t mean you should remain a harlot. You can be chaste again.

    The point is, just because South Carolina was 58% black at one point doesn’t mean it should be that way again or that it should be 58% Hispanic.

    My children didn’t institute slavery and neither did the children of all other American parents today. I would like to make sure my kids and their peers live in a free, harmonious, and pleasant society, and I think a high degree of immigration is harmful to that goal.

    By the way, a “whitopia” doesn’t have to be exclusively white, just mostly so.

    Read More
  69. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Lot
    Looks like Jews already joined the white/right-wing (relatively speaking) party at UCLA.

    Here is the "UCLA United" slate:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rgtHEqt6dLEJ:www.bruinsunited.com/candidate/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth, and normal looking men.

    Here is the all-minority LET'S ACT student party, running on "social justice, equity, and inclusion"

    http://www.voteletsact.com/

    Why are we doing this to our country? We built a nice country and now we’re turning it over to people who have nothing to do with its creation. And, we’ve been doing this during a time when we’ve been strong. It’s self-destructive.

    Read More
  70. @Lot
    Looks like Jews already joined the white/right-wing (relatively speaking) party at UCLA.

    Here is the "UCLA United" slate:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rgtHEqt6dLEJ:www.bruinsunited.com/candidate/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth, and normal looking men.

    Here is the all-minority LET'S ACT student party, running on "social justice, equity, and inclusion"

    http://www.voteletsact.com/

    Love the gang signs/diva hand gestures.

    Read More
  71. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    Meh, try as you might, this country will never become anti-Semitic. The BDS movement will come and go. This is not the UK with two major universities where “everything” that matters happens.

    More important is the fact that students have been expelled from a major land grant for “chanting racist slogans.” (i.e., being young and stupid)

    Read More
  72. @SPMoore8
    I remember having a conversation about this with a nice elderly Jewish lady about 20 years ago and her attitude was that America should become more multiculti because then it was less likely that people would go after the Jews. I remember she leaned in and whispered this to me sotto voce like it was a Big Secret.

    I didn't bother trying to explain to her that the more non-Westerners we import, the more Jewish people will be perceived as "Western", with the result that they will lose their outsider status and become just like the rest of white folks (nominally or otherwise.) I mean, it's not a coincidence that Wonder Bread makes bagels, which basically are hamburger buns with holes in them.

    But these are the reasons why I believe more and more Jewish people will align themselves against multiculturalism in the future, and accordingly become more conservative. I mean there's something like 5 billion people who really don't know or care about the difference between a Jewish person and some ordinary white person.

    Wonder Bread makes bagels, which basically are hamburger buns with holes in them.

    Spoken like someone who has never had a good bagel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I think you misunderstood me. A good bagel will have a snap to it the same as the casing on a good kielbasa. I am saying that Wonder Bread bagels are essentially hamburger buns with holes in them. And yes, they are pre-cut, too. Ach, die Schande!
  73. Jack D says:
    @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    "It’s a short step from excluding Israelis from academia to excluding supporters of Israel to excluding Jews in general as PRESUMED supporters of Israel. Maybe if the Jew in question takes a pledge in which he publicly professes not just that he is indifferent to Israel but that he HATE HATE HATES the Israeli oppressors, he might get an exemption as an honorary anti-Zionist. But we could never REALLY trust him or put him in a position of authority. He might always go back to blood."

    Sheesh, talk about histrionics. Where in the West is this supposed to be happening, to get you so hysterical about it? Too many Shoah movies, buddy. You need to start changing your viewing habits.

    "It wouldn’t be the first time – Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union."

    Most of the "irreparable harm" done during the days of the USSR was to Russian gentiles, and very often it was one of the Jewish communists you yourself mentioned doing the harm. The great Aleksander Solzhenitsyn even wrote about this.

    >Where in the West is this supposed to be happening

    Well, I imagine that it will start at leftist dominated universities and specifically at student run organizations to start with. We are not that far from this right now. How far it will spread I can’t say.

    Read More
  74. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    Like I've been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago. The big change is the influx from West Asia and parts of East Europe. It's heavily Muslim, but there are lots of other groups like Christians, Jews, and Miscellaneous (e.g., Sikhs).

    “Like I’ve been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago.”

    Japanese immigration dried up long ago. With Korea with record low birthrates, immigration from there has slowed too. Taiwan as well.

    That really leaves China as the only East Asian nation sending lots of immigrants, but maybe Chinese are less into concentrating on moving to LA as there are other places in the US they can settle and find work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Plenty of Chinese are pouring into the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles, but fewer into Los Angeles.
    , @Lot

    With Korea with record low birthrates, immigration from there has slowed too.
     
    Korea is easily the richest country that is still sending us a lot of immigrants. The combination of high cost of living, the most intensive schooling in the world (in the middle class, after-school cram classes 5 days a week, and cram summer camps, are nearly universal), plus mandatory military service, plus the Nork threat, will keep a good stream coming in, even with its 1.4 birthrate and world-class auto and consumer electronics economy.

    As the most Christian NE asians, and the youngest generation about as tall as whites, they assimilate pretty fast too.

    Not quite as fast as the few Japanese immigrants though, who tend to come here specifically because they love our culture, don't have a bunch of Japantowns to retard their assimilation, and produce hapas that look 80-90% white.
  75. gregor says:

    OT Links:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983305/Student-sentenced-death-bloody-knife-rampage-Taiwan-underground-train-left-four-people-dead.html

    A Taiwanese student went berserk on a train, killing four people with a knife and injuring many more. What I found interesting here is that even his own parents are calling for his execution, such is the intensity of their shame. That I can respect. With American parents it’s always about how “gentle” the guy was and how out of character this was and how he needs a second chance, blah, blah, blah.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982148/Handicapped-woman-71-chest-butted-ground-fight-Walmart-parking-spot-left-needing-hip-replacement-months-physical-therapy.html

    A perfectly healthy black lady with a fraudulent handicap sticker gets so enraged that a elderly woman “stole” her handicap spot in the Walmart parking lot that she confronts and knocks her over. The elderly woman had just had a hip replacement and had to get more surgery after the assault. Unbelievably disgusting behavior.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983222/Ex-convict-charged-murder-kindly-professor-75-given-nearly-40-000-bludgeoned-death-set-fire.html

    A bleeding heart 75 year old professor naively took a black thug under his wing, giving him nearly $40,000 to help him get on his feet. The thug thanked him by robbing his house, bludgeoning him to death, and burning his house to the ground. It’s pretty much an allegory for what is happening to the whole country.

    I find it interesting that Daily Mail will often have the better stories that the US media would rather not cover.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    "With American parents it’s always about how “gentle” the guy was and how out of character this was and how he needs a second chance, blah, blah, blah."

    I agree with your post overall, but you missed something in your sentence above. Instead of "American parents" it should have read "black parents." After all, we all know that little (i.e., 6'2", 270 lb.) L'Shitavious or D'Montrell dindu nuffin anyway.

  76. iffen says:
    @Twinkie
    I agree with Derbyshire on this. Diversity is like salt in a soup. A little bit makes the soup more interesting and tasty, but too much ruins the soup. And social science is pretty clear on this: high levels of diversity erode social cohesion.

    Having stated that, I'd posit that diversity (even a little bit of it), depending on the type, has a different impact on social cohesion and common interests. The following article about a fight over the American flag at a California university campus is emblematic of what I mean: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/08/uc-irvine-students-just-banned-the-american-flag-on-campus-for-a-little-while-anyway/

    On the one hand:


    On March 3, the Associated Students of the University of California passed a resolution that would ban national flags from the lobby and offices of student government, according to a statment posted on UCI News.

    Penned by Matthew Guevara, a student in the school of social ecology, the resolution stated: “Designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidentially.”

    “The American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” the resolution continued. “Flags not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.”

    The resolution noted that in certain spaces “freedom of speech” can be interpreted as “hate speech.” [Bold face mine.]
     

    You could not make it up. This budding anti-American revolutionary actually has the surname "Guevara."

    On the opposing side:


    On Friday, state Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Santa Ana) told the AP that legislators may introduce a state constitutional amendment prohibiting “state-funded universities and college campuses from banning the United States flag.”

    The resolution also sparked outrage among some military veterans and students, the Times reported. UCI junior Daniel La, 21, told the Times that he didn’t think the vote was “representative of the school.”

    “There’s a lot of students that aren’t happy about it,” he said. “I don’t personally agree with it either.” [Boldface mine.]
     

    So, to put rather crudely, the Hispanic activist says the Old Glory is evil while the Vietnamese-American legislator and the Korean-American student are supporting the flag (it's not an accident, of course, that Vietnamese- and Korean-Americans are the most Republican-leaning Asians in the United States).

    Now, getting back to the topic of the original post above, ask yourself a question: on which side of this debate would liberal Jews (I repeat myself) fall? And what about the majority of non-Jewish whites?

    Not all diversity is the same; not all diversity is ideologically compatible with the American Jewry or, for that matter, non-Jewish whites.

    A little bit makes the soup more interesting and tasty, but too much ruins the soup.

    He would think along these lines wouldn’t he?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    He would think along these lines wouldn’t he?
     
    Is he wrong?
  77. @Anonymous
    To answer your question, Steve, perhaps it's worthwhile to look at France.
    In France you have the burgeoning Muslim/non-white population soon slated to become the numerical majority. Also you have a long-established rich and successful Jewish population.
    Apart from being more or less openly hated and despised by the Muslims/non-whites, French Jews are looked upon as some sort of 'super-whites', in that they seem to exemplify epitomise the power, money, control and 'privilege' that the immigrants find so galling and envy inducing in everyday garden variety French whites.

    …the power, money, control and ‘privilege’ that the immigrants find so galling and envy inducing in everyday garden variety French whites.

    Or Gaulling.

    Read More
  78. The reality is that Jews have become the obviously unintentional victim of their own, well, inconsistency when it comes to diversity and “social justice”.

    Jews of the Boomer generation and earlier mostly preached diversity and the equality of all peoples long and hard, to the world, and to their children. Yet, obviously, they sang a different tune when it came to their views on Israel and the Jewish people. The Boomers and earlier mostly married other Jews, and supported Israel fanatically.

    But their kids bought into the diversity and equality of all peoples message — the “nobler” of the points of view — and both married outside the clan, and perceived the racism of Israel. There’s no real way for Jews as a people to avoid the internal conflict within their points of view, and its consequences; that bell has been rung. The irony is that Jews, who have practiced rigorous endogamy for over a thousand years, and to impressive effect, will, at least in the US, almost certainly dissipate into the crowd like flatulence in a hurricane. And Israel will increasingly be shunned by the Jews and, mostly, fractional Jews of the newer generations.

    This is why I mostly find rather ridiculous the idea that Jews in America are involved in some grand, concerted, and cunning scheme to take control of the US and the world. This is no way to run a conspiracy.

    Where are the Elders of Zion when you need them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "The irony is that Jews, who have practiced rigorous endogamy for over a thousand years, and to impressive effect, will, at least in the US, almost certainly dissipate into the crowd like flatulence in a hurricane."

    That is kind of my belief as well. Okay, homerism aside most of us here have a dispassionate part of us that observes and makes theories to explain what we see.

    My take, based on observations during my lifetime, and from what I think I have learned from reading and "pop" culture (books, tv shows, movies - in that they bear some resemblance to reality and more importantly people's perceptions of it) is that Jews are being assimilated into white America, like all the other European ethnics.

    At least the smart ones.

    They've held out longer than most, but you can see that cultural identity dissolving. All those marriages, the culture... it's a whole lot of work to keep that up generation to generation.

    And I gather the majority of Jews worldwide outside of Israel reside in the US. The US is some kind of consumerist/materialist borg entity with both puritan and hedonistic streaks that assimilates all it comes into contact with. But one thing it doesn't like is commitment, the kind of thing that it took to maintain Jewish identity all those years.

    Jews might as a rule get assimilated into the overclass instead of getting a couch and a bag of cheetos issued to them, but assimilated they will be.

    Ironically they had a big role in producing this brave new world. The US always had a grasping mercenary streak, but this modern thing is something that only arose with mass media like radio, tv, and now the internet.
  79. IA says:
    @Priss Factor
    The official ideology like to see politics in terms of:

    Conservatism vs Liberalism.

    But...

    We might well ask... WHICH LIBERALISM?

    There are Liberal Jewish-Americans and Liberal Palestinians-Americans. Both groups mostly vote Democratic, but they don't see eye-to-eye on history, Israel/Palestine conflict, and the Middle East. They may agree on individual self-determination, but if most Jewish-American individuals support the Zionist cause and if most Palestinian-American individuals support the Palestinian cause, where does that leave us? Also, as there are many more powerful Jewish-American individuals than there are powerful Palestinian-American individuals (Edward Said was a rare exception), the Liberal Individualism of Jews will have far greater sway than the Liberalism Individualism of Palestinians.

    Black Liberalism is very tribal and racial. So, is Brown Liberalism of the La Raza ilk. And Homosexuals are very much into homosexual identity and empowerment.

    If anything, American Liberalism, via the neo-tribalism of 'multi-culturalism', has encouraged every minority group to see itself in terms of its tribal-victim-hood under straight white gentile males.

    In a way, this served Jewish interests as well.

    After all, if Jewish-American Liberals had fully accepted assimilationist and universalist doctrine of abstract liberalism, then they would have had no reason to preserve their Jewish identity, interests, history, and politics, especially in relation to the Holocaust and Israel. Victim-hood, no less than 'racism', is tribalist. Victimology is rarely about all of humanity suffering under oppression. Rather, it emphasizes WE or OUR TRIBE victimized by THEM or SOME OTHER TRIBE. Thus, victimology can never be truly liberal. A true liberal would say, regardless of which group harmed which other group, it was really just a case of one bunch of people harming another bunch of people since all nations, cultures, and even race are just 'social constructs'. But victimology doesn't work that way. It collectively sanctifies one tribe as holy victims of another tribe that is made out to be wicked vermin.

    The Holocaust narrative doesn't say one people (who mistakenly saw themselves as 'Aryans') harmed another people (who mistakenly saw themselves as 'Jews', another 'social construct'). It says, evil GERMANS--and their gentile white collaborators--killed innocent JEWS.

    Victimology blames an entire people for the 'sins' of some of their ancestors while elevating another entire people for what some of their ancestors had suffered. So, even Germans who opposed Nazism are to be blamed for the Holocaust whereas even Jews in America and elsewhere who weren't endangered by the Holocaust get to play the Noble Victim card.

    There was once a time when leftism and liberalism sought to bring all people together as cosmopolitan individuals. But it didn't work out that way since it takes money, privilege, and intelligence for people to become cosmopolitans. Most people never had the means to be so sophisticated.

    But then, even people who did become cosmopolitan and liberal didn't entirely give up their tribalism. There are black cosmopolitans who stick to black power and identity. Eric Holder and Charles Blow. And Jewish cosmopolitans are pro-Zionist. And Latin-American elite cosmopolitans play the anti-gringo card all the time. And homo-cosmopolitans or coshomopolitans are all about 'gay power'.

    Anyway, since the Left had problems pulling all the minority groups together as one abstract demography of proles or 'oppressed', it played the neo-tribalist card through multi-culturalism.

    This way, each group---blacks, browns, yellows, homos, Muslims, American Indians, feminists, , and etc, etc---would get to play up their tribalism BUT as victims of straight white gentile males. That way, the Liberal alliance would get to enjoy their own tribalisms while attacking the tribalism of straight white gentile males. So, the narrative goes on and on about 'white privilege', it is very shush about 'Jewish privilege' or 'homo privilege' or 'mulatto privilege'.

    But then, this is the problem of Liberalism. It has too many contentious tribalisms in its own rank. They are held together in alliance only by shared hatred of the common enemy: straight white gentile males. But if white straight gentile males were to vanish from the planet, there's no way the Liberal coalition could stay together. Angry blacks, rich Jews, sneering homos, bitchy feminists, bitter Muslims, gorky Asians, and etc. don't have much in common. And without 'white privilege' to focus on, most people would begin to notice Jewish power and privilege.

    Indeed, Liberalism is now defined by contradiction of cultural separatism and racial mix-ism.

    Multi-culturalism says every cultural identity should be preserved instead of being soft-genocided via assimilationist process of the melting pot. So, each cultural identity should guard and preserve itself instead of melding with white mainstream Americanism.

    On the other hand, Liberalism says all races should mixed and be mongrelized and mulattoized and mestizo-ized.

    Now, how can separate cultures be maintained if all the races are mixed? If someone is 1/8 Bantu, 1/8 Mexican, 1/8 Chinese, 1/8 Jewish, 1/8 Arab, 1/8 Armenian, 1/8 Indian, and 1/8 German, what culture does he belong to and what culture should he preserve?

    Liberalism, as it currently exists, makes no sense. It's more about tactical machinations than principles based on abstract vision of truth.

    Get rid of human rights. That’ll straighten things out faster than you can say shakedown.

    Read More
  80. Marty says:
    @Hal
    Here are a few inconvenient truths:

    It is not allowed to say that Jews have control of the media or disproportionate influence in government, banking, or entertainment. This is because Jews have control of the media and disproportionate influence in government, banking, and entertainment.

    It is not allowed to question black's overall moral judgment, and it infuriates blacks when pointed out that they do not reason adequately, are impulsive, and generally disregard laws. When infuriated, they tend to become even more irrational, act out impulsively, and often break laws. This is because blacks generally lack moral judgment, self control, and do not reason at a level that allows them to understand laws.

    It is foolish to allow Jews, who form groups to advocate for Jewish interests at the expense of society at large (AIPAC), to monitor and determine society's moral compass. As a group, Jews are incapable of rendering an opinion on society at large because as a group, Jews comprehend society at large as the other. Individual Jews often escape from this mindset, but this comment refers to the group.

    It is foolish to allow blacks to render moral judgments because the vast majority understand morality only on the basis of immediate interest. Some understand concrete examples such as "do not put your hand on the hot stove because when I did it, it hurt." Very, very few blacks understand the abstractions necessary to formulate or evaluate moral questions.

    I have actual experience that if you suggest to a black that his group is violent, he will refute you with – – violence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal
    I have the blessing of being from the tribe of "my civilization is older than anyone's" yet often associated with the most horrific treatment of blacks, so I rarely get the reaction you get. It's kind of funny. BTW, as for religion, I'm Lutheran, Mother was RC, and grandfather Jehovah's
    Witness. Yet, when I mention the A word, blacks recoil in horror.
  81. Chang says:

    Multi-ethnic states tend not to last. And they tend to end in rivers of blood.

    If you look at why states split up, the top 3 reasons are language, religion, and ethnicity – in that order.

    Ethnic differences are easier to overcome than religious and language differences. Most people can get along with others who look different if they talk and worship the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Ethnic differences are easier to overcome than religious and language differences. Most people can get along with others who look different if they talk and worship the same.
     
    Race purists are often atheists (or Odinists or some such). They have no religion in their lives so they underestimate the tremendously bonding (and divisive) effects of religion.

    Even the whole "Bowling Alone" study had two caveats - common military service and common religion as social glue that counteract interethnic loss of social cohesion and trust. When you fight and die together and/or undergo the same, communal religious rituals, strong bonds can form that transcend ethno-racial differences.

    That doesn't mean we ought to import millions of aliens into the country, but it does mean that race differences are not everything.
  82. Chang says:

    Human nature is that most people want to be ruled by leaders who look, act, talk and worship like they do.

    Read More
  83. @Sunbeam
    I think it is going to be interesting to see Jews have to deal with groups that are equally as clannish as they are, and who have the general intelligence to gain admission to the lucrative niches they have carved out for themselves.

    Diamond cutting isn't rocket science, but they have been muscled out of that. My personal take is that the financial sector is coming.

    Be interesting to see what happens in Hollywood. You just have to wonder whether a Bollywood guy might make the jump one day.

    Who muscled them out of diamond cutting?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Indians (the S. Asian kind).
    , @rec1man
    Upper caste Jain merchants from India
  84. iffen says:
    @Charlesz Martel
    Well, they won't be able to say they weren't warned:
    http://cis.org/ImmgrationEffectsOnAmericanJewry

    Morons. I have pointed this out to Jews for years (including to the head of a very prominent civil rights group that considers Steve a "hater" and an antisemite. No luck. The Jewish secular elite, many of them anyway, consider religion and ethnic affiliation beneath them, in a weird way.

    Steve is not an anti-Semite!

    He is has no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Methodists cannot make good movies!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Uhm,this is about D.W. Griffith,right? (In Blazing Saddles,Harvey Korman has a great speech about rounding up all the bad hombres to get the new sherrif.("Get me pugs,mugs,thugs,, etc",which end with the words"and Methodists!" It sounded funny,cuz M is a religion,but is there some kind of in joke there? )
  85. @Jack D
    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can't get it back.

    On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black.

    That state could have been expelled from the Union as soon as the 1820 census was collated.

    States outside the South were 98%+ white in 1860.

    Read More
  86. @Jack D
    It may be that these fools are deluding themselves that the left is not anti-Semitic, only anti-Zionist (this used to go on in the Soviet Union also) but that's all it is - a delusion. It's a short step from excluding Israelis from academia to excluding supporters of Israel to excluding Jews in general as PRESUMED supporters of Israel. Maybe if the Jew in question takes a pledge in which he publicly professes not just that he is indifferent to Israel but that he HATE HATE HATES the Israeli oppressors, he might get an exemption as an honorary anti-Zionist. But we could never REALLY trust him or put him in a position of authority. He might always go back to blood.

    Now if there's one thing that Jewish leftists are, it's oblivious to certain things, despite their supposed smarts. Once you are wearing your ideological blinders, you can't see what's coming at you from your own side.

    And Steve is right that 3rd worlders are immune to the magic Jewish Holocaust guilt-trip mojo that works so well on whites. They see themselves as having no responsibility for that, so whatever happened 70 years ago has NOTHING to do with their attitude towards Israel and Zionists.

    Have Jewish leftists painted the Jews into a corner? It wouldn't be the first time - Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union. Will it happen in the US? It has already - in case you haven't noticed, Barack Obama is no great friend of Israel.

    “Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union.”

    Many of the Bolsheviks were Jews – Felix Dhershinski (sp?) for instance. And many of them died thinking, “If only Stalin knew”. Talk about useful idiots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    There were many Jewish Bolsheviks but Felix Dzherzhinsky was not one of them. He was a Roman Catholic Pole whose family was part of the zlachta, the land-owning aristocratic class of Poland, Lithuania, and northwest Ukraine.
  87. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    There is something happening here. Connect the dots with the Hillary criticisms, but more importantly the political winds are against Rahm and for a Hispanic candidate. Rahm represents old school Jewish liberalism and is pitted against the new racial identity kid in town. So how will the Jews respond to this usurping?

    Read More
  88. Hal says:
    @Corvinus
    “It is not allowed to say that Jews have control of the media or disproportionate influence in government, banking, or entertainment. This is because Jews have control of the media and disproportionate influence in government, banking, and entertainment.”

    What’s your point? You would want whites—however you define this racial group—to take over from Jews to lead in those areas, correct? So, what is the different if this tribe is in control over another tribe, assuming what you say is definitively true? Some hard core numbers would be appropriate here on your part.


    “It is not allowed to question black’s overall moral judgment, and it infuriates blacks when pointed out that they do not reason adequately, are impulsive, and generally disregard laws. When infuriated, they tend to become even more irrational, act out impulsively, and often break laws. This is because blacks generally lack moral judgment, self control, and do not reason at a level that allows them to understand laws.”

    Considering that white males have historically created and destroyed civilization, it is observably true that they make laws they break, engage in barbaric acts, and effectively play the victim card.


    “It is foolish to allow Jews, who form groups to advocate for Jewish interests at the expense of society at large (AIPAC), to monitor and determine society’s moral compass. As a group, Jews are incapable of rendering an opinion on society at large because as a group, Jews comprehend society at large as the other. Individual Jews often escape from this mindset, but this comment refers to the group.”

    Using your logic, it would be foolish for ANY group to advocate for their own interests. Care to rethink your position.


    “It is foolish to allow blacks to render moral judgments because the vast majority understand morality only on the basis of immediate interest. Some understand concrete examples such as “do not put your hand on the hot stove because when I did it, it hurt.” Very, very few blacks understand the abstractions necessary to formulate or evaluate moral questions.”

    Do people have the liberty to make their own decisions? Do people have the liberty as to who and who is not enable people to make judgements based on the principles of morality? If you say yes to both questions, then it is clear that blacks are able to render moral judgements. If you say no to both questions, then you are fascist who is attempting to impress your own way of life onto others.

    You were so busy with your righteous indignation that you a) didn’t bother to read and comprehend what I had written, and b) fell into the trap. Your logical errors are such that I should not respond, but just for fun, here is one rebuttal by analogy

    Do people have the liberty to make their own decisions?

    The issue is not whether people have the liberty to make their own decisions, but whether they should make moral decisions for me.

    Do people have the liberty to make their own decisions? Hmmmm. If we were running the particle accelerators at CERN, and you had a Ph.D. in physics and I was a political hire incapable of basic arithmetic, would my decision be as valid as yours? Would you say, “Well Hal is capable of making decisions even though he thinks 2 plus 2 is 22, and so we need to take his viewpoint (such as it is) into consideration.” If you and I disagreed, and you criticized me because you have a Ph.D and I cannot do long division, would you accept a reprimand because it is cruel and egoist to disparage the non-capable non-thinkers?
    According to your logic, you would.

    It is foolish to place the moral compass into hands of the tribe that does not reason sufficiently well to solve their own violence issues.

    As for the rest of your drivel, it fails to rise to the test of “worthy of response.”

    Read More
  89. @Anon
    "Like I’ve been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago."

    Japanese immigration dried up long ago. With Korea with record low birthrates, immigration from there has slowed too. Taiwan as well.

    That really leaves China as the only East Asian nation sending lots of immigrants, but maybe Chinese are less into concentrating on moving to LA as there are other places in the US they can settle and find work.

    Plenty of Chinese are pouring into the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles, but fewer into Los Angeles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Plenty of Chinese are pouring into the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles, but fewer into Los Angeles."

    In the past, most immigrants from such parts barely spoke English, had little or no money, and faced discrimination from most parts. So, they congregated in places like Chinatown in big cities.

    Today, I think a substantial number are well-educated, know English, skilled for jobs all over the nation, and more accepted as a whole. So, less pressure to congregate in concentrated neighborhoods in cities.
  90. Terrahawk says:
    @Sunbeam
    I think it is going to be interesting to see Jews have to deal with groups that are equally as clannish as they are, and who have the general intelligence to gain admission to the lucrative niches they have carved out for themselves.

    Diamond cutting isn't rocket science, but they have been muscled out of that. My personal take is that the financial sector is coming.

    Be interesting to see what happens in Hollywood. You just have to wonder whether a Bollywood guy might make the jump one day.

    I think it is already happening in Hollywood at least on the TV side. I have noticed that a lot of the more family friendly/non-sexually loaded TV shows have a sprinkling of Indian sounding names in the producer/writer slots. It is still a small number but they seem to be making inroads.

    Read More
  91. SPMoore8 says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Wonder Bread makes bagels, which basically are hamburger buns with holes in them.

    Spoken like someone who has never had a good bagel.

    I think you misunderstood me. A good bagel will have a snap to it the same as the casing on a good kielbasa. I am saying that Wonder Bread bagels are essentially hamburger buns with holes in them. And yes, they are pre-cut, too. Ach, die Schande!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Okay, gotcha. BTW, in my experience the best bagels come from Fairlawn, NJ. I can't explain why that should be so.
  92. @iffen
    Steve is not an anti-Semite!

    He is has no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Methodists cannot make good movies!

    Uhm,this is about D.W. Griffith,right? (In Blazing Saddles,Harvey Korman has a great speech about rounding up all the bad hombres to get the new sherrif.(“Get me pugs,mugs,thugs,, etc”,which end with the words”and Methodists!” It sounded funny,cuz M is a religion,but is there some kind of in joke there? )

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It depends on whether you think Methodists are born that way or are they just failed Baptists.
  93. Hal says:
    @Marty
    I have actual experience that if you suggest to a black that his group is violent, he will refute you with - - violence.

    I have the blessing of being from the tribe of “my civilization is older than anyone’s” yet often associated with the most horrific treatment of blacks, so I rarely get the reaction you get. It’s kind of funny. BTW, as for religion, I’m Lutheran, Mother was RC, and grandfather Jehovah’s
    Witness. Yet, when I mention the A word, blacks recoil in horror.

    Read More
  94. I’m not into bondage, domination, and submission.

    You left out the “M,” so you’re into Masochism, then? You must be to write this blog… as we all must be to read it, too.

    Read More
  95. “It is not allowed to say that Jews have control of the media or disproportionate influence in government, banking, or entertainment. This is because Jews have control of the media and disproportionate influence in government, banking, and entertainment.”

    What’s wrong with “disproportionate influence?” The Scots-Irish had a “disproportionate” influence on everything about America, and we should give thanks for that.

    There is a point when Steve’s Stormfront fans start to sound like NAMs complaining about all the nice things white people have, or “disproportionate” traffic stop rates…

    As for Mexicans doing, well, anything in America, they have been here in huge numbers for at least 25 years and the most famous Mexican American I can think of is Louis C.K., whose father is some kind of Hungarian Jew. We don’t even have a really good soccer team, even though parks all over the country are churned into dirt by amateur Mexican soccer leagues.

    I’ve seen Spanish copies of the Protocols for sale in Corona and Washington Heights, but these neighborhoods also have ‘Botanicas,’ which sell candles to bring good fortune(money), fertility, and probably some darker voodoo stuff. They have some catching up to do.

    As for whoever said that once whites become the minority, multi culti will collapse, I think just the opposite. First Jews become super whites, then whites become Jews. Then we’ll really start hearing about things being “disproportionate.”

    The bum rush from the Third World has no interest in integration, though. They might want to live “like” white Americans, but they don’t have any particular affection for America. They just like what we’ve done with the place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal

    What’s wrong with “disproportionate influence?”
     
    You should take a reading course. I said it is not allowed to say this group had disproportionate influence because this group has disproportionate influence. Do you need me to explain to you why not being allowed to state a simple fact is wrong?

    What's wrong is we are not allowed to state a plain truth. The reason is to protect a group that considers all of us to be "the other."
  96. Hal says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    “It is not allowed to say that Jews have control of the media or disproportionate influence in government, banking, or entertainment. This is because Jews have control of the media and disproportionate influence in government, banking, and entertainment.”

    What's wrong with "disproportionate influence?" The Scots-Irish had a "disproportionate" influence on everything about America, and we should give thanks for that.

    There is a point when Steve's Stormfront fans start to sound like NAMs complaining about all the nice things white people have, or "disproportionate" traffic stop rates...

    As for Mexicans doing, well, anything in America, they have been here in huge numbers for at least 25 years and the most famous Mexican American I can think of is Louis C.K., whose father is some kind of Hungarian Jew. We don't even have a really good soccer team, even though parks all over the country are churned into dirt by amateur Mexican soccer leagues.

    I've seen Spanish copies of the Protocols for sale in Corona and Washington Heights, but these neighborhoods also have 'Botanicas,' which sell candles to bring good fortune(money), fertility, and probably some darker voodoo stuff. They have some catching up to do.

    As for whoever said that once whites become the minority, multi culti will collapse, I think just the opposite. First Jews become super whites, then whites become Jews. Then we'll really start hearing about things being "disproportionate."

    The bum rush from the Third World has no interest in integration, though. They might want to live "like" white Americans, but they don't have any particular affection for America. They just like what we've done with the place.

    What’s wrong with “disproportionate influence?”

    You should take a reading course. I said it is not allowed to say this group had disproportionate influence because this group has disproportionate influence. Do you need me to explain to you why not being allowed to state a simple fact is wrong?

    What’s wrong is we are not allowed to state a plain truth. The reason is to protect a group that considers all of us to be “the other.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Forget "reading courses," whatever they are. If you think it is "not allowed" to say Jews have disproportionate influence in finance, then you just aren't reading enough. People have been saying that for centuries. Your objection is clearly not that you can't state a plain truth; you just don't like that particular "plain truth."

    The question is whether it is meaningful. Disparate impact is based on the idea that all "disproportionate influence" or over/under representation is unjust by definition, without actually proving it. Disparate impact is SJW bullshit, and so is all that crap about "othering."

    You sound like the Black Hebrew Prophets in downtown Brooklyn, who tell you all about the forbidden, hidden knowledge they have about whitey and Jews and Doctor Yakoob, so forbidden that they scream it on street corners all day and nobody even cares enough to be offended.
  97. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Anonymous
    That makes no sense. Jews certainly have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa, so it makes no sense to claim that the Boers have greater claim to South Africa on grounds of indigeneity than the Jews do to Palestine.

    Jews certainly have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa, so it makes no sense to claim that the Boers have greater claim to South Africa on grounds of indigeneity than the Jews do to Palestine.

    The genetics would seem to indicate that Ashkenazi Jews have not been in the ME for something like 1,500 years.

    Do they still have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well Israel is a Jewish state, not an Ashkenazi one. The Ashkenazi are Jewish. They are one subset of Jews. There are Jews who are not Ashkenazi.

    The Ashkenazi have both European and Jewish ancestry. There has been a continuing Jewish presence in the ME and Jewish roots go back there.

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?
  98. Svigor says:

    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can’t get it back.

    What do you call someone who openly champions collective, inherited, racial guilt (all whites today responsible for what a small minority of whites did two centuries ago)? A leftist.

    What do you call it when someone calls something a sin, then howls with rage when you try to reverse the deed (bringing them here; sending them back)? A leftist.

    By his own logic, sub-Saharan Africans are a morally diseased race with no moral standing at all (just look at sub-Saharan Africa today, at its peak), since they eat and butcher each other, and have been since forever.

    Read More
  99. Svigor says:

    Pro-black slavery schtick is silly; it’s a story about a guy who was brought to a rich man’s house in chains, and from the instant he was freed he made it very clear he’d rather die than leave, or be evicted.

    Read More
  100. Svigor says:

    Bagels are the worst kind of junk food.

    The problem isn’t whether or not they understand and are warned. The problem is that they do understand it, but they understand it through a persecution narrative that says that every place is anti-Semitic or will be anti-Semitic, that this is the way of the world and an inextricable part of Jewish identity, that there’s nothing that can be done aside from moving to a new place, etc. It’s a kind of fatalistic narrative that prevents them from dealing with the problem more directly and sensibly.

    Now consider that from a certain point of view, this is a feature, not a bug.

    With parents of American blacks it’s always about how “gentle” the guy was and how out of character this was and how he needs a second chance, blah, blah, blah.

    FIFY. Most white parents just STFU, which isn’t particularly quote-worthy.

    Who muscled them out of diamond cutting?

    Indians (& east Asians?). In Europe, anyway.

    There is a point when Steve’s Stormfront fans start to sound like NAMs complaining about all the nice things white people have, or “disproportionate” traffic stop rates…

    There’s a point where you’ve heard the same stupid non-point made so many times, you can’t really muster the energy to demolish it any more. Blacks and Jews are politically very similar. I suppose the salient similarities are their victim identity, their white-blaming, and their inability to take the blame (as a group) for anything, ever. And their record-high vote tallies for the Democrats.

    but they don’t have any particular affection for America. They just like what we’ve done with the place.

    And that, though you could sub in any white country for “America” and the passage still works.

    Read More
  101. Sunbeam says:
    @candid_observer
    The reality is that Jews have become the obviously unintentional victim of their own, well, inconsistency when it comes to diversity and "social justice".

    Jews of the Boomer generation and earlier mostly preached diversity and the equality of all peoples long and hard, to the world, and to their children. Yet, obviously, they sang a different tune when it came to their views on Israel and the Jewish people. The Boomers and earlier mostly married other Jews, and supported Israel fanatically.

    But their kids bought into the diversity and equality of all peoples message -- the "nobler" of the points of view -- and both married outside the clan, and perceived the racism of Israel. There's no real way for Jews as a people to avoid the internal conflict within their points of view, and its consequences; that bell has been rung. The irony is that Jews, who have practiced rigorous endogamy for over a thousand years, and to impressive effect, will, at least in the US, almost certainly dissipate into the crowd like flatulence in a hurricane. And Israel will increasingly be shunned by the Jews and, mostly, fractional Jews of the newer generations.

    This is why I mostly find rather ridiculous the idea that Jews in America are involved in some grand, concerted, and cunning scheme to take control of the US and the world. This is no way to run a conspiracy.

    Where are the Elders of Zion when you need them?

    “The irony is that Jews, who have practiced rigorous endogamy for over a thousand years, and to impressive effect, will, at least in the US, almost certainly dissipate into the crowd like flatulence in a hurricane.”

    That is kind of my belief as well. Okay, homerism aside most of us here have a dispassionate part of us that observes and makes theories to explain what we see.

    My take, based on observations during my lifetime, and from what I think I have learned from reading and “pop” culture (books, tv shows, movies – in that they bear some resemblance to reality and more importantly people’s perceptions of it) is that Jews are being assimilated into white America, like all the other European ethnics.

    At least the smart ones.

    They’ve held out longer than most, but you can see that cultural identity dissolving. All those marriages, the culture… it’s a whole lot of work to keep that up generation to generation.

    And I gather the majority of Jews worldwide outside of Israel reside in the US. The US is some kind of consumerist/materialist borg entity with both puritan and hedonistic streaks that assimilates all it comes into contact with. But one thing it doesn’t like is commitment, the kind of thing that it took to maintain Jewish identity all those years.

    Jews might as a rule get assimilated into the overclass instead of getting a couch and a bag of cheetos issued to them, but assimilated they will be.

    Ironically they had a big role in producing this brave new world. The US always had a grasping mercenary streak, but this modern thing is something that only arose with mass media like radio, tv, and now the internet.

    Read More
  102. Svigor says:

    Oh yeah, and both groups consider their territories to be theirs, and theirs alone, but consider white countries worldwide as their rightful territory too, and go apeshit when you suggest that whites have the same right to Zions of their own that Jews have to Israel, or blacks have to Liberia. I forgot that bit.

    Read More
  103. @Jim Don Bob
    "Jewish communists ended up contributing to the irreparable harm to the Jewish community in the Soviet Union."

    Many of the Bolsheviks were Jews - Felix Dhershinski (sp?) for instance. And many of them died thinking, "If only Stalin knew". Talk about useful idiots.

    There were many Jewish Bolsheviks but Felix Dzherzhinsky was not one of them. He was a Roman Catholic Pole whose family was part of the zlachta, the land-owning aristocratic class of Poland, Lithuania, and northwest Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Just a point: it's szlachta (shlakhta), and that class of nobility contained many people with some Jewish ancestry, due to the fact that there were numerous conversions among Jews as a result of the millenarian movement of Jacob Frank (mid 18th C.) which involved the conversion to Christianity of about 25,000 Polish Jews, and many of these also went into the minor nobility. (And I am not even mentioning any others, or the large number of conversions that took place in the 19th Century in all three Eastern European empires.)

    This isn't really news, because the same claim (of Jewish ancestry) has been made about Adam Mickiewicz (Polish national poet), as well as the German General Erich Manstein (his birth parents were named Lewinski but they were part of the Prussian nobility for some time.)

    As for Dzerzhinsky, I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant, I will say that ethnic mixture including Jews, Slavs, Germans, Tatars, Armenians and even Greeks was a lot more common between the Elbe and the Volga than probably any nationalist wants to admit.

  104. SPMoore8 says:
    @PV van der Byl
    There were many Jewish Bolsheviks but Felix Dzherzhinsky was not one of them. He was a Roman Catholic Pole whose family was part of the zlachta, the land-owning aristocratic class of Poland, Lithuania, and northwest Ukraine.

    Just a point: it’s szlachta (shlakhta), and that class of nobility contained many people with some Jewish ancestry, due to the fact that there were numerous conversions among Jews as a result of the millenarian movement of Jacob Frank (mid 18th C.) which involved the conversion to Christianity of about 25,000 Polish Jews, and many of these also went into the minor nobility. (And I am not even mentioning any others, or the large number of conversions that took place in the 19th Century in all three Eastern European empires.)

    This isn’t really news, because the same claim (of Jewish ancestry) has been made about Adam Mickiewicz (Polish national poet), as well as the German General Erich Manstein (his birth parents were named Lewinski but they were part of the Prussian nobility for some time.)

    As for Dzerzhinsky, I don’t know, and I don’t think it’s relevant, I will say that ethnic mixture including Jews, Slavs, Germans, Tatars, Armenians and even Greeks was a lot more common between the Elbe and the Volga than probably any nationalist wants to admit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How about Ariel Sharon? He looked half-Jewish, half-Slavic. What's the story of his ancestors?
    , @Steve Sailer
    Jacob Frank claimed to be the reincarnation of self-proclaimed messiah Sabbetai Zevi, whose followers became Salonikan crypto-Jewish Donmeh and played a big role in modern Turkish affairs down to the rise of Erdogan.
    , @Jack D
    And yet the genetic studies seem to indicate very little gene flow between the Jews and the Slavs.
    , @PV van der Byl
    It seems quite a stretch to say that the szlachta contained “many” people with Jewish ancestry unless one were considering vanishingly small fractions of Jewish ancestry. I would be happy to be directed towards any sources describing all the Polish aristocrats with substantial Jewish ancestry. Off the top of my head, I can think of a good number of Jewish families who were ennobled by the monarchs of Britain, France, Austria, and Germany, especially those who converted to Christianity. But I’m not aware of any Polish or Russian aristocrats having substantial Jewish ancestry in 1877 (i.e. when Dzerzhinsky was born). Again, tell me what to read if I’m wrong about this.

    BTW, I agree with you about Manstein. Wasn’t aware of Mickiewicz’s background.

  105. MLK says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Like I've been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago. The big change is the influx from West Asia and parts of East Europe. It's heavily Muslim, but there are lots of other groups like Christians, Jews, and Miscellaneous (e.g., Sikhs).

    Hah! You’re channeling The Simpsons:

    Rev. Lovejoy: No Homer, God didn’t burn your house down, but he was working in the hearts of your friends be they Christian, Jew, or… miscellaneous.

    Apu: Hindu. There are seven hundred million of us.

    Rev. Lovejoy: Aww, that’s super.

    Read More
  106. @Jack D
    But immigration has brought us great poets such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Here is the poetry he wrote on the side of the boat he was hiding in:

    “I’m jealous of my brother who
    ha (bullethole) ceived the reward of jannutul Firdaus (inshallah) before me. I do not mourn because his soul is very much alive. God has a plan for each person. Mine was to hide in his boat and shed some light on our actions I ask Allah to make me a shahied (iA) to allow me to return to him and be among all the righteous people in the highest levels of heaven.
    He who Allah guides no one can misguide
    A (bullethole) bar!
    I bear witness that there is no God but Allah
    and that Muhammad is his
    messenger (bullethole) r actions came
    with (bullethole) a (bullethole) ssage and that
    is (bullethole) ha Illalah. The U.S.
    Government is killing our innocent
    civilians but most of you already
    know that. As a M (bullethole) I can’t
    stand to see such evil go unpunished,
    we Muslims are one body, you hurt
    one you hurt us all, well at least that’s
    how Muhammad (pbuh) wanted it to be (bullethole) ever,
    the ummah is beginning to rise/awa (bullethole)
    has awoken the mujahideen, know you are
    fighting men who look into the barrel of your
    gun and see heaven, now how can you compete
    with that. We are promised victory and we
    will surely get it. Now I don’t like killing
    innocent people it is forbidden in Islam
    but due to said (bullethole) it is allowed.
    All credit goes (bullethole)”

    I would give this poem a C-. Mostly he is just echoing bulletpoints (cough,cough) that he must have picked up from jihadist preachers and his brother. Clearly the "liberal" education that he received in Cambridge did not stick.

    The boat looks like Bonnie & Clyde's V8 - once you've killed a cop, the other cops are going to do their best. How the Joker lived, I'll never know - A (bullethole) must have been with him that day.

    The boat looks like Bonnie & Clyde’s V8 – once you’ve killed a cop, the other cops are going to do their best.

    I’ve never seen such alarmingly inept police work as the manhunt for the Tsarnaevs. Pumping a fusillade of 5.56 mm rounds at the boat in someone’s backyard really took the cake. From Wikipedia: “. . . police began a large volume of gunfire at the boat, stopping only after the Superintendent on the scene called for a cease fire. . . . According to Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, and Watertown Police Chief Deveau, Tsarnaev was shooting from inside the boat at police, ‘exchanging fire for an hour.’ After he was captured, Tsarnaev was found not to have any weapons.”

    Not that I care about Tsarnaev, but there were dozens of bullet holes in neighboring houses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Tensions were high and once one cop started shooting, the others assumed that it was coming from the cop-killer and "returned fire". In any case, the unwritten law of the streets is that the rest of us get trials, but once you've shot at a cop (and esp. if you have killed one), the police are going to execute you on the spot if they can justify it in any way. So they were primed to imagine that Tsarnaev was shooting at them so they would be justified in shooting back. It's very fortunate that no civilians were killed by police gunfire - shooting the cop killer was much more important to them than whether any civilians were hurt. It's also miraculous that the cops didn't end up shooting each other with all that lead flying.

    Last night the SWAT team thought that they had found a house where the Ferguson cop shooters were, so naturally they entered by breaking a hole in the roof. Wrong house - oops. I wonder who pays to fix the house? The gov. took no responsibility for that guy's boat. It was replaced only thru voluntary donations.
  107. @SPMoore8
    Just a point: it's szlachta (shlakhta), and that class of nobility contained many people with some Jewish ancestry, due to the fact that there were numerous conversions among Jews as a result of the millenarian movement of Jacob Frank (mid 18th C.) which involved the conversion to Christianity of about 25,000 Polish Jews, and many of these also went into the minor nobility. (And I am not even mentioning any others, or the large number of conversions that took place in the 19th Century in all three Eastern European empires.)

    This isn't really news, because the same claim (of Jewish ancestry) has been made about Adam Mickiewicz (Polish national poet), as well as the German General Erich Manstein (his birth parents were named Lewinski but they were part of the Prussian nobility for some time.)

    As for Dzerzhinsky, I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant, I will say that ethnic mixture including Jews, Slavs, Germans, Tatars, Armenians and even Greeks was a lot more common between the Elbe and the Volga than probably any nationalist wants to admit.

    How about Ariel Sharon? He looked half-Jewish, half-Slavic. What’s the story of his ancestors?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPmoore8
    That's a good question. Checking the wiki I see that his mother was a Subbotnik, which is to say, Jewish of Christian origin, and from Mogilev, which would be the right region. So he probably has some Slavic ancestry. There's a history of Slavic Christians adopting some characteristics of Judaism ("Judaizers") that goes back to the 1400's at least in Russia. There are probably social and economic features going in both directions; that is, some advantage to being Christian or being Jewish at a particular time or place. (Not even touching the Koestler Khazar thesis.)

    The biggest problem with nationalism (and that includes Jewish nationalism) is that it gets everyone involved in special pleading, gene hunting, and ethnic cheerleading, in my opinion. Can't speak for the West, but in the East, there's a lot of ethnic mixture.
  108. @SPMoore8
    I think you misunderstood me. A good bagel will have a snap to it the same as the casing on a good kielbasa. I am saying that Wonder Bread bagels are essentially hamburger buns with holes in them. And yes, they are pre-cut, too. Ach, die Schande!

    Okay, gotcha. BTW, in my experience the best bagels come from Fairlawn, NJ. I can’t explain why that should be so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Oh, I know Fairlawn! The best bagels I ever had in NY Metro were in Carlstadt, guy who made them was Irish. That was years ago.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Where in Fairlawn?
  109. @SPMoore8
    Just a point: it's szlachta (shlakhta), and that class of nobility contained many people with some Jewish ancestry, due to the fact that there were numerous conversions among Jews as a result of the millenarian movement of Jacob Frank (mid 18th C.) which involved the conversion to Christianity of about 25,000 Polish Jews, and many of these also went into the minor nobility. (And I am not even mentioning any others, or the large number of conversions that took place in the 19th Century in all three Eastern European empires.)

    This isn't really news, because the same claim (of Jewish ancestry) has been made about Adam Mickiewicz (Polish national poet), as well as the German General Erich Manstein (his birth parents were named Lewinski but they were part of the Prussian nobility for some time.)

    As for Dzerzhinsky, I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant, I will say that ethnic mixture including Jews, Slavs, Germans, Tatars, Armenians and even Greeks was a lot more common between the Elbe and the Volga than probably any nationalist wants to admit.

    Jacob Frank claimed to be the reincarnation of self-proclaimed messiah Sabbetai Zevi, whose followers became Salonikan crypto-Jewish Donmeh and played a big role in modern Turkish affairs down to the rise of Erdogan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Like I said yesterday, when I erroneously answered my own post, you learn something every day.
  110. SPmoore8 says:
    @Steve Sailer
    How about Ariel Sharon? He looked half-Jewish, half-Slavic. What's the story of his ancestors?

    That’s a good question. Checking the wiki I see that his mother was a Subbotnik, which is to say, Jewish of Christian origin, and from Mogilev, which would be the right region. So he probably has some Slavic ancestry. There’s a history of Slavic Christians adopting some characteristics of Judaism (“Judaizers”) that goes back to the 1400′s at least in Russia. There are probably social and economic features going in both directions; that is, some advantage to being Christian or being Jewish at a particular time or place. (Not even touching the Koestler Khazar thesis.)

    The biggest problem with nationalism (and that includes Jewish nationalism) is that it gets everyone involved in special pleading, gene hunting, and ethnic cheerleading, in my opinion. Can’t speak for the West, but in the East, there’s a lot of ethnic mixture.

    Read More
  111. SPMoore8 says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Jacob Frank claimed to be the reincarnation of self-proclaimed messiah Sabbetai Zevi, whose followers became Salonikan crypto-Jewish Donmeh and played a big role in modern Turkish affairs down to the rise of Erdogan.

    Like I said yesterday, when I erroneously answered my own post, you learn something every day.

    Read More
  112. SPMoore8 says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Okay, gotcha. BTW, in my experience the best bagels come from Fairlawn, NJ. I can't explain why that should be so.

    Oh, I know Fairlawn! The best bagels I ever had in NY Metro were in Carlstadt, guy who made them was Irish. That was years ago.

    Read More
  113. @gregor
    OT Links:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983305/Student-sentenced-death-bloody-knife-rampage-Taiwan-underground-train-left-four-people-dead.html

    A Taiwanese student went berserk on a train, killing four people with a knife and injuring many more. What I found interesting here is that even his own parents are calling for his execution, such is the intensity of their shame. That I can respect. With American parents it's always about how "gentle" the guy was and how out of character this was and how he needs a second chance, blah, blah, blah.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982148/Handicapped-woman-71-chest-butted-ground-fight-Walmart-parking-spot-left-needing-hip-replacement-months-physical-therapy.html

    A perfectly healthy black lady with a fraudulent handicap sticker gets so enraged that a elderly woman "stole" her handicap spot in the Walmart parking lot that she confronts and knocks her over. The elderly woman had just had a hip replacement and had to get more surgery after the assault. Unbelievably disgusting behavior.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983222/Ex-convict-charged-murder-kindly-professor-75-given-nearly-40-000-bludgeoned-death-set-fire.html

    A bleeding heart 75 year old professor naively took a black thug under his wing, giving him nearly $40,000 to help him get on his feet. The thug thanked him by robbing his house, bludgeoning him to death, and burning his house to the ground. It's pretty much an allegory for what is happening to the whole country.

    I find it interesting that Daily Mail will often have the better stories that the US media would rather not cover.

    “With American parents it’s always about how “gentle” the guy was and how out of character this was and how he needs a second chance, blah, blah, blah.”

    I agree with your post overall, but you missed something in your sentence above. Instead of “American parents” it should have read “black parents.” After all, we all know that little (i.e., 6’2″, 270 lb.) L’Shitavious or D’Montrell dindu nuffin anyway.

    Read More
  114. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Harry Baldwin
    Okay, gotcha. BTW, in my experience the best bagels come from Fairlawn, NJ. I can't explain why that should be so.

    Where in Fairlawn?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    River Road Hot Bagels
    Address: 13-30 River Rd, Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
  115. This is a great essay, and one that reveals a terrible Euro-centric trait of the author -Noblesse Oblige. I remember a few years ago reading an article Steve wrote about African-Americans and Public Policy in Taki ( I was a Sailer skeptic at the time) and I was compelled to email him for the first time because I was almost on the verge of tears -I had never read an article that offered such hope (if reality were embraced!). Here was a guy who looked at reality and said, “how can we deal with these issues and not have mass slaughter/pogroms?”
    What he is doing here, as in that previous article about African Americans, is offering a reasonable way for us as Americans to deal with tribalism and reality within an Euro-American Enlightenment construct of representational democracy. Anyone can make bread and butter writing about race and difference these days on both the left and the right, though clearly the left is more lucrative… But I think Steve is really the only one who writes about these impossible conundrums of “the sins of our fathers” that offer any hope to avoid really bad things happening. This exhibits at least two great virtues -Hope and Charity. And I think that everything Steve writes has true charity, even his brilliant snark.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ABN
    Yes, Steve's emphasis on finding a modus vivendi for all concerned is the mark of a gentleman.

    There is a certain segment of Jewish opinion that takes for granted the existence of latent hostility toward Jews among the gentile ethno-cultural majority. This viewpoint encourages a reciprocal hostility toward gentile cultural and ethnic dominance in the host society. I don't necessarily blame Jews for this, since even patriotic assimilation couldn't save German Jews from Nazi persecution, but I do think it's a deeply anachronistic attitude in America in the year 2015.

    More to the point, it's counter-productive and irresponsible for Jews to believe that their safety requires the dispossession and deracination of the historic nation. Such an attitude may well create a positive feedback loop of antisemitism and anti-gentilism. Presumably it will end disastrously for either the historic nation or the Jews (or, more likely, both, if the racial-socialist Huddled Masses turn out to be not such big fans of either).

    In a sane world, Steve's efforts to encourage a nationalistic sense of noblesse oblige from American's most wildly successful white European ethnic group would be regarded as a noble act of statesmanship.

    In the world we actually inhabit, SPLC and ADL types place Jewish interests on a collision course with generic gentile American interests, slam the accelerator pedal down, and then attribute "hate" to people like Steve who notice that this game of chicken can have only one winner, at most.

  116. Twinkie says:
    @iffen

    A little bit makes the soup more interesting and tasty, but too much ruins the soup.
     
    He would think along these lines wouldn't he?

    He would think along these lines wouldn’t he?

    Is he wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Not in times past, but we are no longer making soup.
  117. Twinkie says:
    @Chang
    Multi-ethnic states tend not to last. And they tend to end in rivers of blood.

    If you look at why states split up, the top 3 reasons are language, religion, and ethnicity - in that order.

    Ethnic differences are easier to overcome than religious and language differences. Most people can get along with others who look different if they talk and worship the same.

    Ethnic differences are easier to overcome than religious and language differences. Most people can get along with others who look different if they talk and worship the same.

    Race purists are often atheists (or Odinists or some such). They have no religion in their lives so they underestimate the tremendously bonding (and divisive) effects of religion.

    Even the whole “Bowling Alone” study had two caveats – common military service and common religion as social glue that counteract interethnic loss of social cohesion and trust. When you fight and die together and/or undergo the same, communal religious rituals, strong bonds can form that transcend ethno-racial differences.

    That doesn’t mean we ought to import millions of aliens into the country, but it does mean that race differences are not everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Even the whole “Bowling Alone” study had two caveats – common military service and common religion as social glue that counteract interethnic loss of social cohesion and trust.
     
    I have this sneaking suspicion that different selection pressures have operated to produce different modes of thinking and behavior. They might not integrate well.
    , @IA
    I know you live near DC. Go to the National Gallery, Hirschhorn or attend a performance of Poulenc at the Kennedy Center. There are no blacks. At low culture, yes, you are correct. As you move up the spiritual/cultural structure there is major racial/cultural separation.
  118. @Priss Factor
    The official ideology like to see politics in terms of:

    Conservatism vs Liberalism.

    But...

    We might well ask... WHICH LIBERALISM?

    There are Liberal Jewish-Americans and Liberal Palestinians-Americans. Both groups mostly vote Democratic, but they don't see eye-to-eye on history, Israel/Palestine conflict, and the Middle East. They may agree on individual self-determination, but if most Jewish-American individuals support the Zionist cause and if most Palestinian-American individuals support the Palestinian cause, where does that leave us? Also, as there are many more powerful Jewish-American individuals than there are powerful Palestinian-American individuals (Edward Said was a rare exception), the Liberal Individualism of Jews will have far greater sway than the Liberalism Individualism of Palestinians.

    Black Liberalism is very tribal and racial. So, is Brown Liberalism of the La Raza ilk. And Homosexuals are very much into homosexual identity and empowerment.

    If anything, American Liberalism, via the neo-tribalism of 'multi-culturalism', has encouraged every minority group to see itself in terms of its tribal-victim-hood under straight white gentile males.

    In a way, this served Jewish interests as well.

    After all, if Jewish-American Liberals had fully accepted assimilationist and universalist doctrine of abstract liberalism, then they would have had no reason to preserve their Jewish identity, interests, history, and politics, especially in relation to the Holocaust and Israel. Victim-hood, no less than 'racism', is tribalist. Victimology is rarely about all of humanity suffering under oppression. Rather, it emphasizes WE or OUR TRIBE victimized by THEM or SOME OTHER TRIBE. Thus, victimology can never be truly liberal. A true liberal would say, regardless of which group harmed which other group, it was really just a case of one bunch of people harming another bunch of people since all nations, cultures, and even race are just 'social constructs'. But victimology doesn't work that way. It collectively sanctifies one tribe as holy victims of another tribe that is made out to be wicked vermin.

    The Holocaust narrative doesn't say one people (who mistakenly saw themselves as 'Aryans') harmed another people (who mistakenly saw themselves as 'Jews', another 'social construct'). It says, evil GERMANS--and their gentile white collaborators--killed innocent JEWS.

    Victimology blames an entire people for the 'sins' of some of their ancestors while elevating another entire people for what some of their ancestors had suffered. So, even Germans who opposed Nazism are to be blamed for the Holocaust whereas even Jews in America and elsewhere who weren't endangered by the Holocaust get to play the Noble Victim card.

    There was once a time when leftism and liberalism sought to bring all people together as cosmopolitan individuals. But it didn't work out that way since it takes money, privilege, and intelligence for people to become cosmopolitans. Most people never had the means to be so sophisticated.

    But then, even people who did become cosmopolitan and liberal didn't entirely give up their tribalism. There are black cosmopolitans who stick to black power and identity. Eric Holder and Charles Blow. And Jewish cosmopolitans are pro-Zionist. And Latin-American elite cosmopolitans play the anti-gringo card all the time. And homo-cosmopolitans or coshomopolitans are all about 'gay power'.

    Anyway, since the Left had problems pulling all the minority groups together as one abstract demography of proles or 'oppressed', it played the neo-tribalist card through multi-culturalism.

    This way, each group---blacks, browns, yellows, homos, Muslims, American Indians, feminists, , and etc, etc---would get to play up their tribalism BUT as victims of straight white gentile males. That way, the Liberal alliance would get to enjoy their own tribalisms while attacking the tribalism of straight white gentile males. So, the narrative goes on and on about 'white privilege', it is very shush about 'Jewish privilege' or 'homo privilege' or 'mulatto privilege'.

    But then, this is the problem of Liberalism. It has too many contentious tribalisms in its own rank. They are held together in alliance only by shared hatred of the common enemy: straight white gentile males. But if white straight gentile males were to vanish from the planet, there's no way the Liberal coalition could stay together. Angry blacks, rich Jews, sneering homos, bitchy feminists, bitter Muslims, gorky Asians, and etc. don't have much in common. And without 'white privilege' to focus on, most people would begin to notice Jewish power and privilege.

    Indeed, Liberalism is now defined by contradiction of cultural separatism and racial mix-ism.

    Multi-culturalism says every cultural identity should be preserved instead of being soft-genocided via assimilationist process of the melting pot. So, each cultural identity should guard and preserve itself instead of melding with white mainstream Americanism.

    On the other hand, Liberalism says all races should mixed and be mongrelized and mulattoized and mestizo-ized.

    Now, how can separate cultures be maintained if all the races are mixed? If someone is 1/8 Bantu, 1/8 Mexican, 1/8 Chinese, 1/8 Jewish, 1/8 Arab, 1/8 Armenian, 1/8 Indian, and 1/8 German, what culture does he belong to and what culture should he preserve?

    Liberalism, as it currently exists, makes no sense. It's more about tactical machinations than principles based on abstract vision of truth.

    there are many more powerful Jewish-American individuals than there are powerful Palestinian-American individuals (Edward Said was a rare exception)

    Don’t forget Sirhan Sirhan. And Nidal Hasan.

    Read More
  119. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @The most deplorable one

    Jews certainly have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa, so it makes no sense to claim that the Boers have greater claim to South Africa on grounds of indigeneity than the Jews do to Palestine.
     
    The genetics would seem to indicate that Ashkenazi Jews have not been in the ME for something like 1,500 years.

    Do they still have greater roots in Palestine than the Boers do in South Africa?

    Well Israel is a Jewish state, not an Ashkenazi one. The Ashkenazi are Jewish. They are one subset of Jews. There are Jews who are not Ashkenazi.

    The Ashkenazi have both European and Jewish ancestry. There has been a continuing Jewish presence in the ME and Jewish roots go back there.

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?
     
    You missed the point. The comparison wasn't between Israelis and South African Boers. It was between the Palestinian Arab/Jew root-depth differential and the Boer/Black root-depth differential. Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs' roots are just as deep. The Boers' roots in South Africa are deeper than those of the Blacks the Narrative falsely claims they displaced.
  120. iSteveFan says:
    @Jack D
    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can't get it back.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can’t get it back.

    I think you are off base on this. The complaint about too much diversity is not about the legacy slave population that we have to live with. The complaint about too much diversity is about the post-1965 push to increase the non-white population. The pre-1965 America was around 88 percent European, with the bulk of the rest comprised of the descendants of slaves. The post-1965 America has become over one-third non-European with trends suggesting that they will become a majority in 20 to 30 years.

    That is what people are complaining about. I don’t see how your argument supports the case for turning an 88 percent Euro nation into a non-Euro one.

    And speaking of losing one’s moral standing, how do the descendants of Africans, who sold their fellow Africans into slavery, have the moral standing to come to the USA and qualify for affirmative action? How do North Africans and Turks, who enslaved millions of Europeans, have the moral standing to come to Europe and demand the locals let them in?

    I doubt many people have moral standing if you dig deep enough into their past.

    Read More
  121. @Hal
    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    Some commenters conflate Arab with Muslim. Arabs are people who speak Arabic. Muslims are people who practice Islam. Palestinians are people who are native to Palestine.

    Some commenters conflate olive skinned Mediterraneans with sub-Saharan blacks. Mediterraneans have had civilizations for 5-1o thousand years. Sub-Saharan blacks lived in tropical forests until a few hundred years ago. Northern Europeans lived in northern forests until 2,000 years ago. Also, Arabs can't jump.

    There isn't much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham, radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.

    There isn’t much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham…

    After 4,000 years, everyone on the planet is descended from Abraham. Except, perhaps, the Andaman Islanders.

    …radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.

    Big difference: radical Christians leave the swording to Jesus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal

    After 4,000 years, everyone on the planet is descended from Abraham. Except, perhaps, the Andaman Islanders.
     
    So stupid as to be laughable. After 4,000 years, everybody is not descended from a particular male, and it is doubtful there ever lived the Abraham of the Old Testament.

    Big difference: radical Christians leave the swording to Jesus.
     
    Failure to abstract. Compare fanciful beliefs among religions. Fantastic heritage is as crazy as the fantastic apocalypse or belief in the 12th Iman.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    That is an interesting thing about Christianity. I wonder if the Pope declared a crusade to defend the Christian minorities in the Mideast if anyone would show up for it.
  122. Lot says:
    @Anon
    "Like I’ve been saying, Los Angeles itself is less East Asian than I would have predicted when I was at UCLA 35 years ago."

    Japanese immigration dried up long ago. With Korea with record low birthrates, immigration from there has slowed too. Taiwan as well.

    That really leaves China as the only East Asian nation sending lots of immigrants, but maybe Chinese are less into concentrating on moving to LA as there are other places in the US they can settle and find work.

    With Korea with record low birthrates, immigration from there has slowed too.

    Korea is easily the richest country that is still sending us a lot of immigrants. The combination of high cost of living, the most intensive schooling in the world (in the middle class, after-school cram classes 5 days a week, and cram summer camps, are nearly universal), plus mandatory military service, plus the Nork threat, will keep a good stream coming in, even with its 1.4 birthrate and world-class auto and consumer electronics economy.

    As the most Christian NE asians, and the youngest generation about as tall as whites, they assimilate pretty fast too.

    Not quite as fast as the few Japanese immigrants though, who tend to come here specifically because they love our culture, don’t have a bunch of Japantowns to retard their assimilation, and produce hapas that look 80-90% white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Not quite as fast as the few Japanese immigrants though, who tend to come here specifically because they love our culture, don’t have a bunch of Japantowns to retard their assimilation, and produce hapas that look 80-90% white.
     
    What, all five of them this year?

    Japanese-Americans are more likely to be laid back, long-haired surfer dudes nowadays, unfortunately. Koreans will at least carry rifles and fight off black-brown rioters when the fecal matter hits the rotating device.
  123. Mr. Anon says:

    “Jack D says:

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can’t get it back.”

    And yet America existed as an essentially white nation until very recently.

    I think you have just ceded the right to have any white American take anything you say seriously.

    Read More
  124. @Hal

    What’s wrong with “disproportionate influence?”
     
    You should take a reading course. I said it is not allowed to say this group had disproportionate influence because this group has disproportionate influence. Do you need me to explain to you why not being allowed to state a simple fact is wrong?

    What's wrong is we are not allowed to state a plain truth. The reason is to protect a group that considers all of us to be "the other."

    Forget “reading courses,” whatever they are. If you think it is “not allowed” to say Jews have disproportionate influence in finance, then you just aren’t reading enough. People have been saying that for centuries. Your objection is clearly not that you can’t state a plain truth; you just don’t like that particular “plain truth.”

    The question is whether it is meaningful. Disparate impact is based on the idea that all “disproportionate influence” or over/under representation is unjust by definition, without actually proving it. Disparate impact is SJW bullshit, and so is all that crap about “othering.”

    You sound like the Black Hebrew Prophets in downtown Brooklyn, who tell you all about the forbidden, hidden knowledge they have about whitey and Jews and Doctor Yakoob, so forbidden that they scream it on street corners all day and nobody even cares enough to be offended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Forget “reading courses,” whatever they are. If you think it is “not allowed” to say Jews have disproportionate influence in finance, then you just aren’t reading enough. People have been saying that for centuries.
     
    Murder isn't allowed, but there are thousands of instances of it every year in the US.

    You sound like the Black Hebrew Prophets in downtown Brooklyn, who tell you all about the forbidden, hidden knowledge they have about whitey and Jews and Doctor Yakoob, so forbidden that they scream it on street corners all day and nobody even cares enough to be offended.
     
    This is offensively stupid. The claim that Mark Chapman killed John Lennon sounds just like the claim that Mark Chapman killed Paul McCartney.

    Some claims are true, and others are false.
  125. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Hal
    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    Some commenters conflate Arab with Muslim. Arabs are people who speak Arabic. Muslims are people who practice Islam. Palestinians are people who are native to Palestine.

    Some commenters conflate olive skinned Mediterraneans with sub-Saharan blacks. Mediterraneans have had civilizations for 5-1o thousand years. Sub-Saharan blacks lived in tropical forests until a few hundred years ago. Northern Europeans lived in northern forests until 2,000 years ago. Also, Arabs can't jump.

    There isn't much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham, radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.

    Yes, who can forget that time Pat Robertson, Shmuley Boteach, and the Pope beheaded Muslims on a beach? I see moral equivalence drawn all the time, the President is fond of citing Medieval Crusading Christians to justify the latest ISIS horror, but its moral equivalence at its most lazy and stupid.

    Christianity for better and worse, is at the heart of the West as being Greek/Hellenistic Humanism writ onto Jewish monotheism. With given the Trinity more of the Hellenistic Humanism than the monotheism. Hating Christianity is hating Hellenism, you can read any of the Greek philosophers and they echo much of the New Testament and Jesus teaching specifically. Its why Nietzsche hated Christianity calling it a slave religion (accurate too) and preferring the Greek Heroic tradition. But Achilles was a literal dead end and the power of the West comes from not sulking in a tent denied glory in battle but male cooperation from Christianity.

    Its as dumb to hate Christianity as it is to believe America fought for Israel (Pat Buchanon has to be one of the all time worst peddlers of this — so stupid he believes like Obama his own BS). Presidents hostile to Israel (FDR, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Bush I), indifferent (Nixon, Carter, Clinton), and friendly (Truman, Reagan, Bush II) have overthrown Mossadegh, armed Saddam, bombed Saddam, fought Saddam and kicked him out of Kuwait, overthrown Saddam, sank the Iranian Navy, all in service to the US dominating the Gulf and protecting America’s most vital ally: the House of Saud and its oil that can be pumped out of the ground at a budget-break even point for them at around $60-70, purely economic at around $20-30 (putting aside regime survival based on patronage). But then you’d have to stop believing in magic and understand the world runs on oil and how much it costs.

    Israel is a marginally ally of usefulness like the Egyptians, but a sideshow to the House of Saud and Gulf domination. Of course Obama has thrown away 70+ years of Persian Gulf domination to make himself feel good, a result of racial change: not enough White people wanting cheap gas and too many Asians viewing America as a rental Apartment Complex and Hispanics as apathetic and mildly hostile to White America.

    Why do White people care about Iran getting nukes? They don’t want to move to South Central LA — America’s racial segregation depends on cheap (enough) oil and gas.

    Its always at the bottom, about the money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Its as dumb to hate Christianity as it is to believe America fought for Israel (Pat Buchanon has to be one of the all time worst peddlers of this — so stupid he believes like Obama his own BS).
     
    Pat Buchanan is pretty much the only mainstream politician, as well as journalist, who speaks out against the number one issue for most of us on sites like this, namely, mass immigration and the multicult. Evidently that is not the number one issue for you, since his stance on Israel seems to trump everything else. And let's be honest, Buchanan is not anti-Israel. He seems to have a positive opinion of Israel. He just doesn't want the US tied to the hip with Israel in its policy decisions. I don't see anything wrong with that.

    But I suppose if one doesn't support Israel like McCain, one is anti-Israel. It would be nice if you would reserve some of your vitriol for people like McCain, Adelson and others who promote open borders. Maybe you could misspell their names, as you do with Mr. Buchanan, and label them as stupid peddlers of the multicult. But you don't. And because you choose to attack Mr. Buchanan, and not the pro-Israeli globalists, it shows exactly where your priorities lie.

    And there is nothing wrong with having your views. But why one would who holds those views hang out on sites like this and pretend to care about issues you obviously feel are of minimal import? Wouldn't conservative sites like Redstate be more to your taste?

    , @JSM
    blah blah blah..." all in service to the US dominating the Gulf and protecting America’s most vital ally: the House of Saud and its oil that can be pumped out of the ground at a budget-break even point for them at around $60-70, purely economic at around $20-30 (putting aside regime survival based on patronage). But then you’d have to stop believing in magic and understand the world runs on oil and how much it costs."

    Yeah, ok, I get what you're saying.... makes sense. Keep House of Saud happy, keep cheap oil flowing...

    Which begs the question, then,


    So, why shine up to Israel?


    It's got no oil...it irritates the
    Sauds...

    and don't even start with the "Israel is an unsinkable aircraft carrier" business.

    An "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that we've NEVER used, despite all our militaryin' in the Middle East. In fact, during the first Gulf war, ( the best example of a war about oil -- keep Saddam from hoarding Kuwaiti oil) U.S. government specifically told Israel to stay OUT of it.

    So what IS it we get for our donations of 3 billion bucks a year to Israel in military hardware?

    I've heard all the arguments, "It's the only democracy in the Middle East!" So?????

    "It is a stabilizing force in the Middle East" Laughable.

    "It's our friend, and we have to be good to our friends!" Some friendship, where one side does all the giving and the other side does all the taking.

    What I have *NEVER* heard is a GOOD argument for being Israel's ally (notice I did not say "keeping Israel as *our* ally.")

  126. iSteveFan says:
    @Whiskey
    Yes, who can forget that time Pat Robertson, Shmuley Boteach, and the Pope beheaded Muslims on a beach? I see moral equivalence drawn all the time, the President is fond of citing Medieval Crusading Christians to justify the latest ISIS horror, but its moral equivalence at its most lazy and stupid.

    Christianity for better and worse, is at the heart of the West as being Greek/Hellenistic Humanism writ onto Jewish monotheism. With given the Trinity more of the Hellenistic Humanism than the monotheism. Hating Christianity is hating Hellenism, you can read any of the Greek philosophers and they echo much of the New Testament and Jesus teaching specifically. Its why Nietzsche hated Christianity calling it a slave religion (accurate too) and preferring the Greek Heroic tradition. But Achilles was a literal dead end and the power of the West comes from not sulking in a tent denied glory in battle but male cooperation from Christianity.

    Its as dumb to hate Christianity as it is to believe America fought for Israel (Pat Buchanon has to be one of the all time worst peddlers of this -- so stupid he believes like Obama his own BS). Presidents hostile to Israel (FDR, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Bush I), indifferent (Nixon, Carter, Clinton), and friendly (Truman, Reagan, Bush II) have overthrown Mossadegh, armed Saddam, bombed Saddam, fought Saddam and kicked him out of Kuwait, overthrown Saddam, sank the Iranian Navy, all in service to the US dominating the Gulf and protecting America's most vital ally: the House of Saud and its oil that can be pumped out of the ground at a budget-break even point for them at around $60-70, purely economic at around $20-30 (putting aside regime survival based on patronage). But then you'd have to stop believing in magic and understand the world runs on oil and how much it costs.

    Israel is a marginally ally of usefulness like the Egyptians, but a sideshow to the House of Saud and Gulf domination. Of course Obama has thrown away 70+ years of Persian Gulf domination to make himself feel good, a result of racial change: not enough White people wanting cheap gas and too many Asians viewing America as a rental Apartment Complex and Hispanics as apathetic and mildly hostile to White America.

    Why do White people care about Iran getting nukes? They don't want to move to South Central LA -- America's racial segregation depends on cheap (enough) oil and gas.

    Its always at the bottom, about the money.

    Its as dumb to hate Christianity as it is to believe America fought for Israel (Pat Buchanon has to be one of the all time worst peddlers of this — so stupid he believes like Obama his own BS).

    Pat Buchanan is pretty much the only mainstream politician, as well as journalist, who speaks out against the number one issue for most of us on sites like this, namely, mass immigration and the multicult. Evidently that is not the number one issue for you, since his stance on Israel seems to trump everything else. And let’s be honest, Buchanan is not anti-Israel. He seems to have a positive opinion of Israel. He just doesn’t want the US tied to the hip with Israel in its policy decisions. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    But I suppose if one doesn’t support Israel like McCain, one is anti-Israel. It would be nice if you would reserve some of your vitriol for people like McCain, Adelson and others who promote open borders. Maybe you could misspell their names, as you do with Mr. Buchanan, and label them as stupid peddlers of the multicult. But you don’t. And because you choose to attack Mr. Buchanan, and not the pro-Israeli globalists, it shows exactly where your priorities lie.

    And there is nothing wrong with having your views. But why one would who holds those views hang out on sites like this and pretend to care about issues you obviously feel are of minimal import? Wouldn’t conservative sites like Redstate be more to your taste?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Pat Buchanan is pretty much the only mainstream politician, as well as journalist, who speaks out against the number one issue for most of us on sites like this, namely, mass immigration and the multicult. Evidently that is not the number one issue for you, since his stance on Israel seems to trump everything else. And let’s be honest, Buchanan is not anti-Israel. He seems to have a positive opinion of Israel. He just doesn’t want the US tied to the hip with Israel in its policy decisions. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
     
    I support Pat 100% on all the above *except* on Israel and Jews in general. I will always choose Israel over Islamic Jihad. Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad. In a rational Europe with the old Crusader spirit they would be thanking Israeli Jews for preserving the Christian Holy places.

    Pat Buchanan is not neutral on Israel. Through the years he has been abusive and stupid about Israel. The only thing that has woken him up a bit is seeing Muslims streaming into his (nominally) Christian homeland of Europe and taking over via demographic warfare

    If you want to know what your nation will look like in 30 years go look at the ethnic composition and religion of your nations kindergarten students. So what percent of French kindergarteners are Muslim? BTW When Obama went to public school in Indonesia he was listed a Muslim student and went to Koran recitation classes once a week

  127. Whiskey says: • Website

    For those not following the America Flag battle at UCI, we’ve had the edifying spectacle of Asian female students screaming at 93 year old WWII veterans holding up the Flag. Said Asian female students looking either Malaysian or Indonesian. I.E. Muslim from their dress on CBS video on Tuesday evening; for those interested in searching it out. Takeaway: young non-Whites don’t care and are hostile to, traditional American nationalism and symbols, and in particular older White veterans who would demand respect from a majority White nation or area.

    Background: the UCI student council voted to ban the American Flag as a symbol or racism and colonialism that would make some students uncomfortable around a good deal of the campus. It made national headlines and was vetoed by the Student President but goes to a vote to the full Student Council.

    The measure was pushed by a student named Guevera, and supported by the South Asian Muslim students with lukewarm support from Asian students. Several were quoted in the LAT to the effect that they don’t feel any affection for America or the Flag, viewing both as aspects almost of a rental apartment complex they plan to leave soon.

    Asian does not always mean Chinese, it can mean Muslim as well. Orange County has a sizeable South East Asian population aside from Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Filipinos. You can find fairly rare martial arts here: Penjat from Indonesia, stuff from Malaysia, and so on.

    Twenty or thirty years ago, UCI was nearly all White. Logan’s Run was filmed partly on campus, it is still physically a very nice place. But it has just walking around almost no White students. Even Orange County is defacto White minority.

    Anyone thinking this is *JUST* or even primarily about Jews is mistaken, and should lay off those Nigerian emails. Flying the Flag at UCI, various BDS stuff at UC, is all about POWER. Who has it, who wields it, who uses it to make money and advance causes.

    Its already showing up in weird places: The FT has a story on Indian Hedge Fund Firms save $4,000 a month minimum on labor by doing mouse-click trading as opposed to HFT at the exchanges, again all about the money. Jews in finance can’t compete against cheap Indian labor in Bombay, any more than diamond cutters (Jewish) in Amsterdam, NYC, or Israel could compete against semi-slave Indian child labor.

    Mass immigrant labor is destabilizing because it lowers wages for native workers, introduces a mass (Jews by definition are not and cannot be MASS*) of people lobbying for ever more of their friends and relatives to take up scarce employment, student slots in universities, and passions of their homelands.

    It is also destabilizing because as the Flag Fight at UCI shows, mass Third World immigrants cannot and don’t want to adopt the symbols of America or mutually sacrifice for it — instead viewing the place as a post office box of convenience, at best, at worst a place to boss around and run.

    *Jews are estimated by Google at 13.9 million world wide. TFR for Ashkenazi Jews is something like 1.1, around Italian self-annihilating levels. There are 120 million Mexicans for example, and VDARE estimates perhaps another 50 million in the US illegally. That’s 170 million not counting born in America people of Mexican ancestry; and TFR is 2.2; much higher for Immigrants.

    One thing you don’t find with Jews these days: large families or successful political dynasties. As opposed to the fertility of the Kennedy, Biden, and Pelosi clans, with lots of sons and daughters in politics (the Kennedys in particular seem to hang around no matter how many ski into trees or fly planes into the ocean) as opposed to one daughter for Dianne Feinstein, two for Barbara Boxer, and two for Charles Schumer. Fertility matters and Jews just don’t have much. Berman and Waxman for example have two kids apiece and neither seems to have done the Kennedy thing — get their kids into a safe seat like say the Bidens and Bushes have done repeatedly.

    America could swallow all of the World-Wide Jewish population and it would amount to about a quarter of the illegals here from Mexico, give or take. With as noted abysmal fertility and not much habits of drive by shootings or screaming at WWII vets about the Flag.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    For those not following the America Flag battle at UCI, we’ve had the edifying spectacle of Asian female students screaming at 93 year old WWII veterans holding up the Flag.
     
    You missed my comment 53, eh? From the Washington Post:

    On Friday, state Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Santa Ana) told the AP that legislators may introduce a state constitutional amendment prohibiting “state-funded universities and college campuses from banning the United States flag.”

    The resolution also sparked outrage among some military veterans and students, the Times reported. UCI junior Daniel La, 21, told the Times that he didn’t think the vote was “representative of the school.”

    “There’s a lot of students that aren’t happy about it,” he said. “I don’t personally agree with it either.” [Boldfaces mine.]
     

    Nguyen and La who are sticking up for the Old Glory (and standing against Guevara's resolution) have Vietnamese and Korean names, respectively.
    , @Sunbeam
    "*Jews are estimated by Google at 13.9 million world wide. TFR for Ashkenazi Jews is something like 1.1, around Italian self-annihilating levels. "

    Yeah, Jews get talked about a lot here for obvious reasons.

    But while I haven't googled on my own to see if your numbers are accurate (the TFR rate sounds a little dicey, particularly if you count Haridi and the other really traditional ones as Ashkenazim).

    The fact remains that low fertility, and assimilation into the broader culture indicate we are going to see a very different world in 40 years.

    Things can always change, but graphs seem to paint a very dismal picture.

    I doubt I am around in 40 years. Be interesting to pull the mortality rates and project Jewish population in the US in that amount of time, though of course that won't reflect Assimilation.

    We have lots of Mc's, Mac's, and Germanic names in this country that feel no connection to any country or region in Europe, or anything beyond a mild identification with being Irish or Scottish.

    But what will bug me until the end of my days is exactly what Jews were thinking on immigration. America might have been a place to hang their hat for them, but they screwed up the place they live in. Crapped in their own bed for want of a better word.

    It wasn't just them of course, but they were an important part of it.

    And for what exactly? 1965 demographics weren't enough for them?

    For people associated with high IQ, I don't really think they thought this through at all. Of course as I have said, there were lots of others promoting this endeavor. And a small portion of them opposed it or thought better of it.

    But the truck is in the ditch now, and this is what we got. And if you look on the road there are more trucks coming, with lots of people packed in and hanging on to those vehicles.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    "One thing you don’t find with Jews these days: large families or successful political dynasties. "

    Haredim in the UK have an average of seven children. And the Miliband dynasty aren't doing too badly for only two generations in the UK, while wartime Home Secretary Herbert Morrison's grandson Peter Mandelson is still a political force. Labour grandee Jack Straw's son has just been selected for a safe Labour seat.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7411877.stm

    "The UK's Jewish population is growing for the first time since World War II, research suggests. The rise appears to be due to a growth in the size of ultra-orthodox Jewish families, according to researchers at the University of Manchester. "
  128. Twinkie says:
    @Whiskey
    For those not following the America Flag battle at UCI, we've had the edifying spectacle of Asian female students screaming at 93 year old WWII veterans holding up the Flag. Said Asian female students looking either Malaysian or Indonesian. I.E. Muslim from their dress on CBS video on Tuesday evening; for those interested in searching it out. Takeaway: young non-Whites don't care and are hostile to, traditional American nationalism and symbols, and in particular older White veterans who would demand respect from a majority White nation or area.

    Background: the UCI student council voted to ban the American Flag as a symbol or racism and colonialism that would make some students uncomfortable around a good deal of the campus. It made national headlines and was vetoed by the Student President but goes to a vote to the full Student Council.

    The measure was pushed by a student named Guevera, and supported by the South Asian Muslim students with lukewarm support from Asian students. Several were quoted in the LAT to the effect that they don't feel any affection for America or the Flag, viewing both as aspects almost of a rental apartment complex they plan to leave soon.

    Asian does not always mean Chinese, it can mean Muslim as well. Orange County has a sizeable South East Asian population aside from Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Filipinos. You can find fairly rare martial arts here: Penjat from Indonesia, stuff from Malaysia, and so on.

    Twenty or thirty years ago, UCI was nearly all White. Logan's Run was filmed partly on campus, it is still physically a very nice place. But it has just walking around almost no White students. Even Orange County is defacto White minority.

    Anyone thinking this is *JUST* or even primarily about Jews is mistaken, and should lay off those Nigerian emails. Flying the Flag at UCI, various BDS stuff at UC, is all about POWER. Who has it, who wields it, who uses it to make money and advance causes.

    Its already showing up in weird places: The FT has a story on Indian Hedge Fund Firms save $4,000 a month minimum on labor by doing mouse-click trading as opposed to HFT at the exchanges, again all about the money. Jews in finance can't compete against cheap Indian labor in Bombay, any more than diamond cutters (Jewish) in Amsterdam, NYC, or Israel could compete against semi-slave Indian child labor.

    Mass immigrant labor is destabilizing because it lowers wages for native workers, introduces a mass (Jews by definition are not and cannot be MASS*) of people lobbying for ever more of their friends and relatives to take up scarce employment, student slots in universities, and passions of their homelands.

    It is also destabilizing because as the Flag Fight at UCI shows, mass Third World immigrants cannot and don't want to adopt the symbols of America or mutually sacrifice for it -- instead viewing the place as a post office box of convenience, at best, at worst a place to boss around and run.

    *Jews are estimated by Google at 13.9 million world wide. TFR for Ashkenazi Jews is something like 1.1, around Italian self-annihilating levels. There are 120 million Mexicans for example, and VDARE estimates perhaps another 50 million in the US illegally. That's 170 million not counting born in America people of Mexican ancestry; and TFR is 2.2; much higher for Immigrants.

    One thing you don't find with Jews these days: large families or successful political dynasties. As opposed to the fertility of the Kennedy, Biden, and Pelosi clans, with lots of sons and daughters in politics (the Kennedys in particular seem to hang around no matter how many ski into trees or fly planes into the ocean) as opposed to one daughter for Dianne Feinstein, two for Barbara Boxer, and two for Charles Schumer. Fertility matters and Jews just don't have much. Berman and Waxman for example have two kids apiece and neither seems to have done the Kennedy thing -- get their kids into a safe seat like say the Bidens and Bushes have done repeatedly.

    America could swallow all of the World-Wide Jewish population and it would amount to about a quarter of the illegals here from Mexico, give or take. With as noted abysmal fertility and not much habits of drive by shootings or screaming at WWII vets about the Flag.

    For those not following the America Flag battle at UCI, we’ve had the edifying spectacle of Asian female students screaming at 93 year old WWII veterans holding up the Flag.

    You missed my comment 53, eh? From the Washington Post:

    On Friday, state Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Santa Ana) told the AP that legislators may introduce a state constitutional amendment prohibiting “state-funded universities and college campuses from banning the United States flag.”

    The resolution also sparked outrage among some military veterans and students, the Times reported. UCI junior Daniel La, 21, told the Times that he didn’t think the vote was “representative of the school.”

    “There’s a lot of students that aren’t happy about it,” he said. “I don’t personally agree with it either.” [Boldfaces mine.]

    Nguyen and La who are sticking up for the Old Glory (and standing against Guevara’s resolution) have Vietnamese and Korean names, respectively.

    Read More
  129. Twinkie says:
    @Lot

    With Korea with record low birthrates, immigration from there has slowed too.
     
    Korea is easily the richest country that is still sending us a lot of immigrants. The combination of high cost of living, the most intensive schooling in the world (in the middle class, after-school cram classes 5 days a week, and cram summer camps, are nearly universal), plus mandatory military service, plus the Nork threat, will keep a good stream coming in, even with its 1.4 birthrate and world-class auto and consumer electronics economy.

    As the most Christian NE asians, and the youngest generation about as tall as whites, they assimilate pretty fast too.

    Not quite as fast as the few Japanese immigrants though, who tend to come here specifically because they love our culture, don't have a bunch of Japantowns to retard their assimilation, and produce hapas that look 80-90% white.

    Not quite as fast as the few Japanese immigrants though, who tend to come here specifically because they love our culture, don’t have a bunch of Japantowns to retard their assimilation, and produce hapas that look 80-90% white.

    What, all five of them this year?

    Japanese-Americans are more likely to be laid back, long-haired surfer dudes nowadays, unfortunately. Koreans will at least carry rifles and fight off black-brown rioters when the fecal matter hits the rotating device.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    South Korea sends about 23K a year to the US. Japan is not in the top 20 listed. Based on the 1986-2012 average, however, it is about 6600 a year.

    Surfer-dude is not a bad stereotype for the ones I've met. I think the official figure might be low since these types often come here without a real plan to stay indefinitely and thus be counted as a new lawful permanent resident, but they nonetheless do stay a long time, often attending a community college irregularly, until they marry a local.
  130. Truth says:
    @Lot
    Looks like Jews already joined the white/right-wing (relatively speaking) party at UCLA.

    Here is the "UCLA United" slate:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rgtHEqt6dLEJ:www.bruinsunited.com/candidate/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth, and normal looking men.

    Here is the all-minority LET'S ACT student party, running on "social justice, equity, and inclusion"

    http://www.voteletsact.com/

    “I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth,”

    Dude, we both know Kevin Patterson is boning all three of them.

    Read More
  131. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Truth
    "I see a couple hot Jewish girls, a cute Asian girl, the very cute Miss Roth,"

    Dude, we both know Kevin Patterson is boning all three of them.

    You mean all four?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Nah, Twinkie told me Asians don't bone blacks.
  132. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Judeo-Bolshevists never cared about Israel, there is a article by Winston Churchill about their war with the Zionists for the "soul of the Jewish people".

    It just seens that the Bolsheviks have won the soul of the diaspora, at least. Israel has become an embarassment. A militarized state of farmers is just too much like the goyim of their nightmares for them to admire.

    In the first couple of decades after WWII, the left here was mostly Zionist, I think. The ’60s were the turning point. The creation of the PLO in ’64, the Six Day War, the Arabs becoming more closely allied with the soviets and Israel with the U.S., etc.

    Read More
  133. Lot says:
    @Twinkie

    Not quite as fast as the few Japanese immigrants though, who tend to come here specifically because they love our culture, don’t have a bunch of Japantowns to retard their assimilation, and produce hapas that look 80-90% white.
     
    What, all five of them this year?

    Japanese-Americans are more likely to be laid back, long-haired surfer dudes nowadays, unfortunately. Koreans will at least carry rifles and fight off black-brown rioters when the fecal matter hits the rotating device.

    South Korea sends about 23K a year to the US. Japan is not in the top 20 listed. Based on the 1986-2012 average, however, it is about 6600 a year.

    Surfer-dude is not a bad stereotype for the ones I’ve met. I think the official figure might be low since these types often come here without a real plan to stay indefinitely and thus be counted as a new lawful permanent resident, but they nonetheless do stay a long time, often attending a community college irregularly, until they marry a local.

    Read More
  134. Truth says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    You mean all four?

    Nah, Twinkie told me Asians don’t bone blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Nah, Twinkie told me Asians don’t bone blacks.
     
    It's very rare, but it does happen.
  135. Twinkie says:
    @Truth
    Nah, Twinkie told me Asians don't bone blacks.

    Nah, Twinkie told me Asians don’t bone blacks.

    It’s very rare, but it does happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    LOL! I think the most, sexual attention I ever received from women at one time was lying naked on an accupuncture table at an Eastern Medicine college in Koreatown, LA. The attractive 40-or so year old Chinese female Doc decided to call all of her interns in to to use the muscular black guy as a guniea pig. There were about 15 studens in the room, 1 male the rest females, and I had no idea Korean and Mandarin could be spoken with such warm fervor.

    But that's for another thread.
    , @The most deplorable one
    And when the kids hit high school the East Asian parent tends to commit suicide because those kids don't behave the way East Asian kids do.
  136. Truth says:
    @Twinkie

    Nah, Twinkie told me Asians don’t bone blacks.
     
    It's very rare, but it does happen.

    LOL! I think the most, sexual attention I ever received from women at one time was lying naked on an accupuncture table at an Eastern Medicine college in Koreatown, LA. The attractive 40-or so year old Chinese female Doc decided to call all of her interns in to to use the muscular black guy as a guniea pig. There were about 15 studens in the room, 1 male the rest females, and I had no idea Korean and Mandarin could be spoken with such warm fervor.

    But that’s for another thread.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar




    But that’s for another thread.
     
    Interesting term, in the context of your story.
  137. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I am a contract background investigator for the U.S. Govt (OPM) on security clearances. There is a huge number of new hires in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service for Immigration Officers. I would say about 90% of the backgrounds I do on these new hires were born in a third-world country (POBs that seem to come up a lot: Somalia, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Sudan, Haiti, Jamaica). Most were born, raised, and went to school in the third-world country (their quasi-college degrees are from there). They all get top secret security clearances (only one percent of all applicants are denied a security clearance by the U.S. Govt/DSS). Some are dual citizens and already hold top secret clearances (a periodic review investigation).

    It’s going to be more of a clusterf*ck in the coming decades than the most pessimistic iSteve reader can imagine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs

    It’s going to be more of a clusterf*ck in the coming decades than the most pessimistic iSteve reader can imagine
     
    .
    You bet. I suppose none of this is a surprise to you but anyway:

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150308/NEWS0606/150309225


    The U.S. has accepted refugees since the early 1980s. New Hampshire welcomes between 250 and 550 legal immigrants each year. Most take up residence in communities along Interstate 93 from Nashua on up to Concord, with some showing up in Laconia.

    Gatsas has had a frosty relationship with the International Institute of New England, headquartered in Boston, which has settled several thousand refugees in Manchester, more than it has in any other community in the state.

    Cities and towns cannot block refugee resettlement, just as they are prohibited from restricting people of any race or ethnicity from moving into town.
     

    What is the International Institute?

    http://iine.us/about-us/

    I can't figure them out - they don't have a staff or board of directors listing on their website but there is a nice picture of the nice white lady who runs the place:


    "The organization is headed by its President & CEO, Carolyn Benedict-Drew and overseen by a Board of Directors."
     
    Of course it's overseen by a Board of Directors - but who are they?

    Wikipedia comes to the rescue!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_New_England


    The International Institute of New England (IINE), founded in 1924, is a non-profit government subcontractor. Refugees resettled by the US government via the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants may be assigned to IINE,
     
    Never mind. This is all a Jewish plot to destabilize America.
  138. JSM says:
    @Whiskey
    Yes, who can forget that time Pat Robertson, Shmuley Boteach, and the Pope beheaded Muslims on a beach? I see moral equivalence drawn all the time, the President is fond of citing Medieval Crusading Christians to justify the latest ISIS horror, but its moral equivalence at its most lazy and stupid.

    Christianity for better and worse, is at the heart of the West as being Greek/Hellenistic Humanism writ onto Jewish monotheism. With given the Trinity more of the Hellenistic Humanism than the monotheism. Hating Christianity is hating Hellenism, you can read any of the Greek philosophers and they echo much of the New Testament and Jesus teaching specifically. Its why Nietzsche hated Christianity calling it a slave religion (accurate too) and preferring the Greek Heroic tradition. But Achilles was a literal dead end and the power of the West comes from not sulking in a tent denied glory in battle but male cooperation from Christianity.

    Its as dumb to hate Christianity as it is to believe America fought for Israel (Pat Buchanon has to be one of the all time worst peddlers of this -- so stupid he believes like Obama his own BS). Presidents hostile to Israel (FDR, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Bush I), indifferent (Nixon, Carter, Clinton), and friendly (Truman, Reagan, Bush II) have overthrown Mossadegh, armed Saddam, bombed Saddam, fought Saddam and kicked him out of Kuwait, overthrown Saddam, sank the Iranian Navy, all in service to the US dominating the Gulf and protecting America's most vital ally: the House of Saud and its oil that can be pumped out of the ground at a budget-break even point for them at around $60-70, purely economic at around $20-30 (putting aside regime survival based on patronage). But then you'd have to stop believing in magic and understand the world runs on oil and how much it costs.

    Israel is a marginally ally of usefulness like the Egyptians, but a sideshow to the House of Saud and Gulf domination. Of course Obama has thrown away 70+ years of Persian Gulf domination to make himself feel good, a result of racial change: not enough White people wanting cheap gas and too many Asians viewing America as a rental Apartment Complex and Hispanics as apathetic and mildly hostile to White America.

    Why do White people care about Iran getting nukes? They don't want to move to South Central LA -- America's racial segregation depends on cheap (enough) oil and gas.

    Its always at the bottom, about the money.

    blah blah blah…” all in service to the US dominating the Gulf and protecting America’s most vital ally: the House of Saud and its oil that can be pumped out of the ground at a budget-break even point for them at around $60-70, purely economic at around $20-30 (putting aside regime survival based on patronage). But then you’d have to stop believing in magic and understand the world runs on oil and how much it costs.”

    Yeah, ok, I get what you’re saying…. makes sense. Keep House of Saud happy, keep cheap oil flowing…

    Which begs the question, then,

    So, why shine up to Israel?

    It’s got no oil…it irritates the
    Sauds…

    and don’t even start with the “Israel is an unsinkable aircraft carrier” business.

    An “unsinkable aircraft carrier” that we’ve NEVER used, despite all our militaryin’ in the Middle East. In fact, during the first Gulf war, ( the best example of a war about oil — keep Saddam from hoarding Kuwaiti oil) U.S. government specifically told Israel to stay OUT of it.

    So what IS it we get for our donations of 3 billion bucks a year to Israel in military hardware?

    I’ve heard all the arguments, “It’s the only democracy in the Middle East!” So?????

    “It is a stabilizing force in the Middle East” Laughable.

    “It’s our friend, and we have to be good to our friends!” Some friendship, where one side does all the giving and the other side does all the taking.

    What I have *NEVER* heard is a GOOD argument for being Israel’s ally (notice I did not say “keeping Israel as *our* ally.”)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    The founder of Saudi Arabia was definitely irritated by the idea of Jews having a state in Palestine. But the current leaders don't seem too irritated by Israel. Their main concern is with Iran, which aligns their interests with Israel's somewhat.

    And Israel may not have oil, but it's got a lot of natural gas now. http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/29/israels-natural-gas-reserves-reshape-middle-east-dynamics/?__lsa=d774-7368
  139. Sunbeam says:
    @Whiskey
    For those not following the America Flag battle at UCI, we've had the edifying spectacle of Asian female students screaming at 93 year old WWII veterans holding up the Flag. Said Asian female students looking either Malaysian or Indonesian. I.E. Muslim from their dress on CBS video on Tuesday evening; for those interested in searching it out. Takeaway: young non-Whites don't care and are hostile to, traditional American nationalism and symbols, and in particular older White veterans who would demand respect from a majority White nation or area.

    Background: the UCI student council voted to ban the American Flag as a symbol or racism and colonialism that would make some students uncomfortable around a good deal of the campus. It made national headlines and was vetoed by the Student President but goes to a vote to the full Student Council.

    The measure was pushed by a student named Guevera, and supported by the South Asian Muslim students with lukewarm support from Asian students. Several were quoted in the LAT to the effect that they don't feel any affection for America or the Flag, viewing both as aspects almost of a rental apartment complex they plan to leave soon.

    Asian does not always mean Chinese, it can mean Muslim as well. Orange County has a sizeable South East Asian population aside from Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Filipinos. You can find fairly rare martial arts here: Penjat from Indonesia, stuff from Malaysia, and so on.

    Twenty or thirty years ago, UCI was nearly all White. Logan's Run was filmed partly on campus, it is still physically a very nice place. But it has just walking around almost no White students. Even Orange County is defacto White minority.

    Anyone thinking this is *JUST* or even primarily about Jews is mistaken, and should lay off those Nigerian emails. Flying the Flag at UCI, various BDS stuff at UC, is all about POWER. Who has it, who wields it, who uses it to make money and advance causes.

    Its already showing up in weird places: The FT has a story on Indian Hedge Fund Firms save $4,000 a month minimum on labor by doing mouse-click trading as opposed to HFT at the exchanges, again all about the money. Jews in finance can't compete against cheap Indian labor in Bombay, any more than diamond cutters (Jewish) in Amsterdam, NYC, or Israel could compete against semi-slave Indian child labor.

    Mass immigrant labor is destabilizing because it lowers wages for native workers, introduces a mass (Jews by definition are not and cannot be MASS*) of people lobbying for ever more of their friends and relatives to take up scarce employment, student slots in universities, and passions of their homelands.

    It is also destabilizing because as the Flag Fight at UCI shows, mass Third World immigrants cannot and don't want to adopt the symbols of America or mutually sacrifice for it -- instead viewing the place as a post office box of convenience, at best, at worst a place to boss around and run.

    *Jews are estimated by Google at 13.9 million world wide. TFR for Ashkenazi Jews is something like 1.1, around Italian self-annihilating levels. There are 120 million Mexicans for example, and VDARE estimates perhaps another 50 million in the US illegally. That's 170 million not counting born in America people of Mexican ancestry; and TFR is 2.2; much higher for Immigrants.

    One thing you don't find with Jews these days: large families or successful political dynasties. As opposed to the fertility of the Kennedy, Biden, and Pelosi clans, with lots of sons and daughters in politics (the Kennedys in particular seem to hang around no matter how many ski into trees or fly planes into the ocean) as opposed to one daughter for Dianne Feinstein, two for Barbara Boxer, and two for Charles Schumer. Fertility matters and Jews just don't have much. Berman and Waxman for example have two kids apiece and neither seems to have done the Kennedy thing -- get their kids into a safe seat like say the Bidens and Bushes have done repeatedly.

    America could swallow all of the World-Wide Jewish population and it would amount to about a quarter of the illegals here from Mexico, give or take. With as noted abysmal fertility and not much habits of drive by shootings or screaming at WWII vets about the Flag.

    “*Jews are estimated by Google at 13.9 million world wide. TFR for Ashkenazi Jews is something like 1.1, around Italian self-annihilating levels. ”

    Yeah, Jews get talked about a lot here for obvious reasons.

    But while I haven’t googled on my own to see if your numbers are accurate (the TFR rate sounds a little dicey, particularly if you count Haridi and the other really traditional ones as Ashkenazim).

    The fact remains that low fertility, and assimilation into the broader culture indicate we are going to see a very different world in 40 years.

    Things can always change, but graphs seem to paint a very dismal picture.

    I doubt I am around in 40 years. Be interesting to pull the mortality rates and project Jewish population in the US in that amount of time, though of course that won’t reflect Assimilation.

    We have lots of Mc’s, Mac’s, and Germanic names in this country that feel no connection to any country or region in Europe, or anything beyond a mild identification with being Irish or Scottish.

    But what will bug me until the end of my days is exactly what Jews were thinking on immigration. America might have been a place to hang their hat for them, but they screwed up the place they live in. Crapped in their own bed for want of a better word.

    It wasn’t just them of course, but they were an important part of it.

    And for what exactly? 1965 demographics weren’t enough for them?

    For people associated with high IQ, I don’t really think they thought this through at all. Of course as I have said, there were lots of others promoting this endeavor. And a small portion of them opposed it or thought better of it.

    But the truck is in the ditch now, and this is what we got. And if you look on the road there are more trucks coming, with lots of people packed in and hanging on to those vehicles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Yeah, Jews get talked about a lot here for obvious reasons.

    No. The obsession has a non-obvious source.
  140. iffen says:
    @Father O'Hara
    Uhm,this is about D.W. Griffith,right? (In Blazing Saddles,Harvey Korman has a great speech about rounding up all the bad hombres to get the new sherrif.("Get me pugs,mugs,thugs,, etc",which end with the words"and Methodists!" It sounded funny,cuz M is a religion,but is there some kind of in joke there? )

    It depends on whether you think Methodists are born that way or are they just failed Baptists.

    Read More
  141. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    He would think along these lines wouldn’t he?
     
    Is he wrong?

    Not in times past, but we are no longer making soup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    we are no longer making soup.
     
    True enough. But we can again with dramatically reduced amount of immigration.
  142. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    Jews of the Boomer generation and earlier mostly preached diversity and the equality of all peoples long and hard, to the world, and to their children. Yet, obviously, they sang a different tune when it came to their views on Israel and the Jewish people. The Boomers and earlier mostly married other Jews, and supported Israel fanatically.

    Some candid observer. Jews of the Boomer generation preached diversity and practiced it by marrying out (50%) or not at all. They support Israel, but not fanatically, unless you are talking about oddfall fanatics like Meir Kahane and his followers.

    Read More
  143. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Anonymous
    I am a contract background investigator for the U.S. Govt (OPM) on security clearances. There is a huge number of new hires in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service for Immigration Officers. I would say about 90% of the backgrounds I do on these new hires were born in a third-world country (POBs that seem to come up a lot: Somalia, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Sudan, Haiti, Jamaica). Most were born, raised, and went to school in the third-world country (their quasi-college degrees are from there). They all get top secret security clearances (only one percent of all applicants are denied a security clearance by the U.S. Govt/DSS). Some are dual citizens and already hold top secret clearances (a periodic review investigation).

    It's going to be more of a clusterf*ck in the coming decades than the most pessimistic iSteve reader can imagine.

    It’s going to be more of a clusterf*ck in the coming decades than the most pessimistic iSteve reader can imagine

    .
    You bet. I suppose none of this is a surprise to you but anyway:

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150308/NEWS0606/150309225

    The U.S. has accepted refugees since the early 1980s. New Hampshire welcomes between 250 and 550 legal immigrants each year. Most take up residence in communities along Interstate 93 from Nashua on up to Concord, with some showing up in Laconia.

    Gatsas has had a frosty relationship with the International Institute of New England, headquartered in Boston, which has settled several thousand refugees in Manchester, more than it has in any other community in the state.

    Cities and towns cannot block refugee resettlement, just as they are prohibited from restricting people of any race or ethnicity from moving into town.

    What is the International Institute?

    http://iine.us/about-us/

    I can’t figure them out – they don’t have a staff or board of directors listing on their website but there is a nice picture of the nice white lady who runs the place:

    “The organization is headed by its President & CEO, Carolyn Benedict-Drew and overseen by a Board of Directors.”

    Of course it’s overseen by a Board of Directors – but who are they?

    Wikipedia comes to the rescue!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_New_England

    The International Institute of New England (IINE), founded in 1924, is a non-profit government subcontractor. Refugees resettled by the US government via the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants may be assigned to IINE,

    Never mind. This is all a Jewish plot to destabilize America.

    Read More
  144. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    P.S. If I edit a comment the hyperlinks suddenly capitalize. It doesn’t corrupt them but they capitalize.

    Read More
  145. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Twinkie

    Ethnic differences are easier to overcome than religious and language differences. Most people can get along with others who look different if they talk and worship the same.
     
    Race purists are often atheists (or Odinists or some such). They have no religion in their lives so they underestimate the tremendously bonding (and divisive) effects of religion.

    Even the whole "Bowling Alone" study had two caveats - common military service and common religion as social glue that counteract interethnic loss of social cohesion and trust. When you fight and die together and/or undergo the same, communal religious rituals, strong bonds can form that transcend ethno-racial differences.

    That doesn't mean we ought to import millions of aliens into the country, but it does mean that race differences are not everything.

    Even the whole “Bowling Alone” study had two caveats – common military service and common religion as social glue that counteract interethnic loss of social cohesion and trust.

    I have this sneaking suspicion that different selection pressures have operated to produce different modes of thinking and behavior. They might not integrate well.

    Read More
  146. @Jack D
    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can't get it back.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity?

    What do you call it when someone can’t recognize that people who aren’t Black aren’t Black? Complaints about diversity aren’t about Blacks.

    Read More
  147. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Twinkie

    Nah, Twinkie told me Asians don’t bone blacks.
     
    It's very rare, but it does happen.

    And when the kids hit high school the East Asian parent tends to commit suicide because those kids don’t behave the way East Asian kids do.

    Read More
  148. @Dave Pinsen
    Where in Fairlawn?

    River Road Hot Bagels
    Address: 13-30 River Rd, Fair Lawn, NJ 07410

    Read More
  149. @Anonymous
    Well Israel is a Jewish state, not an Ashkenazi one. The Ashkenazi are Jewish. They are one subset of Jews. There are Jews who are not Ashkenazi.

    The Ashkenazi have both European and Jewish ancestry. There has been a continuing Jewish presence in the ME and Jewish roots go back there.

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?

    You missed the point. The comparison wasn’t between Israelis and South African Boers. It was between the Palestinian Arab/Jew root-depth differential and the Boer/Black root-depth differential. Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs’ roots are just as deep. The Boers’ roots in South Africa are deeper than those of the Blacks the Narrative falsely claims they displaced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    " Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs’ roots are just as deep."

    The vast majority of the Jews in Israel DO NOT have deep roots in Palestine. Few have roots going going back before the 1940s. Palestinians of all religious backgrounds probably have ancient roots with contributions from various invaders. The first thing you notice in Israel is that Jews are not a people in the same sense that Palestinians are, and their different backgrounds are reflected in their physical appearances.

    FWIW, Boers have been in Africa longer than most Zionist Jews have been in Palestine. Boers also made Africa bloom. Palestine was pretty well developed when the Jews took over.
    , @Anonymous
    You've missed the point.

    Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area. The Boers have no such ties to the Africans of South Africa, whether Bantu or San. There has been no direct or indirect physical presence of the Boers in the South Africa like anything comparable to the thousands of years of Jewish communities in the Mideast or the indirect presence via closely related groups like the Palestinian Arabs in the area.

    You subscribe to racialist views, so this sort of logic of indigeneity should not be controversial, and frankly, it's intellectually dishonest for you to dispute it, since you'd make similar claims vis a vis whites and some are of Europe. Of course it may just be that you're not actually or simply a mere racialist, but an anti-Semite and supremacist.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Arab roots in the middle east are of course deep, but Palestinian Arabs' conception of themselves as Palestinians is quite recent. In the early 20th century, "Palestinian" connoted "Jewish". For example: the Jerusalem Post was originally called the Palestinian Post; the Israel Philharmonic used to be called the Palestine Orchestra, etc. Arab nationalism, to the extent it existed, was inchoate. Most of the Arabs had spent the last 4 centuries as Ottoman subjects.

    When the State of Israel was established, the conflict was called the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PLO wasn't even established until 1964.
  150. @Truth
    LOL! I think the most, sexual attention I ever received from women at one time was lying naked on an accupuncture table at an Eastern Medicine college in Koreatown, LA. The attractive 40-or so year old Chinese female Doc decided to call all of her interns in to to use the muscular black guy as a guniea pig. There were about 15 studens in the room, 1 male the rest females, and I had no idea Korean and Mandarin could be spoken with such warm fervor.

    But that's for another thread.

    But that’s for another thread.

    Interesting term, in the context of your story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    "But that’s for another thread."

    Wow, I HAVE to have a high IQ! I make double-entendre I didn't even realize I was making...


    (...and still don't.)
  151. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Forget "reading courses," whatever they are. If you think it is "not allowed" to say Jews have disproportionate influence in finance, then you just aren't reading enough. People have been saying that for centuries. Your objection is clearly not that you can't state a plain truth; you just don't like that particular "plain truth."

    The question is whether it is meaningful. Disparate impact is based on the idea that all "disproportionate influence" or over/under representation is unjust by definition, without actually proving it. Disparate impact is SJW bullshit, and so is all that crap about "othering."

    You sound like the Black Hebrew Prophets in downtown Brooklyn, who tell you all about the forbidden, hidden knowledge they have about whitey and Jews and Doctor Yakoob, so forbidden that they scream it on street corners all day and nobody even cares enough to be offended.

    Forget “reading courses,” whatever they are. If you think it is “not allowed” to say Jews have disproportionate influence in finance, then you just aren’t reading enough. People have been saying that for centuries.

    Murder isn’t allowed, but there are thousands of instances of it every year in the US.

    You sound like the Black Hebrew Prophets in downtown Brooklyn, who tell you all about the forbidden, hidden knowledge they have about whitey and Jews and Doctor Yakoob, so forbidden that they scream it on street corners all day and nobody even cares enough to be offended.

    This is offensively stupid. The claim that Mark Chapman killed John Lennon sounds just like the claim that Mark Chapman killed Paul McCartney.

    Some claims are true, and others are false.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal
    John Lennon is not dead. His spirit arose after three days and he walk the earth (conc. in Manhattan) for 40 days and 40 nights before ascending to his flat in the Dakotas.
  152. Hal says:
    @ben tillman

    Forget “reading courses,” whatever they are. If you think it is “not allowed” to say Jews have disproportionate influence in finance, then you just aren’t reading enough. People have been saying that for centuries.
     
    Murder isn't allowed, but there are thousands of instances of it every year in the US.

    You sound like the Black Hebrew Prophets in downtown Brooklyn, who tell you all about the forbidden, hidden knowledge they have about whitey and Jews and Doctor Yakoob, so forbidden that they scream it on street corners all day and nobody even cares enough to be offended.
     
    This is offensively stupid. The claim that Mark Chapman killed John Lennon sounds just like the claim that Mark Chapman killed Paul McCartney.

    Some claims are true, and others are false.

    John Lennon is not dead. His spirit arose after three days and he walk the earth (conc. in Manhattan) for 40 days and 40 nights before ascending to his flat in the Dakotas.

    Read More
  153. Hal says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    There isn’t much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham…
     
    After 4,000 years, everyone on the planet is descended from Abraham. Except, perhaps, the Andaman Islanders.

    …radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.
     
    Big difference: radical Christians leave the swording to Jesus.

    After 4,000 years, everyone on the planet is descended from Abraham. Except, perhaps, the Andaman Islanders.

    So stupid as to be laughable. After 4,000 years, everybody is not descended from a particular male, and it is doubtful there ever lived the Abraham of the Old Testament.

    Big difference: radical Christians leave the swording to Jesus.

    Failure to abstract. Compare fanciful beliefs among religions. Fantastic heritage is as crazy as the fantastic apocalypse or belief in the 12th Iman.

    Read More
  154. Will Jews get the message if Rahm Emanuel loses in Chicago? Probably not! Still, it’s nice watching the rainbow coalition turn on Jews a bit.

    Read More
  155. @ben tillman

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?
     
    You missed the point. The comparison wasn't between Israelis and South African Boers. It was between the Palestinian Arab/Jew root-depth differential and the Boer/Black root-depth differential. Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs' roots are just as deep. The Boers' roots in South Africa are deeper than those of the Blacks the Narrative falsely claims they displaced.

    ” Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs’ roots are just as deep.”

    The vast majority of the Jews in Israel DO NOT have deep roots in Palestine. Few have roots going going back before the 1940s. Palestinians of all religious backgrounds probably have ancient roots with contributions from various invaders. The first thing you notice in Israel is that Jews are not a people in the same sense that Palestinians are, and their different backgrounds are reflected in their physical appearances.

    FWIW, Boers have been in Africa longer than most Zionist Jews have been in Palestine. Boers also made Africa bloom. Palestine was pretty well developed when the Jews took over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The vast majority of the Jews in Israel DO NOT have deep roots in Palestine.

    The majority of Israel's Jewish population is derived from populations of Sephardic and Oriental Jews. As for the Arab population, some have long-term roots in the territories in question and some derived from various other loci (e.g. present-day Syria or Egypt).
    , @Sunbeam
    "FWIW, Boers have been in Africa longer than most Zionist Jews have been in Palestine. Boers also made Africa bloom. Palestine was pretty well developed when the Jews took over."

    Eh, from what I've read Jerusalem and thereabouts was a sleepy little backwater in the Turkish empire pre the Zionist endeavor.

    Pretty much all the "development" in Israel proper seems to be firmly done by Jews, with nothing owing to the Palestinians.

    Of course the Palestinians would have done something in the time since 1905 or whenever the Zionists started streaming in, but it wouldn't be anything like or as well developed as Israel is today. Well it would probably be about like Syria or Lebanon. Certainly not like Yemen.
  156. If teh jewz were worried about ‘diversity’ in America, it’s unlikely they would have committed all of their resources–over many decades–into achieving it. The whole point of getting whites below 50% of the population is so that no one group could ever gain enough traction to resist a tiny Ruling Class. Divide and Conquer, what’s not to love?

    Read More
  157. Clyde says:
    @iSteveFan

    Its as dumb to hate Christianity as it is to believe America fought for Israel (Pat Buchanon has to be one of the all time worst peddlers of this — so stupid he believes like Obama his own BS).
     
    Pat Buchanan is pretty much the only mainstream politician, as well as journalist, who speaks out against the number one issue for most of us on sites like this, namely, mass immigration and the multicult. Evidently that is not the number one issue for you, since his stance on Israel seems to trump everything else. And let's be honest, Buchanan is not anti-Israel. He seems to have a positive opinion of Israel. He just doesn't want the US tied to the hip with Israel in its policy decisions. I don't see anything wrong with that.

    But I suppose if one doesn't support Israel like McCain, one is anti-Israel. It would be nice if you would reserve some of your vitriol for people like McCain, Adelson and others who promote open borders. Maybe you could misspell their names, as you do with Mr. Buchanan, and label them as stupid peddlers of the multicult. But you don't. And because you choose to attack Mr. Buchanan, and not the pro-Israeli globalists, it shows exactly where your priorities lie.

    And there is nothing wrong with having your views. But why one would who holds those views hang out on sites like this and pretend to care about issues you obviously feel are of minimal import? Wouldn't conservative sites like Redstate be more to your taste?

    Pat Buchanan is pretty much the only mainstream politician, as well as journalist, who speaks out against the number one issue for most of us on sites like this, namely, mass immigration and the multicult. Evidently that is not the number one issue for you, since his stance on Israel seems to trump everything else. And let’s be honest, Buchanan is not anti-Israel. He seems to have a positive opinion of Israel. He just doesn’t want the US tied to the hip with Israel in its policy decisions. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    I support Pat 100% on all the above *except* on Israel and Jews in general. I will always choose Israel over Islamic Jihad. Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad. In a rational Europe with the old Crusader spirit they would be thanking Israeli Jews for preserving the Christian Holy places.

    Pat Buchanan is not neutral on Israel. Through the years he has been abusive and stupid about Israel. The only thing that has woken him up a bit is seeing Muslims streaming into his (nominally) Christian homeland of Europe and taking over via demographic warfare

    If you want to know what your nation will look like in 30 years go look at the ethnic composition and religion of your nations kindergarten students. So what percent of French kindergarteners are Muslim? BTW When Obama went to public school in Indonesia he was listed a Muslim student and went to Koran recitation classes once a week

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    I support Pat 100% on all the above *except* on Israel and Jews in general. I will always choose Israel over Islamic Jihad. Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad.
     
    If Israel is the front line state against world wide Jihad, why aren't they fighting ISIS? What is the point of having a such a front line state if they won't engage?

    The only thing that has woken him up a bit is seeing Muslims streaming into his (nominally) Christian homeland of Europe and taking over via demographic warfare

    If you want to know what your nation will look like in 30 years go look at the ethnic composition and religion of your nations kindergarten students.
     
    That is the point of my original comment. Whiskey and others will slam Pat who is 100 percent against the demographic transformation of Europe and the USA. But they will treat as respected people Sheldon Adelson, John McCain and a host of other mainstream conservatives who support such demographic transformations, but who come across as strong on Israel. That implies that support for Israel trumps any concerns about the USA and Europe.

    If someone supports the immivasion of the West, but is strong on Israel, then that doesn't buy him squat with me. If you want to support Israel fine. But if you don't support the preservation of Europe, North America and Australia, then I can't make common cause with you. Therefore, I can accept Buchanan and Michael Savage, but not Adelson or McCain.
    , @Anonymous

    Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad. In a rational Europe with the old Crusader spirit they would be thanking Israeli Jews for preserving the Christian Holy places.
     
    Israel has been been backing Sunnite/Salafists Islamism (Al Qaeda, ISIS, et al.) to weaken Shiite Islam (Iran/Syria/Hizbollah).

    http://www.lobelog.com/israel-working-with-al-qaeda/
  158. @Priss Factor
    The official ideology like to see politics in terms of:

    Conservatism vs Liberalism.

    But...

    We might well ask... WHICH LIBERALISM?

    There are Liberal Jewish-Americans and Liberal Palestinians-Americans. Both groups mostly vote Democratic, but they don't see eye-to-eye on history, Israel/Palestine conflict, and the Middle East. They may agree on individual self-determination, but if most Jewish-American individuals support the Zionist cause and if most Palestinian-American individuals support the Palestinian cause, where does that leave us? Also, as there are many more powerful Jewish-American individuals than there are powerful Palestinian-American individuals (Edward Said was a rare exception), the Liberal Individualism of Jews will have far greater sway than the Liberalism Individualism of Palestinians.

    Black Liberalism is very tribal and racial. So, is Brown Liberalism of the La Raza ilk. And Homosexuals are very much into homosexual identity and empowerment.

    If anything, American Liberalism, via the neo-tribalism of 'multi-culturalism', has encouraged every minority group to see itself in terms of its tribal-victim-hood under straight white gentile males.

    In a way, this served Jewish interests as well.

    After all, if Jewish-American Liberals had fully accepted assimilationist and universalist doctrine of abstract liberalism, then they would have had no reason to preserve their Jewish identity, interests, history, and politics, especially in relation to the Holocaust and Israel. Victim-hood, no less than 'racism', is tribalist. Victimology is rarely about all of humanity suffering under oppression. Rather, it emphasizes WE or OUR TRIBE victimized by THEM or SOME OTHER TRIBE. Thus, victimology can never be truly liberal. A true liberal would say, regardless of which group harmed which other group, it was really just a case of one bunch of people harming another bunch of people since all nations, cultures, and even race are just 'social constructs'. But victimology doesn't work that way. It collectively sanctifies one tribe as holy victims of another tribe that is made out to be wicked vermin.

    The Holocaust narrative doesn't say one people (who mistakenly saw themselves as 'Aryans') harmed another people (who mistakenly saw themselves as 'Jews', another 'social construct'). It says, evil GERMANS--and their gentile white collaborators--killed innocent JEWS.

    Victimology blames an entire people for the 'sins' of some of their ancestors while elevating another entire people for what some of their ancestors had suffered. So, even Germans who opposed Nazism are to be blamed for the Holocaust whereas even Jews in America and elsewhere who weren't endangered by the Holocaust get to play the Noble Victim card.

    There was once a time when leftism and liberalism sought to bring all people together as cosmopolitan individuals. But it didn't work out that way since it takes money, privilege, and intelligence for people to become cosmopolitans. Most people never had the means to be so sophisticated.

    But then, even people who did become cosmopolitan and liberal didn't entirely give up their tribalism. There are black cosmopolitans who stick to black power and identity. Eric Holder and Charles Blow. And Jewish cosmopolitans are pro-Zionist. And Latin-American elite cosmopolitans play the anti-gringo card all the time. And homo-cosmopolitans or coshomopolitans are all about 'gay power'.

    Anyway, since the Left had problems pulling all the minority groups together as one abstract demography of proles or 'oppressed', it played the neo-tribalist card through multi-culturalism.

    This way, each group---blacks, browns, yellows, homos, Muslims, American Indians, feminists, , and etc, etc---would get to play up their tribalism BUT as victims of straight white gentile males. That way, the Liberal alliance would get to enjoy their own tribalisms while attacking the tribalism of straight white gentile males. So, the narrative goes on and on about 'white privilege', it is very shush about 'Jewish privilege' or 'homo privilege' or 'mulatto privilege'.

    But then, this is the problem of Liberalism. It has too many contentious tribalisms in its own rank. They are held together in alliance only by shared hatred of the common enemy: straight white gentile males. But if white straight gentile males were to vanish from the planet, there's no way the Liberal coalition could stay together. Angry blacks, rich Jews, sneering homos, bitchy feminists, bitter Muslims, gorky Asians, and etc. don't have much in common. And without 'white privilege' to focus on, most people would begin to notice Jewish power and privilege.

    Indeed, Liberalism is now defined by contradiction of cultural separatism and racial mix-ism.

    Multi-culturalism says every cultural identity should be preserved instead of being soft-genocided via assimilationist process of the melting pot. So, each cultural identity should guard and preserve itself instead of melding with white mainstream Americanism.

    On the other hand, Liberalism says all races should mixed and be mongrelized and mulattoized and mestizo-ized.

    Now, how can separate cultures be maintained if all the races are mixed? If someone is 1/8 Bantu, 1/8 Mexican, 1/8 Chinese, 1/8 Jewish, 1/8 Arab, 1/8 Armenian, 1/8 Indian, and 1/8 German, what culture does he belong to and what culture should he preserve?

    Liberalism, as it currently exists, makes no sense. It's more about tactical machinations than principles based on abstract vision of truth.

    Excellent description!

    White male gentiles are the scapegoat, the center around which everyone else can organize and focus their energies. Jewish people served a similar purpose in Nazi Germany.

    So far our Kristallnachts have been confined to places like Ferguson, The Most Important Place in the World (TM). I sometimes ask why they don’t just start rounding us up and putting us in camps. (The grid would shut down if they did. Maybe they sense that.)

    It is easier to organize and motivate a mob in oppostion to an enemy than it is to work together toward some positive, productive goal.

    I don’t think the Coalition of All Others realizes that they are tearing down the very thing they want: the white gentile standard of living. And non-gentile leaders don’t seem to be looking ahead to what their future holds: riding heard atop a third world mob, right here in the ol’ USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I don’t think the Coalition of All Others realizes that they are tearing down the very thing they want: the white gentile standard of living.

    They can't help themselves: it is their nature. See the fable of the scorpion and the frog.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
  159. […] This thread at Sailer’s has produced some insights, among which is the following comment by Jack D: […]

    Read More
  160. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @ben tillman

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?
     
    You missed the point. The comparison wasn't between Israelis and South African Boers. It was between the Palestinian Arab/Jew root-depth differential and the Boer/Black root-depth differential. Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs' roots are just as deep. The Boers' roots in South Africa are deeper than those of the Blacks the Narrative falsely claims they displaced.

    You’ve missed the point.

    Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area. The Boers have no such ties to the Africans of South Africa, whether Bantu or San. There has been no direct or indirect physical presence of the Boers in the South Africa like anything comparable to the thousands of years of Jewish communities in the Mideast or the indirect presence via closely related groups like the Palestinian Arabs in the area.

    You subscribe to racialist views, so this sort of logic of indigeneity should not be controversial, and frankly, it’s intellectually dishonest for you to dispute it, since you’d make similar claims vis a vis whites and some are of Europe. Of course it may just be that you’re not actually or simply a mere racialist, but an anti-Semite and supremacist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area."

    That's like me saying I have every right to go to Ireland or England and kick someone off their property.

    Because after all, 2000 years ago my ancestors lived there too.

    Incidentally the latest genetic research says Ashkenazim are also substantially Roman. The Palestinian have more of a case for being Jews by blood than Ashkenazim do I'd wager.

    , @ben tillman
    I don't think you read what I wrote. I'm talking about roots in a place; you're talking about ties between groups as establishing the extent of roots. And I didn't compare Jewish Israelis' roots with Boers' roots. In fact, I specifically explained that I wasn't making such a comparison. So why did you respond to points I told you I wasn't making?

    Are you perhaps confused because you don't realize that Whites settled South Africa before Blacks did?

  161. MavinGuy says:
    @Jack D
    The definition of chutzpah is someone who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

    What do you call it when white people import millions of blacks in chains from Africa and then complain that America has too much diversity? On the eve of the Civil War, the population of South Carolina was 58% black. Was that too much salt in the soup and if so, who dumped all that salt in there? America lost its moral standing to exist as a whitopia a long time ago and like virginity, you can't get it back.

    Only 388,000 slaves were brought into North America from Africa. Not millions.

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2012/10/how_many_slaves_came_to_america_fact_vs_fiction.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eternal Vigilance
    And what portion of those slaves brought to the colonies were slaves before the Revolutionary War and the colonies were a subject of Great Britain? Another item, Muslims, historically, and even in the 22d century have been major profiteers in the slave trade.
  162. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article13807781.html

    Hispanic norm not a norm in America.

    Lib vs Lib war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I always thought Valerie Jarrett, not Michelle Obama, looked like one of those cast members.
  163. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article13807781.html

    Hispanic norm not a norm in America.

    Lib vs Lib war.

    I always thought Valerie Jarrett, not Michelle Obama, looked like one of those cast members.

    Read More
  164. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Hal
    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    Some commenters conflate Arab with Muslim. Arabs are people who speak Arabic. Muslims are people who practice Islam. Palestinians are people who are native to Palestine.

    Some commenters conflate olive skinned Mediterraneans with sub-Saharan blacks. Mediterraneans have had civilizations for 5-1o thousand years. Sub-Saharan blacks lived in tropical forests until a few hundred years ago. Northern Europeans lived in northern forests until 2,000 years ago. Also, Arabs can't jump.

    There isn't much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham, radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.

    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    No, and no. The antique population in South Africa would be Bushmen and Hottentot. The latter are largely extinct, though South Africa’s Coloured population is derived from them. The Bushmen are found in Namibia and Botswana but not South Africa in appreciable numbes. Bantu populations were fairly recent arrivals in South Africa at the time of the Boer colonization, but neither much predated the other.

    As for ‘Palestinians’, the use of the term would be anachronistic for describing any population there present prior to 1921, and, truth be told, prior to 1968 (as no such identity as ‘Palestinian’was prevalent prior to that date). Mandatory Palestine was an assemblage of three Ottoman sanjaks which had themselves not had absolutely fixed boundaries over the previous 50 years. Large swaths of it had been quite sparsely populated and two different spectra of Arabic vernaculars were spoken therein. There was not much distinction between the extant population of those sanjaks and those to the north and northeast. The same spectra of dialects is found, though the balance between confessions varied then (as it does today). Also, there was during the mandatory period considerable immigration from surrounding territories. There were also counter currents. Neither Yasir Arafat nor Edward Said grew up in mandatory Palestine, and people who heard him speak reported that Edward Said spoke flawless Egyptian Arabic, as one might expect of a man who had grown up there.

    And there was no Jewish ‘invasion’ of ‘Palestine’. They immigrated legally and bought land off the local owners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal

    And there was no Jewish ‘invasion’ of ‘Palestine’. They immigrated legally and bought land off the local owners.
     
    No and no.

    They immigrated mostly illegally and they bought land, for a while, from absentee landowner, not local landowners, and they committed atrocities against Palestinians to drive them away.

    Everything you call 'legal' is subject to scrutiny, and does not pass the smell test. All of the squatters are illegal and will be removed.
    , @PV van der Byl
    It is true that large parts of South Africa were uninhabited by any Bantu (a subset of all African blacks, even if a majority) before they were settled by the Boers in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries. This area corresponds to what is now the Western Cape Province of South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Cape) and the western third or so of the Eastern Cape Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Cape).

    As you note correctly, there were, however, stock-herding Hottentots and a handful of Bushmen in those areas before the Boers. And, yes also, most of the remaining Hottentot DNA resides in what came to be known as the Cape coloureds.
  165. iSteveFan says:
    @Clyde

    Pat Buchanan is pretty much the only mainstream politician, as well as journalist, who speaks out against the number one issue for most of us on sites like this, namely, mass immigration and the multicult. Evidently that is not the number one issue for you, since his stance on Israel seems to trump everything else. And let’s be honest, Buchanan is not anti-Israel. He seems to have a positive opinion of Israel. He just doesn’t want the US tied to the hip with Israel in its policy decisions. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
     
    I support Pat 100% on all the above *except* on Israel and Jews in general. I will always choose Israel over Islamic Jihad. Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad. In a rational Europe with the old Crusader spirit they would be thanking Israeli Jews for preserving the Christian Holy places.

    Pat Buchanan is not neutral on Israel. Through the years he has been abusive and stupid about Israel. The only thing that has woken him up a bit is seeing Muslims streaming into his (nominally) Christian homeland of Europe and taking over via demographic warfare

    If you want to know what your nation will look like in 30 years go look at the ethnic composition and religion of your nations kindergarten students. So what percent of French kindergarteners are Muslim? BTW When Obama went to public school in Indonesia he was listed a Muslim student and went to Koran recitation classes once a week

    I support Pat 100% on all the above *except* on Israel and Jews in general. I will always choose Israel over Islamic Jihad. Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad.

    If Israel is the front line state against world wide Jihad, why aren’t they fighting ISIS? What is the point of having a such a front line state if they won’t engage?

    The only thing that has woken him up a bit is seeing Muslims streaming into his (nominally) Christian homeland of Europe and taking over via demographic warfare

    If you want to know what your nation will look like in 30 years go look at the ethnic composition and religion of your nations kindergarten students.

    That is the point of my original comment. Whiskey and others will slam Pat who is 100 percent against the demographic transformation of Europe and the USA. But they will treat as respected people Sheldon Adelson, John McCain and a host of other mainstream conservatives who support such demographic transformations, but who come across as strong on Israel. That implies that support for Israel trumps any concerns about the USA and Europe.

    If someone supports the immivasion of the West, but is strong on Israel, then that doesn’t buy him squat with me. If you want to support Israel fine. But if you don’t support the preservation of Europe, North America and Australia, then I can’t make common cause with you. Therefore, I can accept Buchanan and Michael Savage, but not Adelson or McCain.

    Read More
  166. Art Deco says: • Website
    @OilcanFloyd
    " Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs’ roots are just as deep."

    The vast majority of the Jews in Israel DO NOT have deep roots in Palestine. Few have roots going going back before the 1940s. Palestinians of all religious backgrounds probably have ancient roots with contributions from various invaders. The first thing you notice in Israel is that Jews are not a people in the same sense that Palestinians are, and their different backgrounds are reflected in their physical appearances.

    FWIW, Boers have been in Africa longer than most Zionist Jews have been in Palestine. Boers also made Africa bloom. Palestine was pretty well developed when the Jews took over.

    The vast majority of the Jews in Israel DO NOT have deep roots in Palestine.

    The majority of Israel’s Jewish population is derived from populations of Sephardic and Oriental Jews. As for the Arab population, some have long-term roots in the territories in question and some derived from various other loci (e.g. present-day Syria or Egypt).

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "The majority of Israel’s Jewish population is derived from populations of Sephardic and Oriental Jews. As for the Arab population, some have long-term roots in the territories in question and some derived from various other loci (e.g. present-day Syria or Egypt)."

    Very few Jews in Israel (non-Palestinian Jews) have roots going back prior to the 1930s or 1940s, so their roots are not comparable to Palestinian roots. All you have to do is look at the faces of the different groups of Jews in Israel to know that Jews aren't a people in the same way that Palestinians are a people-- and the Ashkenazis and German Jews don't look Middle Eastern at all--and that's if you want to play the game of claiming that Jews know for sure that their ancient ancestors came from that tiny piece of land, and their portion of ME DNA wasn't from somewhere else in the region.
  167. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Clyde

    Pat Buchanan is pretty much the only mainstream politician, as well as journalist, who speaks out against the number one issue for most of us on sites like this, namely, mass immigration and the multicult. Evidently that is not the number one issue for you, since his stance on Israel seems to trump everything else. And let’s be honest, Buchanan is not anti-Israel. He seems to have a positive opinion of Israel. He just doesn’t want the US tied to the hip with Israel in its policy decisions. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
     
    I support Pat 100% on all the above *except* on Israel and Jews in general. I will always choose Israel over Islamic Jihad. Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad. In a rational Europe with the old Crusader spirit they would be thanking Israeli Jews for preserving the Christian Holy places.

    Pat Buchanan is not neutral on Israel. Through the years he has been abusive and stupid about Israel. The only thing that has woken him up a bit is seeing Muslims streaming into his (nominally) Christian homeland of Europe and taking over via demographic warfare

    If you want to know what your nation will look like in 30 years go look at the ethnic composition and religion of your nations kindergarten students. So what percent of French kindergarteners are Muslim? BTW When Obama went to public school in Indonesia he was listed a Muslim student and went to Koran recitation classes once a week

    Israel is a front line state against world wide Jihad. In a rational Europe with the old Crusader spirit they would be thanking Israeli Jews for preserving the Christian Holy places.

    Israel has been been backing Sunnite/Salafists Islamism (Al Qaeda, ISIS, et al.) to weaken Shiite Islam (Iran/Syria/Hizbollah).

    http://www.lobelog.com/israel-working-with-al-qaeda/

    Read More
  168. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @OhComeOn
    I think Germanics are Jews only natural enemies and that hispanics/asians/muslims can be outsmarted and controlled.

    Brazil is probably anti-semitic, but the Jews own that country. So? 'Hate us all you want little brown people, we still own you!'

    Brazil has more ethnic Germans than Jews.

    Read More
  169. Sunbeam says:
    @Anonymous
    You've missed the point.

    Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area. The Boers have no such ties to the Africans of South Africa, whether Bantu or San. There has been no direct or indirect physical presence of the Boers in the South Africa like anything comparable to the thousands of years of Jewish communities in the Mideast or the indirect presence via closely related groups like the Palestinian Arabs in the area.

    You subscribe to racialist views, so this sort of logic of indigeneity should not be controversial, and frankly, it's intellectually dishonest for you to dispute it, since you'd make similar claims vis a vis whites and some are of Europe. Of course it may just be that you're not actually or simply a mere racialist, but an anti-Semite and supremacist.

    “Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area.”

    That’s like me saying I have every right to go to Ireland or England and kick someone off their property.

    Because after all, 2000 years ago my ancestors lived there too.

    Incidentally the latest genetic research says Ashkenazim are also substantially Roman. The Palestinian have more of a case for being Jews by blood than Ashkenazim do I’d wager.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Who said anything about rights? This isn't a discussion about rights.

    You would be more indigenous to the are than newer arrivals from Pakistan or something. And ben tillman would agree with this.
    , @Art Deco
    That’s like me saying I have every right to go to Ireland or England and kick someone off their property.

    Only that's not the story. Much of the Arab population left in 1948 to clear the decks for an invasion by Arab armies. The Galilean Arab population stayed put and were living away from the main centers of battle, so were not routed in military operations either. They are still there. As for the rest, you lose a war you wanted to wage, there are consequences.

  170. Sunbeam says:
    @OilcanFloyd
    " Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs’ roots are just as deep."

    The vast majority of the Jews in Israel DO NOT have deep roots in Palestine. Few have roots going going back before the 1940s. Palestinians of all religious backgrounds probably have ancient roots with contributions from various invaders. The first thing you notice in Israel is that Jews are not a people in the same sense that Palestinians are, and their different backgrounds are reflected in their physical appearances.

    FWIW, Boers have been in Africa longer than most Zionist Jews have been in Palestine. Boers also made Africa bloom. Palestine was pretty well developed when the Jews took over.

    “FWIW, Boers have been in Africa longer than most Zionist Jews have been in Palestine. Boers also made Africa bloom. Palestine was pretty well developed when the Jews took over.”

    Eh, from what I’ve read Jerusalem and thereabouts was a sleepy little backwater in the Turkish empire pre the Zionist endeavor.

    Pretty much all the “development” in Israel proper seems to be firmly done by Jews, with nothing owing to the Palestinians.

    Of course the Palestinians would have done something in the time since 1905 or whenever the Zionists started streaming in, but it wouldn’t be anything like or as well developed as Israel is today. Well it would probably be about like Syria or Lebanon. Certainly not like Yemen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "Eh, from what I’ve read Jerusalem and thereabouts was a sleepy little backwater in the Turkish empire pre the Zionist endeavor."

    That depends upon what you have read. By 1940s standards, Palestine wasn't that bad from the pictures that I have seen. It was self-supporting agriculturally, and it wasn't close to being the least advanced part of the British empire. Jerusalem and other cities have lots of nice colonial and older buildings, so it wasn't mud huts and and dirt floors. And the Sabras didn't make the deserts bloom. If you look at old maps, you will see that the Jewish settlements were built over Palestinian settlements-- I've seen the rubble myself. The population expanded, so more land was used for agriculture, but that doesn't really mean that there was nothing there before.

    "Pretty much all the “development” in Israel proper seems to be firmly done by Jews, with nothing owing to the Palestinians."

    I don't see how the Palestinians could have done much, since they are largely being pushed out. You also have to consider how much has been done for the Jews by others, and how much money (far more than $3 billion per year) has been pumped into Israel (a tiny piece of land with the population on a large U.S. metropolitan area) from outsiders. With that help, the Palestinians could have done quite a bit also.

    I don't know how Steve feels about links being posted, but here is one that will give you an idea of the amount of help that Jews in Israel have been given: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/cost.html
  171. @Dave Pinsen
    I'm curious about how some younger Jewish intellectuals, with less attachment to Israel, feel about this. Noah Smith, for example, who is an advocate for mass immigration, said on Twitter recently that Israel wasn't in the top 5 of countries he cared about. I'd send him a link to your Taki column and ask, but he gets mad sometimes when I mention your name.

    In any case, what I wonder is whether they are untroubled by the BDS movement, seeing it just as an anti-Israel thing, or as the first taste of a more assertive hostility toward Jews from recent 3rd world immigrants.

    BDS is a convenient merger of anti-semites with Muslims who subscribe to wiping Israel off the map and the murder of all Jews.

    Racism is being spawned within our universities and importing those who already subscribe to racism and anti-Semitism only feeds these antagonisms.

    Read More
  172. @MavinGuy
    Only 388,000 slaves were brought into North America from Africa. Not millions.

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2012/10/how_many_slaves_came_to_america_fact_vs_fiction.html

    And what portion of those slaves brought to the colonies were slaves before the Revolutionary War and the colonies were a subject of Great Britain? Another item, Muslims, historically, and even in the 22d century have been major profiteers in the slave trade.

    Read More
  173. @Whiskey
    For those not following the America Flag battle at UCI, we've had the edifying spectacle of Asian female students screaming at 93 year old WWII veterans holding up the Flag. Said Asian female students looking either Malaysian or Indonesian. I.E. Muslim from their dress on CBS video on Tuesday evening; for those interested in searching it out. Takeaway: young non-Whites don't care and are hostile to, traditional American nationalism and symbols, and in particular older White veterans who would demand respect from a majority White nation or area.

    Background: the UCI student council voted to ban the American Flag as a symbol or racism and colonialism that would make some students uncomfortable around a good deal of the campus. It made national headlines and was vetoed by the Student President but goes to a vote to the full Student Council.

    The measure was pushed by a student named Guevera, and supported by the South Asian Muslim students with lukewarm support from Asian students. Several were quoted in the LAT to the effect that they don't feel any affection for America or the Flag, viewing both as aspects almost of a rental apartment complex they plan to leave soon.

    Asian does not always mean Chinese, it can mean Muslim as well. Orange County has a sizeable South East Asian population aside from Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Filipinos. You can find fairly rare martial arts here: Penjat from Indonesia, stuff from Malaysia, and so on.

    Twenty or thirty years ago, UCI was nearly all White. Logan's Run was filmed partly on campus, it is still physically a very nice place. But it has just walking around almost no White students. Even Orange County is defacto White minority.

    Anyone thinking this is *JUST* or even primarily about Jews is mistaken, and should lay off those Nigerian emails. Flying the Flag at UCI, various BDS stuff at UC, is all about POWER. Who has it, who wields it, who uses it to make money and advance causes.

    Its already showing up in weird places: The FT has a story on Indian Hedge Fund Firms save $4,000 a month minimum on labor by doing mouse-click trading as opposed to HFT at the exchanges, again all about the money. Jews in finance can't compete against cheap Indian labor in Bombay, any more than diamond cutters (Jewish) in Amsterdam, NYC, or Israel could compete against semi-slave Indian child labor.

    Mass immigrant labor is destabilizing because it lowers wages for native workers, introduces a mass (Jews by definition are not and cannot be MASS*) of people lobbying for ever more of their friends and relatives to take up scarce employment, student slots in universities, and passions of their homelands.

    It is also destabilizing because as the Flag Fight at UCI shows, mass Third World immigrants cannot and don't want to adopt the symbols of America or mutually sacrifice for it -- instead viewing the place as a post office box of convenience, at best, at worst a place to boss around and run.

    *Jews are estimated by Google at 13.9 million world wide. TFR for Ashkenazi Jews is something like 1.1, around Italian self-annihilating levels. There are 120 million Mexicans for example, and VDARE estimates perhaps another 50 million in the US illegally. That's 170 million not counting born in America people of Mexican ancestry; and TFR is 2.2; much higher for Immigrants.

    One thing you don't find with Jews these days: large families or successful political dynasties. As opposed to the fertility of the Kennedy, Biden, and Pelosi clans, with lots of sons and daughters in politics (the Kennedys in particular seem to hang around no matter how many ski into trees or fly planes into the ocean) as opposed to one daughter for Dianne Feinstein, two for Barbara Boxer, and two for Charles Schumer. Fertility matters and Jews just don't have much. Berman and Waxman for example have two kids apiece and neither seems to have done the Kennedy thing -- get their kids into a safe seat like say the Bidens and Bushes have done repeatedly.

    America could swallow all of the World-Wide Jewish population and it would amount to about a quarter of the illegals here from Mexico, give or take. With as noted abysmal fertility and not much habits of drive by shootings or screaming at WWII vets about the Flag.

    “One thing you don’t find with Jews these days: large families or successful political dynasties. “

    Haredim in the UK have an average of seven children. And the Miliband dynasty aren’t doing too badly for only two generations in the UK, while wartime Home Secretary Herbert Morrison’s grandson Peter Mandelson is still a political force. Labour grandee Jack Straw’s son has just been selected for a safe Labour seat.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7411877.stm

    “The UK’s Jewish population is growing for the first time since World War II, research suggests. The rise appears to be due to a growth in the size of ultra-orthodox Jewish families, according to researchers at the University of Manchester. “

    Read More
  174. @Anonymous
    You've missed the point.

    Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area. The Boers have no such ties to the Africans of South Africa, whether Bantu or San. There has been no direct or indirect physical presence of the Boers in the South Africa like anything comparable to the thousands of years of Jewish communities in the Mideast or the indirect presence via closely related groups like the Palestinian Arabs in the area.

    You subscribe to racialist views, so this sort of logic of indigeneity should not be controversial, and frankly, it's intellectually dishonest for you to dispute it, since you'd make similar claims vis a vis whites and some are of Europe. Of course it may just be that you're not actually or simply a mere racialist, but an anti-Semite and supremacist.

    I don’t think you read what I wrote. I’m talking about roots in a place; you’re talking about ties between groups as establishing the extent of roots. And I didn’t compare Jewish Israelis’ roots with Boers’ roots. In fact, I specifically explained that I wasn’t making such a comparison. So why did you respond to points I told you I wasn’t making?

    Are you perhaps confused because you don’t realize that Whites settled South Africa before Blacks did?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I did read what you wrote. I'm talking about indigeneity, while you're engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the issue of indigeneity.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Jews are far more indigenous to Palestine than the Boers are to South Africa

    I'm not confused at all. In fact I'm perfectly aware that you're engaging in sophistry using terms like "settled" to obscure the issue of indigeneity and the fact that various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to South Africa than the Boers are.

    Like I said, you're fundamentally intellectually dishonest. You pretend to hold some neutral racialist position but it's far from neutral or objective, and it's a cover for a more biased view.
  175. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    There isn’t much difference between radical Jews, who believe they are descended from Abraham…
     
    After 4,000 years, everyone on the planet is descended from Abraham. Except, perhaps, the Andaman Islanders.

    …radical Christians who think Ja-esus will arrive on a flaming chariot and slay their enemies with his flaming sword, and radical Muslims who do whatever it is that radical Muslims do.
     
    Big difference: radical Christians leave the swording to Jesus.

    That is an interesting thing about Christianity. I wonder if the Pope declared a crusade to defend the Christian minorities in the Mideast if anyone would show up for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I wonder if the Pope declared a crusade to defend the Christian minorities in the Mideast if anyone would show up for it.
     
    Yes.
  176. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @ben tillman

    Obviously they have greater roots there than the Boers do in South Africa. Is that even a serious question?
     
    You missed the point. The comparison wasn't between Israelis and South African Boers. It was between the Palestinian Arab/Jew root-depth differential and the Boer/Black root-depth differential. Of course, Jews in Israel have deep roots in the area, but the Arabs' roots are just as deep. The Boers' roots in South Africa are deeper than those of the Blacks the Narrative falsely claims they displaced.

    Arab roots in the middle east are of course deep, but Palestinian Arabs’ conception of themselves as Palestinians is quite recent. In the early 20th century, “Palestinian” connoted “Jewish”. For example: the Jerusalem Post was originally called the Palestinian Post; the Israel Philharmonic used to be called the Palestine Orchestra, etc. Arab nationalism, to the extent it existed, was inchoate. Most of the Arabs had spent the last 4 centuries as Ottoman subjects.

    When the State of Israel was established, the conflict was called the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PLO wasn’t even established until 1964.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal

    When the State of Israel was established, the conflict was called the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PLO wasn’t even established until 1964.
     
    This is the old, "We didn't murder Palestinians because they didn't call themselves
    Palestinians and therefore the land was vacant because the people who lived there, who we didn't murder, weren't really there because they didn't call themselves Palestinians."

    OK. Abraham was not real. Therefore there are no Jews. Therefore Israel is not a country.
  177. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @JSM
    blah blah blah..." all in service to the US dominating the Gulf and protecting America’s most vital ally: the House of Saud and its oil that can be pumped out of the ground at a budget-break even point for them at around $60-70, purely economic at around $20-30 (putting aside regime survival based on patronage). But then you’d have to stop believing in magic and understand the world runs on oil and how much it costs."

    Yeah, ok, I get what you're saying.... makes sense. Keep House of Saud happy, keep cheap oil flowing...

    Which begs the question, then,


    So, why shine up to Israel?


    It's got no oil...it irritates the
    Sauds...

    and don't even start with the "Israel is an unsinkable aircraft carrier" business.

    An "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that we've NEVER used, despite all our militaryin' in the Middle East. In fact, during the first Gulf war, ( the best example of a war about oil -- keep Saddam from hoarding Kuwaiti oil) U.S. government specifically told Israel to stay OUT of it.

    So what IS it we get for our donations of 3 billion bucks a year to Israel in military hardware?

    I've heard all the arguments, "It's the only democracy in the Middle East!" So?????

    "It is a stabilizing force in the Middle East" Laughable.

    "It's our friend, and we have to be good to our friends!" Some friendship, where one side does all the giving and the other side does all the taking.

    What I have *NEVER* heard is a GOOD argument for being Israel's ally (notice I did not say "keeping Israel as *our* ally.")

    The founder of Saudi Arabia was definitely irritated by the idea of Jews having a state in Palestine. But the current leaders don’t seem too irritated by Israel. Their main concern is with Iran, which aligns their interests with Israel’s somewhat.

    And Israel may not have oil, but it’s got a lot of natural gas now. http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/29/israels-natural-gas-reserves-reshape-middle-east-dynamics/?__lsa=d774-7368

    Read More
  178. IA says:
    @Twinkie

    Ethnic differences are easier to overcome than religious and language differences. Most people can get along with others who look different if they talk and worship the same.
     
    Race purists are often atheists (or Odinists or some such). They have no religion in their lives so they underestimate the tremendously bonding (and divisive) effects of religion.

    Even the whole "Bowling Alone" study had two caveats - common military service and common religion as social glue that counteract interethnic loss of social cohesion and trust. When you fight and die together and/or undergo the same, communal religious rituals, strong bonds can form that transcend ethno-racial differences.

    That doesn't mean we ought to import millions of aliens into the country, but it does mean that race differences are not everything.

    I know you live near DC. Go to the National Gallery, Hirschhorn or attend a performance of Poulenc at the Kennedy Center. There are no blacks. At low culture, yes, you are correct. As you move up the spiritual/cultural structure there is major racial/cultural separation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    At low culture, yes, you are correct.
     
    Do you consider warriorhood and communion with God "low culture"?
  179. Hal says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Arab roots in the middle east are of course deep, but Palestinian Arabs' conception of themselves as Palestinians is quite recent. In the early 20th century, "Palestinian" connoted "Jewish". For example: the Jerusalem Post was originally called the Palestinian Post; the Israel Philharmonic used to be called the Palestine Orchestra, etc. Arab nationalism, to the extent it existed, was inchoate. Most of the Arabs had spent the last 4 centuries as Ottoman subjects.

    When the State of Israel was established, the conflict was called the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PLO wasn't even established until 1964.

    When the State of Israel was established, the conflict was called the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PLO wasn’t even established until 1964.

    This is the old, “We didn’t murder Palestinians because they didn’t call themselves
    Palestinians and therefore the land was vacant because the people who lived there, who we didn’t murder, weren’t really there because they didn’t call themselves Palestinians.”

    OK. Abraham was not real. Therefore there are no Jews. Therefore Israel is not a country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    That's your straw man, so I'll let you play with it.

    The land wasn't vacant, and there was conflict, starting with the Arab riots of 1929. But those Arabs weren't motivated by Palestinian nationalism, because it didn't exist as such at the time. They were incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who later spent WWII recruiting Bosnian Muslim SS units for Hitler.
    , @Art Deco
    “We didn’t murder Palestinians

    The 1948-49 war was one with which the local Arab population was on board, and, no, it did not involve abnormal quanta of bloodletting for a war conducted in a discrete patch of territory.
  180. Hal says:
    @Art Deco
    The Boers settled SA and later African tribes moved in. Boers had more right to SA than the stone aged tribes.

    Palestinians were indigenous. Palestinians had technology, and stable, non-violent civilization. Jews from Europe invaded and displaced Palestinians.

    No, and no. The antique population in South Africa would be Bushmen and Hottentot. The latter are largely extinct, though South Africa's Coloured population is derived from them. The Bushmen are found in Namibia and Botswana but not South Africa in appreciable numbes. Bantu populations were fairly recent arrivals in South Africa at the time of the Boer colonization, but neither much predated the other.

    As for 'Palestinians', the use of the term would be anachronistic for describing any population there present prior to 1921, and, truth be told, prior to 1968 (as no such identity as 'Palestinian'was prevalent prior to that date). Mandatory Palestine was an assemblage of three Ottoman sanjaks which had themselves not had absolutely fixed boundaries over the previous 50 years. Large swaths of it had been quite sparsely populated and two different spectra of Arabic vernaculars were spoken therein. There was not much distinction between the extant population of those sanjaks and those to the north and northeast. The same spectra of dialects is found, though the balance between confessions varied then (as it does today). Also, there was during the mandatory period considerable immigration from surrounding territories. There were also counter currents. Neither Yasir Arafat nor Edward Said grew up in mandatory Palestine, and people who heard him speak reported that Edward Said spoke flawless Egyptian Arabic, as one might expect of a man who had grown up there.

    And there was no Jewish 'invasion' of 'Palestine'. They immigrated legally and bought land off the local owners.

    And there was no Jewish ‘invasion’ of ‘Palestine’. They immigrated legally and bought land off the local owners.

    No and no.

    They immigrated mostly illegally and they bought land, for a while, from absentee landowner, not local landowners, and they committed atrocities against Palestinians to drive them away.

    Everything you call ‘legal’ is subject to scrutiny, and does not pass the smell test. All of the squatters are illegal and will be removed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Where does it end, Hal? Are we all squatters here in the US because a relative handful of Indians were here when the first Europeans arrived?
  181. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @ben tillman
    I don't think you read what I wrote. I'm talking about roots in a place; you're talking about ties between groups as establishing the extent of roots. And I didn't compare Jewish Israelis' roots with Boers' roots. In fact, I specifically explained that I wasn't making such a comparison. So why did you respond to points I told you I wasn't making?

    Are you perhaps confused because you don't realize that Whites settled South Africa before Blacks did?

    I did read what you wrote. I’m talking about indigeneity, while you’re engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the issue of indigeneity.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Jews are far more indigenous to Palestine than the Boers are to South Africa

    I’m not confused at all. In fact I’m perfectly aware that you’re engaging in sophistry using terms like “settled” to obscure the issue of indigeneity and the fact that various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to South Africa than the Boers are.

    Like I said, you’re fundamentally intellectually dishonest. You pretend to hold some neutral racialist position but it’s far from neutral or objective, and it’s a cover for a more biased view.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I did read what you wrote. I’m talking about indigeneity, while you’re engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the issue of indigeneity.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Jews are far more indigenous to Palestine than the Boers are to South Africa
     
    And another simple fact is that I don't care, as I've told you three times now. I'm not comparing Israeli Jews and South African Boers. And I'm not taking sides regarding "indigeneity" in Palestine.

    I am, however, saying that your claim that "various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to South Africa than the Boers are" is wrong. The San would be indigenous, but the Bantus would not. Despite the small numbers of San, the land was essentially vacant when the Boers arrived, and they got there before the Bantus.
  182. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Hal

    When the State of Israel was established, the conflict was called the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PLO wasn’t even established until 1964.
     
    This is the old, "We didn't murder Palestinians because they didn't call themselves
    Palestinians and therefore the land was vacant because the people who lived there, who we didn't murder, weren't really there because they didn't call themselves Palestinians."

    OK. Abraham was not real. Therefore there are no Jews. Therefore Israel is not a country.

    That’s your straw man, so I’ll let you play with it.

    The land wasn’t vacant, and there was conflict, starting with the Arab riots of 1929. But those Arabs weren’t motivated by Palestinian nationalism, because it didn’t exist as such at the time. They were incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who later spent WWII recruiting Bosnian Muslim SS units for Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal

    The land wasn’t vacant,
     
    Does this mean the whole 'Land without people for people without a land" was just one great big lie?

    There is always a great big lie until it is uncovered, so deal with this. Abraham was not a real person. Moses was not a real person. There is no justification for the (failing state) of Israel.
  183. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Hal

    And there was no Jewish ‘invasion’ of ‘Palestine’. They immigrated legally and bought land off the local owners.
     
    No and no.

    They immigrated mostly illegally and they bought land, for a while, from absentee landowner, not local landowners, and they committed atrocities against Palestinians to drive them away.

    Everything you call 'legal' is subject to scrutiny, and does not pass the smell test. All of the squatters are illegal and will be removed.

    Where does it end, Hal? Are we all squatters here in the US because a relative handful of Indians were here when the first Europeans arrived?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal

    Where does it end, Hal? Are we all squatters here in the US because a relative handful of Indians were here when the first Europeans arrived?
     
    Trotting out the cowboys and indians again. This is tiresome.

    Native American were mostly stone-age hunter gatherers without the concept of deeds, title, etc. Just as I think the Boers had the greater claim on South Africa, so do I supporrt the idea of European settlers moving into forests, clearing land, etc.

    Palestinians had roads, towns, government. European Jews decided they were non people and proceeded to deprive them of their homes, en masse, for being Palestinians. That was (and continues to this day) to be genocide.

    It ends when Israel grows up, faces the UN Security Council without the protection of the US veto, and answers for her war crimes being committed daily before the ICC.

    It ends when Bibi is too afraid to take a flight anywhere for fear of arrest and incarceration.

    It ends when I do not have to hear daily lies about how wonderful Israel is.

    Frankly, it ends when Israel collapses under its own hubris.
  184. Hal says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    That's your straw man, so I'll let you play with it.

    The land wasn't vacant, and there was conflict, starting with the Arab riots of 1929. But those Arabs weren't motivated by Palestinian nationalism, because it didn't exist as such at the time. They were incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who later spent WWII recruiting Bosnian Muslim SS units for Hitler.

    The land wasn’t vacant,

    Does this mean the whole ‘Land without people for people without a land” was just one great big lie?

    There is always a great big lie until it is uncovered, so deal with this. Abraham was not a real person. Moses was not a real person. There is no justification for the (failing state) of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    What's the "justification" for the U.S., Hal?

    And by what measure is Israel "failing"? Is it getting poorer? Is its population declining?

    And what does the historicity of Abraham or Moses have to do with Jewish roots in Israel? It's not as if there isn't copious historical and archaeological evidence of Jewish settlement there going back ~3,000 years.
  185. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sunbeam
    "Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area."

    That's like me saying I have every right to go to Ireland or England and kick someone off their property.

    Because after all, 2000 years ago my ancestors lived there too.

    Incidentally the latest genetic research says Ashkenazim are also substantially Roman. The Palestinian have more of a case for being Jews by blood than Ashkenazim do I'd wager.

    Who said anything about rights? This isn’t a discussion about rights.

    You would be more indigenous to the are than newer arrivals from Pakistan or something. And ben tillman would agree with this.

    Read More
  186. With more historical perspective, it is going to be harder and harder for Jews to play the Shoah card. After all, in the big picture the Jews won. What was the Holocaust really? It was the final act in a battle between Jewish and German elites for dominance of Central Europe that mostly took place in the Habsburg Empire up until 1918. Hitler grew up in the Habsburg Empire, and his anti-Semitism was of a peculiarly German vs. Jew variety that came straight from pre-war Vienna. Hitler declared war on the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, and he lost, big time. Yes, the Jews suffered horrible casualties, and were driven out of their ancestral homes Central Europe, but in exchange they got Israel, and most of their elites survived and made new lives for themselves their, or the US, a far better homeland than Jews have ever had. Jews today live much better lives and exert far more power globally than they did in 1932. On the other hand, Germany was amputated back to its early medieval borders, Germans were driven out of Bohemia, one of the most creative centers of German culture for centuries, the German language lost its status as an international language of science and the lingua franca of Central Europe, and now Germany is well on its way to becoming a state dominated by a hybrid Turkish Slavic underclass and where English will probably be the defacto language of the elites within a few generations. In two hundred years children learning about the Holocaust will be quite confused, because Jews will still be around but Germans will be a footnote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    After all, in the big picture the Jews won.

    Two thirds of the Jewish population of Europe was murdered in one seven year period.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    You could easily argue that Hitler won. He largely eradicated Jews from Europe. Compare the Jewish population in, say, Poland, before World War 2 and today. Sure, Germany has a Turkish minority, but it had one under Hitler too. Hitler didn't have an issue with Muslims.

    And West Germany was arguably the biggest winner of the post-WW2 peace. It was booming economically by the early '50s while the UK was mired in poverty. And, thanks to a system designed by the U.S. to make west Germans untempted by communism, the rewards of Germany's long economic boom were broadly shared by the volk.
    , @AP
    Man, congratulations on another insightful, brilliant comment.

    A curious aspect of this Hitler vs. Jews conflict was just how "Jewish"* Hitler's ideology was. He viewed Germans-Aryans as a sort of master race, he viewed other peoples as "goyim" who had to serve his Germans, he wanted a German national religion as Jews had, he wanted to clear Slavs from lands destined for his own Chosen People, etc. To quote mid-20th century Polish political theorist Feliks Koneczny, "Hitler murders Jews, but thinks and feels in Yiddish."

    *to a certain extent this reflected myths rather than reality about Jews
  187. Hal says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Where does it end, Hal? Are we all squatters here in the US because a relative handful of Indians were here when the first Europeans arrived?

    Where does it end, Hal? Are we all squatters here in the US because a relative handful of Indians were here when the first Europeans arrived?

    Trotting out the cowboys and indians again. This is tiresome.

    Native American were mostly stone-age hunter gatherers without the concept of deeds, title, etc. Just as I think the Boers had the greater claim on South Africa, so do I supporrt the idea of European settlers moving into forests, clearing land, etc.

    Palestinians had roads, towns, government. European Jews decided they were non people and proceeded to deprive them of their homes, en masse, for being Palestinians. That was (and continues to this day) to be genocide.

    It ends when Israel grows up, faces the UN Security Council without the protection of the US veto, and answers for her war crimes being committed daily before the ICC.

    It ends when Bibi is too afraid to take a flight anywhere for fear of arrest and incarceration.

    It ends when I do not have to hear daily lies about how wonderful Israel is.

    Frankly, it ends when Israel collapses under its own hubris.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Palestinians had roads, towns, government.

    Actually, it was a set of Ottoman provinces. The notion of an "Arab" nation was at that time something of a novelty and a 'Palestinian' one non-existant. The population at the turn of the 20th century of the three sanjaks in question was modest, around 600,000.
  188. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Hal

    The land wasn’t vacant,
     
    Does this mean the whole 'Land without people for people without a land" was just one great big lie?

    There is always a great big lie until it is uncovered, so deal with this. Abraham was not a real person. Moses was not a real person. There is no justification for the (failing state) of Israel.

    What’s the “justification” for the U.S., Hal?

    And by what measure is Israel “failing”? Is it getting poorer? Is its population declining?

    And what does the historicity of Abraham or Moses have to do with Jewish roots in Israel? It’s not as if there isn’t copious historical and archaeological evidence of Jewish settlement there going back ~3,000 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hal

    What’s the “justification” for the U.S., Hal?
     
    Really? You don't know this? Leaders in the colonies decided they had had enough of the King's royal prerogative (much like Palestinians are fed up with Israel's special status) and so they ...... acquired independence. I guess if you are an Israel firster, you might not have learned this.

    And for the other comment, no, Gaza is not a reservation, it is a concentration camp.

  189. ABN says:
    @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    This is a great essay, and one that reveals a terrible Euro-centric trait of the author -Noblesse Oblige. I remember a few years ago reading an article Steve wrote about African-Americans and Public Policy in Taki ( I was a Sailer skeptic at the time) and I was compelled to email him for the first time because I was almost on the verge of tears -I had never read an article that offered such hope (if reality were embraced!). Here was a guy who looked at reality and said, "how can we deal with these issues and not have mass slaughter/pogroms?"
    What he is doing here, as in that previous article about African Americans, is offering a reasonable way for us as Americans to deal with tribalism and reality within an Euro-American Enlightenment construct of representational democracy. Anyone can make bread and butter writing about race and difference these days on both the left and the right, though clearly the left is more lucrative... But I think Steve is really the only one who writes about these impossible conundrums of "the sins of our fathers" that offer any hope to avoid really bad things happening. This exhibits at least two great virtues -Hope and Charity. And I think that everything Steve writes has true charity, even his brilliant snark.

    Yes, Steve’s emphasis on finding a modus vivendi for all concerned is the mark of a gentleman.

    There is a certain segment of Jewish opinion that takes for granted the existence of latent hostility toward Jews among the gentile ethno-cultural majority. This viewpoint encourages a reciprocal hostility toward gentile cultural and ethnic dominance in the host society. I don’t necessarily blame Jews for this, since even patriotic assimilation couldn’t save German Jews from Nazi persecution, but I do think it’s a deeply anachronistic attitude in America in the year 2015.

    More to the point, it’s counter-productive and irresponsible for Jews to believe that their safety requires the dispossession and deracination of the historic nation. Such an attitude may well create a positive feedback loop of antisemitism and anti-gentilism. Presumably it will end disastrously for either the historic nation or the Jews (or, more likely, both, if the racial-socialist Huddled Masses turn out to be not such big fans of either).

    In a sane world, Steve’s efforts to encourage a nationalistic sense of noblesse oblige from American’s most wildly successful white European ethnic group would be regarded as a noble act of statesmanship.

    In the world we actually inhabit, SPLC and ADL types place Jewish interests on a collision course with generic gentile American interests, slam the accelerator pedal down, and then attribute “hate” to people like Steve who notice that this game of chicken can have only one winner, at most.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    In a sane world, Steve’s efforts to encourage a nationalistic sense of noblesse oblige from American’s most wildly successful white European ethnic group would be regarded as a noble act of statesmanship.

     

    I don't want George Soros to feel obligé to help me. I want him to leave.
    , @Jack D
    A couple of points here:

    1. If you read George Washington's letter to the Jewish community of Newport, RI, you will see that he understood the issue better than most of you. Noblesse oblige implies someone higher having pity on someone lower. Washington understood that in the US, Christians would not "tolerate" Jews, rather Christian and Jews would stand on an equal footing. It was not the case that it was the Christians' country and Jews were just living in it. I understand how (even though they don't practice it anymore) someone could say "France is for the French" but America is for the Americans is nonsense because we are all (except for Indians) recent arrivals and white Christians are no more American than anyone else. Or at least that's what it says in the 14th Amendment.

    2. Sailer may not be an anti-Semite, but he sure brings them out of the woodwork. I thought that anti-Semitism in the US was pretty much dead (except for anti-Israel types on the left) but it has just been hidden because it is so disreputable (and ask the kids in Oklahoma what happens nowadays when you publicly proclaim your racism). But here on the internet under the veil of anonymity people tell us how they REALLY feel. For me, it has been eye opening and confirmed to me that the current approach of making pariahs out of anti-Semites is the right one. I really don't want what some of you guys are saying to be publicly respectable again. Whether or not this would lead to another Holocaust in America (probably not), it's just nasty. Jesus or Washington would not say half the stuff that some of you say, not even in private.

  190. iSteveFan says:

    Re the Palestinians. In some of the comments people are stating that the Palestinians only started referring to themselves as such about 50 years or so ago. What difference does it make what they called themselves? If those peoples’ ancestors lived on the land that is present day Israel, then they would have some type of claim to it. Of course like other displaced populations throughout history, claims like that mean nothing if you don’t have the power to enforce them.

    We know this about the American Indians, who I suppose did not call themselves American Indians prior to their introduction to the white man. They don’t have the power to get their land back, but white Americans acknowledge their conquest and attempt to pay them back through many measures up to and including reservations and lucrative casinos. But the return of all their land is never on the table.

    I think Canada and Australia have similar policies where they acknowledge their conquests. But I don’t know how many other people do the same. For example, do the Turks pay any sort of lip service to the Greeks? I guess not since they solved that problem through ethnic cleansing. But I wonder if the Chinese do the same in Tibet?

    Israel would not have to give up its land to make such an acknowledgement. And they have already given the Palestinians a reservation called Gaza. If the Palestinians or Arabs or whatever they are called did live there for generations prior to the creation of Israel, what is so bad about acknowledging it? Are they afraid of establishing some sort of collective guilt amongst their population? Do they think that might be bad for their future prospects as a people? Do they know something we don’t?

    Maybe collective guilt is something that can only be foisted upon Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Turk/Greek, Chinese/Tibet situations aren't that analogous since in those cases, the two parties are closely related groups that have been bordering and interacting with each other for thousands of years via different political regimes.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    It makes a difference because there are fewer cultural differences between an Arab from Hebron and an Arab from Amman than there are between an Italian from Palermo and one from Florence, or between a Jew from Warsaw and one from Baghdad.

    The two Italians have one country, and the two Jews have one. The Arabs already have several countries into which the Palestinians could have easily been absorbed (much as hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel), but they were kept in refugee camps by their Arab brothers, with the complicity of UN bureaucrats, so they could be used as a political weapon against Israel.
    , @Jack D
    So by your logic, the descendants of the Tejano Mexicans who left Texas in the 1840s have a claim to take Texas back and establish their own country of Tejas, even though before that they were just undifferentiated Mexicans living in a province of Mexico that was conquered by someone else and even though no country of Tejas ever existed before. As you say, "if those peoples’ ancestors lived on the land that is present day [Texas], then they would have some type of claim to it."

    And if these Tejano liberationists started firing rockets across the Rio Grande, what would the US do?
  191. Hal says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    What's the "justification" for the U.S., Hal?

    And by what measure is Israel "failing"? Is it getting poorer? Is its population declining?

    And what does the historicity of Abraham or Moses have to do with Jewish roots in Israel? It's not as if there isn't copious historical and archaeological evidence of Jewish settlement there going back ~3,000 years.

    What’s the “justification” for the U.S., Hal?

    Really? You don’t know this? Leaders in the colonies decided they had had enough of the King’s royal prerogative (much like Palestinians are fed up with Israel’s special status) and so they …… acquired independence. I guess if you are an Israel firster, you might not have learned this.

    And for the other comment, no, Gaza is not a reservation, it is a concentration camp.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I'm still missing the distinction you make for why it was ok to take land from the Indians but not the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians had some roads (built by the Ottomans)? Because they had camels?

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don't litigate how the sovereign got the land.
  192. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @iSteveFan
    Re the Palestinians. In some of the comments people are stating that the Palestinians only started referring to themselves as such about 50 years or so ago. What difference does it make what they called themselves? If those peoples' ancestors lived on the land that is present day Israel, then they would have some type of claim to it. Of course like other displaced populations throughout history, claims like that mean nothing if you don't have the power to enforce them.

    We know this about the American Indians, who I suppose did not call themselves American Indians prior to their introduction to the white man. They don't have the power to get their land back, but white Americans acknowledge their conquest and attempt to pay them back through many measures up to and including reservations and lucrative casinos. But the return of all their land is never on the table.

    I think Canada and Australia have similar policies where they acknowledge their conquests. But I don't know how many other people do the same. For example, do the Turks pay any sort of lip service to the Greeks? I guess not since they solved that problem through ethnic cleansing. But I wonder if the Chinese do the same in Tibet?

    Israel would not have to give up its land to make such an acknowledgement. And they have already given the Palestinians a reservation called Gaza. If the Palestinians or Arabs or whatever they are called did live there for generations prior to the creation of Israel, what is so bad about acknowledging it? Are they afraid of establishing some sort of collective guilt amongst their population? Do they think that might be bad for their future prospects as a people? Do they know something we don't?

    Maybe collective guilt is something that can only be foisted upon Europeans.

    The Turk/Greek, Chinese/Tibet situations aren’t that analogous since in those cases, the two parties are closely related groups that have been bordering and interacting with each other for thousands of years via different political regimes.

    Read More
  193. Twinkie says:
    @iffen
    Not in times past, but we are no longer making soup.

    we are no longer making soup.

    True enough. But we can again with dramatically reduced amount of immigration.

    Read More
  194. Twinkie says:
    @IA
    I know you live near DC. Go to the National Gallery, Hirschhorn or attend a performance of Poulenc at the Kennedy Center. There are no blacks. At low culture, yes, you are correct. As you move up the spiritual/cultural structure there is major racial/cultural separation.

    At low culture, yes, you are correct.

    Do you consider warriorhood and communion with God “low culture”?

    Read More
  195. ABN says:

    I attended Stanford within the last decade. BDS was an issue on campus, and I doubt much has changed in the last few years.

    Campus politics was dominated by the Students of Color Coalition (SOCC). They, together with the Stanford Democrats, had a kingmaking role in endorsing candidates for student government. (To this day, I have little idea of what student government actually does, but campus politics are interesting because they map onto the ideological and tribal divisions of society at large.)

    One of my close friends was (and is) a liberal Jewish Democrat from New York. He found the identity politics of SOCC stultifying and infantile, and he actually wrote a paper on the subject.

    I can only hope that portends a rift between Jews and the Victimhood Coalition among young people. The Jews are in a bind with respect to the more vibrantly Diverse population. Jews can’t be normal white people, because that’s anathema to Diversity. On the other hand, they can’t be exceptional white people, because that’s ethnocentric and racist and all that. And, of course, they can’t be oppressed nonwhite people because not even the Megaphone can obscure the fact that they’re the most privileged white ethnic group in modern America.

    The sensible response would be for Jews to defect from the Victimhood Coalition, which would be a decisive coup in our favor. The Victimhood Coalition will, like Aesop’s scorpion, have stung its historic Jewish benefactors, to its own detriment.

    To this end, the fact that Israeli nationalism is ever more closely associated with the American right may be a good thing. It might force the neocon establishment to defend nationalism qua nationalism, in a way that applies not just to Israelis but to ourselves.

    The more that the Victimhood Coalition sees Jewish identity as a subspecies of white pride, and the more it sees Israel as the homeland of Haven Monahan’s Jewish cousin Haim Menachem, the better.

    (P.S. I would love to see Rahm Emmanuel lose to the Victimhood Coalition. Rahm, of course, will never be on our side, and I wouldn’t want him anyway. But the spectacle of a Jewish arch-Democrat losing to his party’s uppity lumpen-classes might help further alienate some moderate Jews from the left.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Victimhood is not, in fact, Progressive.

    It is a tremendously destructive, but passing, fad.
  196. snorlax says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Anonymous: Of course Jews are Super White. What's whiter than J. Press and Ralph Lauren?

    To the American Jews and Israelis I know, the 0bamacult's hostility to Israel seems as clear as their hostility to America's founding population. But the left has always had this issue to some degree.

    I'm interested in the Jewish supporters of BDS. In the SJW world ( let's face it, the entire world), you don't know anything until you've had some yenta explain it to you. What will the old freedom rider/SDS types do when the BDS types accidentally slip a 'J' word instead of the definitely not antisemitic 'Z' word?

    Norman Finkelstein has a pretty funny encounter with a BDS guy on youtube somewhere. He talks about being a young Maoist and how they were always convinced that the revolution was right around the corner.

    What’s whiter than J. Press and Ralph Lauren?

    Brooks Brothers?

    Read More
  197. @Buzz Mohawk
    Excellent description!

    White male gentiles are the scapegoat, the center around which everyone else can organize and focus their energies. Jewish people served a similar purpose in Nazi Germany.

    So far our Kristallnachts have been confined to places like Ferguson, The Most Important Place in the World (TM). I sometimes ask why they don't just start rounding us up and putting us in camps. (The grid would shut down if they did. Maybe they sense that.)

    It is easier to organize and motivate a mob in oppostion to an enemy than it is to work together toward some positive, productive goal.

    I don't think the Coalition of All Others realizes that they are tearing down the very thing they want: the white gentile standard of living. And non-gentile leaders don't seem to be looking ahead to what their future holds: riding heard atop a third world mob, right here in the ol' USA.

    I don’t think the Coalition of All Others realizes that they are tearing down the very thing they want: the white gentile standard of living.

    They can’t help themselves: it is their nature. See the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

    Read More
  198. @ABN
    I attended Stanford within the last decade. BDS was an issue on campus, and I doubt much has changed in the last few years.

    Campus politics was dominated by the Students of Color Coalition (SOCC). They, together with the Stanford Democrats, had a kingmaking role in endorsing candidates for student government. (To this day, I have little idea of what student government actually does, but campus politics are interesting because they map onto the ideological and tribal divisions of society at large.)

    One of my close friends was (and is) a liberal Jewish Democrat from New York. He found the identity politics of SOCC stultifying and infantile, and he actually wrote a paper on the subject.

    I can only hope that portends a rift between Jews and the Victimhood Coalition among young people. The Jews are in a bind with respect to the more vibrantly Diverse population. Jews can't be normal white people, because that's anathema to Diversity. On the other hand, they can't be exceptional white people, because that's ethnocentric and racist and all that. And, of course, they can't be oppressed nonwhite people because not even the Megaphone can obscure the fact that they're the most privileged white ethnic group in modern America.

    The sensible response would be for Jews to defect from the Victimhood Coalition, which would be a decisive coup in our favor. The Victimhood Coalition will, like Aesop's scorpion, have stung its historic Jewish benefactors, to its own detriment.

    To this end, the fact that Israeli nationalism is ever more closely associated with the American right may be a good thing. It might force the neocon establishment to defend nationalism qua nationalism, in a way that applies not just to Israelis but to ourselves.

    The more that the Victimhood Coalition sees Jewish identity as a subspecies of white pride, and the more it sees Israel as the homeland of Haven Monahan's Jewish cousin Haim Menachem, the better.

    (P.S. I would love to see Rahm Emmanuel lose to the Victimhood Coalition. Rahm, of course, will never be on our side, and I wouldn't want him anyway. But the spectacle of a Jewish arch-Democrat losing to his party's uppity lumpen-classes might help further alienate some moderate Jews from the left.)

    Victimhood is not, in fact, Progressive.

    It is a tremendously destructive, but passing, fad.

    Read More
  199. @Anonymous
    I did read what you wrote. I'm talking about indigeneity, while you're engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the issue of indigeneity.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Jews are far more indigenous to Palestine than the Boers are to South Africa

    I'm not confused at all. In fact I'm perfectly aware that you're engaging in sophistry using terms like "settled" to obscure the issue of indigeneity and the fact that various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to South Africa than the Boers are.

    Like I said, you're fundamentally intellectually dishonest. You pretend to hold some neutral racialist position but it's far from neutral or objective, and it's a cover for a more biased view.

    I did read what you wrote. I’m talking about indigeneity, while you’re engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the issue of indigeneity.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Jews are far more indigenous to Palestine than the Boers are to South Africa

    And another simple fact is that I don’t care, as I’ve told you three times now. I’m not comparing Israeli Jews and South African Boers. And I’m not taking sides regarding “indigeneity” in Palestine.

    I am, however, saying that your claim that “various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to South Africa than the Boers are” is wrong. The San would be indigenous, but the Bantus would not. Despite the small numbers of San, the land was essentially vacant when the Boers arrived, and they got there before the Bantus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    and they got there before the Bantus.

    They did not.
    , @Anonymous
    Apparently you do care, because you jumped into a discussion regarding the relative indigeneity of Jews and Boers to Palestine and South Africa, respectively.

    Various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to the area than the Boers are. And they're even more indigenous if we consider the racialist view, which you purport to subscribe to but in reality use as a cover for a more interested, biased view.

    How "vacant" an area is has nothing to do with indigeneity. Nicolas Cage had a private island in the Bahamas. That doesn't mean Nicolas Cage is indigenous to that island.
  200. @Dave Pinsen
    That is an interesting thing about Christianity. I wonder if the Pope declared a crusade to defend the Christian minorities in the Mideast if anyone would show up for it.

    I wonder if the Pope declared a crusade to defend the Christian minorities in the Mideast if anyone would show up for it.

    Yes.

    Read More
  201. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Sunbeam
    "Since the Palestinian Arabs have genetic ties to the Jews, the Arab roots in the area illustrate the Jewish indigeneity to the area."

    That's like me saying I have every right to go to Ireland or England and kick someone off their property.

    Because after all, 2000 years ago my ancestors lived there too.

    Incidentally the latest genetic research says Ashkenazim are also substantially Roman. The Palestinian have more of a case for being Jews by blood than Ashkenazim do I'd wager.

    That’s like me saying I have every right to go to Ireland or England and kick someone off their property.

    Only that’s not the story. Much of the Arab population left in 1948 to clear the decks for an invasion by Arab armies. The Galilean Arab population stayed put and were living away from the main centers of battle, so were not routed in military operations either. They are still there. As for the rest, you lose a war you wanted to wage, there are consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Only that’s not the story. Much of the Arab population left in 1948 to clear the decks for an invasion by Arab armies. The Galilean Arab population stayed put and were living away from the main centers of battle, so were not routed in military operations either. They are still there. As for the rest, you lose a war you wanted to wage, there are consequences."

    Art Deco, I think they should make a superhero movie and cast you as the villain.

    You can be called "The Convoluted Man." Your special power is wiping your ass by reaching over your left shoulder with your right hand.

    Not buying any of it.
  202. Art Deco says: • Website
    @ben tillman

    I did read what you wrote. I’m talking about indigeneity, while you’re engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the issue of indigeneity.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Jews are far more indigenous to Palestine than the Boers are to South Africa
     
    And another simple fact is that I don't care, as I've told you three times now. I'm not comparing Israeli Jews and South African Boers. And I'm not taking sides regarding "indigeneity" in Palestine.

    I am, however, saying that your claim that "various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to South Africa than the Boers are" is wrong. The San would be indigenous, but the Bantus would not. Despite the small numbers of San, the land was essentially vacant when the Boers arrived, and they got there before the Bantus.

    and they got there before the Bantus.

    They did not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    "and they got there before the Bantus.
    They did not."

    LMAO!

    Ben's a little nuts, Bro. He thinks in 50,000 years, nobody thought of moving a few hundred miles south.
  203. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Hal

    Where does it end, Hal? Are we all squatters here in the US because a relative handful of Indians were here when the first Europeans arrived?
     
    Trotting out the cowboys and indians again. This is tiresome.

    Native American were mostly stone-age hunter gatherers without the concept of deeds, title, etc. Just as I think the Boers had the greater claim on South Africa, so do I supporrt the idea of European settlers moving into forests, clearing land, etc.

    Palestinians had roads, towns, government. European Jews decided they were non people and proceeded to deprive them of their homes, en masse, for being Palestinians. That was (and continues to this day) to be genocide.

    It ends when Israel grows up, faces the UN Security Council without the protection of the US veto, and answers for her war crimes being committed daily before the ICC.

    It ends when Bibi is too afraid to take a flight anywhere for fear of arrest and incarceration.

    It ends when I do not have to hear daily lies about how wonderful Israel is.

    Frankly, it ends when Israel collapses under its own hubris.

    Palestinians had roads, towns, government.

    Actually, it was a set of Ottoman provinces. The notion of an “Arab” nation was at that time something of a novelty and a ‘Palestinian’ one non-existant. The population at the turn of the 20th century of the three sanjaks in question was modest, around 600,000.

    Read More
  204. Art Deco says: • Website

    It ends when Israel grows up, faces the UN Security Council without the protection of the US veto, and answers for her war crimes being committed daily before the ICC.

    The only war crimes (much less daily war crimes) are in your imagination.

    Read More
  205. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Peter Akuleyev
    With more historical perspective, it is going to be harder and harder for Jews to play the Shoah card. After all, in the big picture the Jews won. What was the Holocaust really? It was the final act in a battle between Jewish and German elites for dominance of Central Europe that mostly took place in the Habsburg Empire up until 1918. Hitler grew up in the Habsburg Empire, and his anti-Semitism was of a peculiarly German vs. Jew variety that came straight from pre-war Vienna. Hitler declared war on the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, and he lost, big time. Yes, the Jews suffered horrible casualties, and were driven out of their ancestral homes Central Europe, but in exchange they got Israel, and most of their elites survived and made new lives for themselves their, or the US, a far better homeland than Jews have ever had. Jews today live much better lives and exert far more power globally than they did in 1932. On the other hand, Germany was amputated back to its early medieval borders, Germans were driven out of Bohemia, one of the most creative centers of German culture for centuries, the German language lost its status as an international language of science and the lingua franca of Central Europe, and now Germany is well on its way to becoming a state dominated by a hybrid Turkish Slavic underclass and where English will probably be the defacto language of the elites within a few generations. In two hundred years children learning about the Holocaust will be quite confused, because Jews will still be around but Germans will be a footnote.

    After all, in the big picture the Jews won.

    Two thirds of the Jewish population of Europe was murdered in one seven year period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    So what is the number that were murdered in that one seven year period?
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Two thirds of the Jewish population of Europe was murdered in one seven year period.

    Yes, which is why in the short term the Holocaust appeared to be a disaster for the Jewish people, naturally. 70 years on, the long term outcome looks quite different. The USSR also suffered far higher casualties than Germany did during World War II, but the USSR never pretended it lost the war.
  206. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Hal

    When the State of Israel was established, the conflict was called the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PLO wasn’t even established until 1964.
     
    This is the old, "We didn't murder Palestinians because they didn't call themselves
    Palestinians and therefore the land was vacant because the people who lived there, who we didn't murder, weren't really there because they didn't call themselves Palestinians."

    OK. Abraham was not real. Therefore there are no Jews. Therefore Israel is not a country.

    “We didn’t murder Palestinians

    The 1948-49 war was one with which the local Arab population was on board, and, no, it did not involve abnormal quanta of bloodletting for a war conducted in a discrete patch of territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "The 1948-49 war was one with which the local Arab population was on board, and, no, it did not involve abnormal quanta of bloodletting for a war conducted in a discrete patch of territory."

    What were the local Arabs supposed to do? Seriously, they were being pushed out and terrorized bu groups such as Irgun. They knew what was coming, since the outside Jewish population was swelling. They had homes and communities, and did not consider themselves to be Jordanians or Lebanese. At the very least, they had (still do) a right to self-defense. They weren't the outside aggressors.
  207. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @ben tillman

    I did read what you wrote. I’m talking about indigeneity, while you’re engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the issue of indigeneity.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Jews are far more indigenous to Palestine than the Boers are to South Africa
     
    And another simple fact is that I don't care, as I've told you three times now. I'm not comparing Israeli Jews and South African Boers. And I'm not taking sides regarding "indigeneity" in Palestine.

    I am, however, saying that your claim that "various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to South Africa than the Boers are" is wrong. The San would be indigenous, but the Bantus would not. Despite the small numbers of San, the land was essentially vacant when the Boers arrived, and they got there before the Bantus.

    Apparently you do care, because you jumped into a discussion regarding the relative indigeneity of Jews and Boers to Palestine and South Africa, respectively.

    Various Bantu and San peoples are more indigenous to the area than the Boers are. And they’re even more indigenous if we consider the racialist view, which you purport to subscribe to but in reality use as a cover for a more interested, biased view.

    How “vacant” an area is has nothing to do with indigeneity. Nicolas Cage had a private island in the Bahamas. That doesn’t mean Nicolas Cage is indigenous to that island.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    How “vacant” an area is has nothing to do with indigeneity.
     
    Of course, it does. No one is "indigenous" to a vacant area.
  208. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Sunbeam
    "*Jews are estimated by Google at 13.9 million world wide. TFR for Ashkenazi Jews is something like 1.1, around Italian self-annihilating levels. "

    Yeah, Jews get talked about a lot here for obvious reasons.

    But while I haven't googled on my own to see if your numbers are accurate (the TFR rate sounds a little dicey, particularly if you count Haridi and the other really traditional ones as Ashkenazim).

    The fact remains that low fertility, and assimilation into the broader culture indicate we are going to see a very different world in 40 years.

    Things can always change, but graphs seem to paint a very dismal picture.

    I doubt I am around in 40 years. Be interesting to pull the mortality rates and project Jewish population in the US in that amount of time, though of course that won't reflect Assimilation.

    We have lots of Mc's, Mac's, and Germanic names in this country that feel no connection to any country or region in Europe, or anything beyond a mild identification with being Irish or Scottish.

    But what will bug me until the end of my days is exactly what Jews were thinking on immigration. America might have been a place to hang their hat for them, but they screwed up the place they live in. Crapped in their own bed for want of a better word.

    It wasn't just them of course, but they were an important part of it.

    And for what exactly? 1965 demographics weren't enough for them?

    For people associated with high IQ, I don't really think they thought this through at all. Of course as I have said, there were lots of others promoting this endeavor. And a small portion of them opposed it or thought better of it.

    But the truck is in the ditch now, and this is what we got. And if you look on the road there are more trucks coming, with lots of people packed in and hanging on to those vehicles.

    Yeah, Jews get talked about a lot here for obvious reasons.

    No. The obsession has a non-obvious source.

    Read More
  209. Sunbeam says:
    @Art Deco
    That’s like me saying I have every right to go to Ireland or England and kick someone off their property.

    Only that's not the story. Much of the Arab population left in 1948 to clear the decks for an invasion by Arab armies. The Galilean Arab population stayed put and were living away from the main centers of battle, so were not routed in military operations either. They are still there. As for the rest, you lose a war you wanted to wage, there are consequences.

    “Only that’s not the story. Much of the Arab population left in 1948 to clear the decks for an invasion by Arab armies. The Galilean Arab population stayed put and were living away from the main centers of battle, so were not routed in military operations either. They are still there. As for the rest, you lose a war you wanted to wage, there are consequences.”

    Art Deco, I think they should make a superhero movie and cast you as the villain.

    You can be called “The Convoluted Man.” Your special power is wiping your ass by reaching over your left shoulder with your right hand.

    Not buying any of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You do not like the history, tough. That's the history.
  210. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Peter Akuleyev
    With more historical perspective, it is going to be harder and harder for Jews to play the Shoah card. After all, in the big picture the Jews won. What was the Holocaust really? It was the final act in a battle between Jewish and German elites for dominance of Central Europe that mostly took place in the Habsburg Empire up until 1918. Hitler grew up in the Habsburg Empire, and his anti-Semitism was of a peculiarly German vs. Jew variety that came straight from pre-war Vienna. Hitler declared war on the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, and he lost, big time. Yes, the Jews suffered horrible casualties, and were driven out of their ancestral homes Central Europe, but in exchange they got Israel, and most of their elites survived and made new lives for themselves their, or the US, a far better homeland than Jews have ever had. Jews today live much better lives and exert far more power globally than they did in 1932. On the other hand, Germany was amputated back to its early medieval borders, Germans were driven out of Bohemia, one of the most creative centers of German culture for centuries, the German language lost its status as an international language of science and the lingua franca of Central Europe, and now Germany is well on its way to becoming a state dominated by a hybrid Turkish Slavic underclass and where English will probably be the defacto language of the elites within a few generations. In two hundred years children learning about the Holocaust will be quite confused, because Jews will still be around but Germans will be a footnote.

    You could easily argue that Hitler won. He largely eradicated Jews from Europe. Compare the Jewish population in, say, Poland, before World War 2 and today. Sure, Germany has a Turkish minority, but it had one under Hitler too. Hitler didn’t have an issue with Muslims.

    And West Germany was arguably the biggest winner of the post-WW2 peace. It was booming economically by the early ’50s while the UK was mired in poverty. And, thanks to a system designed by the U.S. to make west Germans untempted by communism, the rewards of Germany’s long economic boom were broadly shared by the volk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Actually during the '50s, the standard of living in Germany was significantly lower than in the UK. Germany doesn't pass the UK in per capita GDP until the late '60s:

    http://www.edmundconway.com/2015/02/the-uk-germany-and-france-gdp-over-history/

    That the Germans caught up was a tribute to their hard work and ingenuity and ability to make high quality, export grade products such as automobiles, which was aided by non-adversarial labor relations. In the same period, UK auto workers were going out on strike frequently and doing their best to sabotage production or at least work as little as possible. A lot of this had to do with the British class system.
  211. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Art Deco
    After all, in the big picture the Jews won.

    Two thirds of the Jewish population of Europe was murdered in one seven year period.

    So what is the number that were murdered in that one seven year period?

    Read More
  212. Art Deco says: • Website

    Mexico outlawed Catholicism from the 1920s through the 1990s, I believe.

    They did not. The Church was persecuted from about 1920 to about 1940 and there were some leftover ordinances (e.g. the one banning the public wearing of clerical garb) that were not repealed until some time after 1979.

    Read More
  213. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Sunbeam
    "Only that’s not the story. Much of the Arab population left in 1948 to clear the decks for an invasion by Arab armies. The Galilean Arab population stayed put and were living away from the main centers of battle, so were not routed in military operations either. They are still there. As for the rest, you lose a war you wanted to wage, there are consequences."

    Art Deco, I think they should make a superhero movie and cast you as the villain.

    You can be called "The Convoluted Man." Your special power is wiping your ass by reaching over your left shoulder with your right hand.

    Not buying any of it.

    You do not like the history, tough. That’s the history.

    Read More
  214. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @iSteveFan
    Re the Palestinians. In some of the comments people are stating that the Palestinians only started referring to themselves as such about 50 years or so ago. What difference does it make what they called themselves? If those peoples' ancestors lived on the land that is present day Israel, then they would have some type of claim to it. Of course like other displaced populations throughout history, claims like that mean nothing if you don't have the power to enforce them.

    We know this about the American Indians, who I suppose did not call themselves American Indians prior to their introduction to the white man. They don't have the power to get their land back, but white Americans acknowledge their conquest and attempt to pay them back through many measures up to and including reservations and lucrative casinos. But the return of all their land is never on the table.

    I think Canada and Australia have similar policies where they acknowledge their conquests. But I don't know how many other people do the same. For example, do the Turks pay any sort of lip service to the Greeks? I guess not since they solved that problem through ethnic cleansing. But I wonder if the Chinese do the same in Tibet?

    Israel would not have to give up its land to make such an acknowledgement. And they have already given the Palestinians a reservation called Gaza. If the Palestinians or Arabs or whatever they are called did live there for generations prior to the creation of Israel, what is so bad about acknowledging it? Are they afraid of establishing some sort of collective guilt amongst their population? Do they think that might be bad for their future prospects as a people? Do they know something we don't?

    Maybe collective guilt is something that can only be foisted upon Europeans.

    It makes a difference because there are fewer cultural differences between an Arab from Hebron and an Arab from Amman than there are between an Italian from Palermo and one from Florence, or between a Jew from Warsaw and one from Baghdad.

    The two Italians have one country, and the two Jews have one. The Arabs already have several countries into which the Palestinians could have easily been absorbed (much as hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel), but they were kept in refugee camps by their Arab brothers, with the complicity of UN bureaucrats, so they could be used as a political weapon against Israel.

    Read More
  215. @Sunbeam
    "FWIW, Boers have been in Africa longer than most Zionist Jews have been in Palestine. Boers also made Africa bloom. Palestine was pretty well developed when the Jews took over."

    Eh, from what I've read Jerusalem and thereabouts was a sleepy little backwater in the Turkish empire pre the Zionist endeavor.

    Pretty much all the "development" in Israel proper seems to be firmly done by Jews, with nothing owing to the Palestinians.

    Of course the Palestinians would have done something in the time since 1905 or whenever the Zionists started streaming in, but it wouldn't be anything like or as well developed as Israel is today. Well it would probably be about like Syria or Lebanon. Certainly not like Yemen.

    “Eh, from what I’ve read Jerusalem and thereabouts was a sleepy little backwater in the Turkish empire pre the Zionist endeavor.”

    That depends upon what you have read. By 1940s standards, Palestine wasn’t that bad from the pictures that I have seen. It was self-supporting agriculturally, and it wasn’t close to being the least advanced part of the British empire. Jerusalem and other cities have lots of nice colonial and older buildings, so it wasn’t mud huts and and dirt floors. And the Sabras didn’t make the deserts bloom. If you look at old maps, you will see that the Jewish settlements were built over Palestinian settlements– I’ve seen the rubble myself. The population expanded, so more land was used for agriculture, but that doesn’t really mean that there was nothing there before.

    “Pretty much all the “development” in Israel proper seems to be firmly done by Jews, with nothing owing to the Palestinians.”

    I don’t see how the Palestinians could have done much, since they are largely being pushed out. You also have to consider how much has been done for the Jews by others, and how much money (far more than $3 billion per year) has been pumped into Israel (a tiny piece of land with the population on a large U.S. metropolitan area) from outsiders. With that help, the Palestinians could have done quite a bit also.

    I don’t know how Steve feels about links being posted, but here is one that will give you an idea of the amount of help that Jews in Israel have been given: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/cost.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    By the 1940s, there'd been about 60 years of Zionist immigration to Palestine. Take a look at some of the photos of Palestine from the 19th Century. There are some here: http://www.newbostonfineandrarebooks.com/?page=shop/disp&pid=page_PalestineSyria&CLSN_1291=13281208221291adfc56628c3b7bbb6e
  216. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Hal

    What’s the “justification” for the U.S., Hal?
     
    Really? You don't know this? Leaders in the colonies decided they had had enough of the King's royal prerogative (much like Palestinians are fed up with Israel's special status) and so they ...... acquired independence. I guess if you are an Israel firster, you might not have learned this.

    And for the other comment, no, Gaza is not a reservation, it is a concentration camp.

    I’m still missing the distinction you make for why it was ok to take land from the Indians but not the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians had some roads (built by the Ottomans)? Because they had camels?

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don’t litigate how the sovereign got the land.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I’m still missing the distinction you make for why it was ok to take land from the Indians but not the Palestinians.
     
    If Palestinians are indigenous, then their identification with the invading Arabs is treason.

    Are Mixtecs Castillian? Apaches, Anglo-Saxon? Bushmen, Boer or Bantu?
    , @iSteveFan

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don’t litigate how the sovereign got the land.
     
    I don't dispute this. But in my earlier post I wrote that Americans, Canadians and Aussies actually display guilt, both through public policy and cultural channels, over how their ancestors acquired and founded their nations. Why does Israel not do the same?

    Instead it seems they argue over the semantics of what the Palestinians or Arabs called themselves prior to the founding of Israel. And since they didn't call themselves Palestinians, then apparently they have no standing. Or they argue that since the Palestinians or Arabs are so culturally close to other Arabs who have a whole lot of land, then they should have just left to live with their cousins and all would be well.

    It seems like they will argue anything to avoid acknowledging there was a population of human beings who lived in the place before the founding.

    They are not alone. The Turks and others don't seem to show remorse over their founding. But I thought Israels were more similar to us. Don't they have a Howard Zinn writing their history books?
  217. @Art Deco
    “We didn’t murder Palestinians

    The 1948-49 war was one with which the local Arab population was on board, and, no, it did not involve abnormal quanta of bloodletting for a war conducted in a discrete patch of territory.

    “The 1948-49 war was one with which the local Arab population was on board, and, no, it did not involve abnormal quanta of bloodletting for a war conducted in a discrete patch of territory.”

    What were the local Arabs supposed to do? Seriously, they were being pushed out and terrorized bu groups such as Irgun. They knew what was coming, since the outside Jewish population was swelling. They had homes and communities, and did not consider themselves to be Jordanians or Lebanese. At the very least, they had (still do) a right to self-defense. They weren’t the outside aggressors.

    Read More
  218. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “Much of the Arab population left in 1948 to clear the decks for an invasion by Arab armies. “

    As a point interest, weren’t all these Arab countries colonies of various European powers during WWII, which ended in 46? So just what was the history of all these Arab armies? When did all these Arab countries get their independence and when did they form armies? How long had these armies existed before this 48 war happened?

    Read More
  219. @Art Deco
    The vast majority of the Jews in Israel DO NOT have deep roots in Palestine.

    The majority of Israel's Jewish population is derived from populations of Sephardic and Oriental Jews. As for the Arab population, some have long-term roots in the territories in question and some derived from various other loci (e.g. present-day Syria or Egypt).

    “The majority of Israel’s Jewish population is derived from populations of Sephardic and Oriental Jews. As for the Arab population, some have long-term roots in the territories in question and some derived from various other loci (e.g. present-day Syria or Egypt).”

    Very few Jews in Israel (non-Palestinian Jews) have roots going back prior to the 1930s or 1940s, so their roots are not comparable to Palestinian roots. All you have to do is look at the faces of the different groups of Jews in Israel to know that Jews aren’t a people in the same way that Palestinians are a people– and the Ashkenazis and German Jews don’t look Middle Eastern at all–and that’s if you want to play the game of claiming that Jews know for sure that their ancient ancestors came from that tiny piece of land, and their portion of ME DNA wasn’t from somewhere else in the region.

    Read More
  220. @ABN
    Yes, Steve's emphasis on finding a modus vivendi for all concerned is the mark of a gentleman.

    There is a certain segment of Jewish opinion that takes for granted the existence of latent hostility toward Jews among the gentile ethno-cultural majority. This viewpoint encourages a reciprocal hostility toward gentile cultural and ethnic dominance in the host society. I don't necessarily blame Jews for this, since even patriotic assimilation couldn't save German Jews from Nazi persecution, but I do think it's a deeply anachronistic attitude in America in the year 2015.

    More to the point, it's counter-productive and irresponsible for Jews to believe that their safety requires the dispossession and deracination of the historic nation. Such an attitude may well create a positive feedback loop of antisemitism and anti-gentilism. Presumably it will end disastrously for either the historic nation or the Jews (or, more likely, both, if the racial-socialist Huddled Masses turn out to be not such big fans of either).

    In a sane world, Steve's efforts to encourage a nationalistic sense of noblesse oblige from American's most wildly successful white European ethnic group would be regarded as a noble act of statesmanship.

    In the world we actually inhabit, SPLC and ADL types place Jewish interests on a collision course with generic gentile American interests, slam the accelerator pedal down, and then attribute "hate" to people like Steve who notice that this game of chicken can have only one winner, at most.

    In a sane world, Steve’s efforts to encourage a nationalistic sense of noblesse oblige from American’s most wildly successful white European ethnic group would be regarded as a noble act of statesmanship.

    I don’t want George Soros to feel obligé to help me. I want him to leave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "I don’t want George Soros to feel obligé to help me. I want him to leave."

    I agree.

  221. @Dave Pinsen
    I'm still missing the distinction you make for why it was ok to take land from the Indians but not the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians had some roads (built by the Ottomans)? Because they had camels?

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don't litigate how the sovereign got the land.

    I’m still missing the distinction you make for why it was ok to take land from the Indians but not the Palestinians.

    If Palestinians are indigenous, then their identification with the invading Arabs is treason.

    Are Mixtecs Castillian? Apaches, Anglo-Saxon? Bushmen, Boer or Bantu?

    Read More
  222. iSteveFan says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I'm still missing the distinction you make for why it was ok to take land from the Indians but not the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians had some roads (built by the Ottomans)? Because they had camels?

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don't litigate how the sovereign got the land.

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don’t litigate how the sovereign got the land.

    I don’t dispute this. But in my earlier post I wrote that Americans, Canadians and Aussies actually display guilt, both through public policy and cultural channels, over how their ancestors acquired and founded their nations. Why does Israel not do the same?

    Instead it seems they argue over the semantics of what the Palestinians or Arabs called themselves prior to the founding of Israel. And since they didn’t call themselves Palestinians, then apparently they have no standing. Or they argue that since the Palestinians or Arabs are so culturally close to other Arabs who have a whole lot of land, then they should have just left to live with their cousins and all would be well.

    It seems like they will argue anything to avoid acknowledging there was a population of human beings who lived in the place before the founding.

    They are not alone. The Turks and others don’t seem to show remorse over their founding. But I thought Israels were more similar to us. Don’t they have a Howard Zinn writing their history books?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    "Why does Israel not do the same?"

    If you read on the subject, I think you'll find plenty of guilt and self-criticism by Israelis on the left (though perhaps less so than 20 years ago, as some lefties there have become disillusioned). As for Israel itself, one difference is that it has an active political conflict and territorial dispute with the Palestinians, whereas the Canadians, Americans, and Aussies don't have those with their indigenous populations.
    , @Jack D
    Jews not displaying guilt? Are you kidding me? Jews INVENTED guilt. There are plenty of self-hating leftists Jews in Israel who feel guilty for even being alive, let alone for having taken the land of the noble indigenous people.

    A common anti-Semite mistake is to attribute things to "the Jews". Jews are highly disunited and disagree about many things (the old joke is 2 Jews, 3 opinions). So opinions in Israel vary from those who feel terribly guilty to those who think "the only good Arab is a dead Arab".
    , @Anonymous
    What are you talking about? Israel has an Arab and Druze minority that is integrated. They have representation in the Knesset, serve in the IDF, participate in civil society, etc. They're better integrated into the country than American Indians are.
  223. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @OilcanFloyd
    "Eh, from what I’ve read Jerusalem and thereabouts was a sleepy little backwater in the Turkish empire pre the Zionist endeavor."

    That depends upon what you have read. By 1940s standards, Palestine wasn't that bad from the pictures that I have seen. It was self-supporting agriculturally, and it wasn't close to being the least advanced part of the British empire. Jerusalem and other cities have lots of nice colonial and older buildings, so it wasn't mud huts and and dirt floors. And the Sabras didn't make the deserts bloom. If you look at old maps, you will see that the Jewish settlements were built over Palestinian settlements-- I've seen the rubble myself. The population expanded, so more land was used for agriculture, but that doesn't really mean that there was nothing there before.

    "Pretty much all the “development” in Israel proper seems to be firmly done by Jews, with nothing owing to the Palestinians."

    I don't see how the Palestinians could have done much, since they are largely being pushed out. You also have to consider how much has been done for the Jews by others, and how much money (far more than $3 billion per year) has been pumped into Israel (a tiny piece of land with the population on a large U.S. metropolitan area) from outsiders. With that help, the Palestinians could have done quite a bit also.

    I don't know how Steve feels about links being posted, but here is one that will give you an idea of the amount of help that Jews in Israel have been given: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/cost.html

    By the 1940s, there’d been about 60 years of Zionist immigration to Palestine. Take a look at some of the photos of Palestine from the 19th Century. There are some here: http://www.newbostonfineandrarebooks.com/?page=shop/disp&pid=page_PalestineSyria&CLSN_1291=13281208221291adfc56628c3b7bbb6e

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "By the 1940s, there’d been about 60 years of Zionist immigration to Palestine. Take a look at some of the photos of Palestine from the 19th Century."

    The vast majority of the Jews who took up the call of Zionism did so just before and after WWII. Prior to that, Zionism wasn't really taken seriously. The British and Turks had more influence on pre-1947 Palestine than the Jews did. Besides, I have a hard time dismissing the people who built the Al Aqsa mosque as completely backwards, and that was done between the 700s and the 1100s. The Arabs/Muslims have a pretty good reputation as builders and architects. The Jews don't.

    Palestine was certainly no worse than much of Greece, Spain or Italy, and probably better than many of the backwaters in Poland, Russia and the Ukraine where many of the Early Zionists came from.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jxTseoru6g
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKYJ2WD79RE
  224. Truth says:
    @Reg Cæsar




    But that’s for another thread.
     
    Interesting term, in the context of your story.

    “But that’s for another thread.”

    Wow, I HAVE to have a high IQ! I make double-entendre I didn’t even realize I was making…

    (…and still don’t.)

    Read More
  225. Truth says:
    @Art Deco
    and they got there before the Bantus.

    They did not.

    “and they got there before the Bantus.
    They did not.”

    LMAO!

    Ben’s a little nuts, Bro. He thinks in 50,000 years, nobody thought of moving a few hundred miles south.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe not many did? Wikipedia lists only one state in what is now South Africa prior to 1600, the Kingdom of Mapungubwe, max population: 5,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mapungubwe

    Granted, there may have been stateless hunter gatherers roaming about too, but how many?
  226. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @iSteveFan

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don’t litigate how the sovereign got the land.
     
    I don't dispute this. But in my earlier post I wrote that Americans, Canadians and Aussies actually display guilt, both through public policy and cultural channels, over how their ancestors acquired and founded their nations. Why does Israel not do the same?

    Instead it seems they argue over the semantics of what the Palestinians or Arabs called themselves prior to the founding of Israel. And since they didn't call themselves Palestinians, then apparently they have no standing. Or they argue that since the Palestinians or Arabs are so culturally close to other Arabs who have a whole lot of land, then they should have just left to live with their cousins and all would be well.

    It seems like they will argue anything to avoid acknowledging there was a population of human beings who lived in the place before the founding.

    They are not alone. The Turks and others don't seem to show remorse over their founding. But I thought Israels were more similar to us. Don't they have a Howard Zinn writing their history books?

    “Why does Israel not do the same?”

    If you read on the subject, I think you’ll find plenty of guilt and self-criticism by Israelis on the left (though perhaps less so than 20 years ago, as some lefties there have become disillusioned). As for Israel itself, one difference is that it has an active political conflict and territorial dispute with the Palestinians, whereas the Canadians, Americans, and Aussies don’t have those with their indigenous populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    If you read on the subject, I think you’ll find plenty of guilt and self-criticism by Israelis on the left (though perhaps less so than 20 years ago, as some lefties there have become disillusioned). As for Israel itself, one difference is that it has an active political conflict and territorial dispute with the Palestinians, whereas the Canadians, Americans, and Aussies don’t have those with their indigenous populations.
     
    I don't doubt some Jews feel guilt. But it doesn't permeate society and infiltrate the curriculum like it does in the USA.

    BTW, the USA does have an ongoing territorial dispute even if our leaders fail to acknowledge it. Maybe the Palestinians would get further with their aims if they just emulated the Mexicans and took back land the Mexican way.
  227. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Truth
    "and they got there before the Bantus.
    They did not."

    LMAO!

    Ben's a little nuts, Bro. He thinks in 50,000 years, nobody thought of moving a few hundred miles south.

    Maybe not many did? Wikipedia lists only one state in what is now South Africa prior to 1600, the Kingdom of Mapungubwe, max population: 5,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mapungubwe

    Granted, there may have been stateless hunter gatherers roaming about too, but how many?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well, I don't know Dave; If you own a property, what's the magic number of people who have to live there before it's considered "yours?"
  228. Truth says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe not many did? Wikipedia lists only one state in what is now South Africa prior to 1600, the Kingdom of Mapungubwe, max population: 5,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mapungubwe

    Granted, there may have been stateless hunter gatherers roaming about too, but how many?

    Well, I don’t know Dave; If you own a property, what’s the magic number of people who have to live there before it’s considered “yours?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    If you own a property, it's already yours.

    Anyhow, a quick perusal of the interwebs suggests Bantus made it to what is now South Africa about 1,000 to 1,200 years before the first Europeans did.
  229. @Dave Pinsen
    By the 1940s, there'd been about 60 years of Zionist immigration to Palestine. Take a look at some of the photos of Palestine from the 19th Century. There are some here: http://www.newbostonfineandrarebooks.com/?page=shop/disp&pid=page_PalestineSyria&CLSN_1291=13281208221291adfc56628c3b7bbb6e

    “By the 1940s, there’d been about 60 years of Zionist immigration to Palestine. Take a look at some of the photos of Palestine from the 19th Century.”

    The vast majority of the Jews who took up the call of Zionism did so just before and after WWII. Prior to that, Zionism wasn’t really taken seriously. The British and Turks had more influence on pre-1947 Palestine than the Jews did. Besides, I have a hard time dismissing the people who built the Al Aqsa mosque as completely backwards, and that was done between the 700s and the 1100s. The Arabs/Muslims have a pretty good reputation as builders and architects. The Jews don’t.

    Palestine was certainly no worse than much of Greece, Spain or Italy, and probably better than many of the backwaters in Poland, Russia and the Ukraine where many of the Early Zionists came from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Mark Twain visited Palestine and wasn't impressed, as you can read in "Innocents Abroad."

    Ottoman imperial administrators tended to be notoriously sedentary.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    Tel Aviv was founded by Zionists in 1909. I doubt Palestine was on par with Spain in economic development then, but perhaps you have some data to offer on that.

    The Dome of The Rock is very nice. Per Wiki, one of the two fellows credited with building it was a non-Arab.


    Arabs/Muslims have a pretty good reputation as builders and architects. The Jews don’t.
     
    The Jewish temples of antiquity are supposed to have been quite impressive, but of course they're gone now. The Muslims seem to have been impressed with the site, though, since they built the Dome of the Rock on the same exact spot.

    In modern times, some Jews have had modest renown as architects, e.g., Oscar Neimayer, Frank Ghery. And Israel has had some notable architects too, including some from the Bauhaus movement.

  230. @Reg Cæsar

    In a sane world, Steve’s efforts to encourage a nationalistic sense of noblesse oblige from American’s most wildly successful white European ethnic group would be regarded as a noble act of statesmanship.

     

    I don't want George Soros to feel obligé to help me. I want him to leave.

    “I don’t want George Soros to feel obligé to help me. I want him to leave.”

    I agree.

    Read More
  231. @OilcanFloyd
    "By the 1940s, there’d been about 60 years of Zionist immigration to Palestine. Take a look at some of the photos of Palestine from the 19th Century."

    The vast majority of the Jews who took up the call of Zionism did so just before and after WWII. Prior to that, Zionism wasn't really taken seriously. The British and Turks had more influence on pre-1947 Palestine than the Jews did. Besides, I have a hard time dismissing the people who built the Al Aqsa mosque as completely backwards, and that was done between the 700s and the 1100s. The Arabs/Muslims have a pretty good reputation as builders and architects. The Jews don't.

    Palestine was certainly no worse than much of Greece, Spain or Italy, and probably better than many of the backwaters in Poland, Russia and the Ukraine where many of the Early Zionists came from.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jxTseoru6g
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKYJ2WD79RE

    Mark Twain visited Palestine and wasn’t impressed, as you can read in “Innocents Abroad.”

    Ottoman imperial administrators tended to be notoriously sedentary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    "Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes" http://www.literaturepage.com/read/twain-innocents-abroad-458.html
    , @OilcanFloyd
    "Mark Twain visited Palestine and wasn’t impressed, as you can read in “Innocents Abroad.”

    Ottoman imperial administrators tended to be notoriously sedentary."

    I don't claim that pre-47 Palestine was completely modern, but it wasn't the desert backwater that Zionists claim it was. Even if it were, it doesn't tie me to Israel or a Jewish elite in America that obviously defines itself as the enemy of traditional America.

    Here's a Palestinian view of Twain's visit: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Articles/Story845.html
  232. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Truth
    Well, I don't know Dave; If you own a property, what's the magic number of people who have to live there before it's considered "yours?"

    If you own a property, it’s already yours.

    Anyhow, a quick perusal of the interwebs suggests Bantus made it to what is now South Africa about 1,000 to 1,200 years before the first Europeans did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    One would assume it was much earlier than that. They did not, however make a priority out of recording their doings in perpetuity.
  233. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    Mark Twain visited Palestine and wasn't impressed, as you can read in "Innocents Abroad."

    Ottoman imperial administrators tended to be notoriously sedentary.

    “Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes” http://www.literaturepage.com/read/twain-innocents-abroad-458.html

    Read More
  234. @Steve Sailer
    Mark Twain visited Palestine and wasn't impressed, as you can read in "Innocents Abroad."

    Ottoman imperial administrators tended to be notoriously sedentary.

    “Mark Twain visited Palestine and wasn’t impressed, as you can read in “Innocents Abroad.”

    Ottoman imperial administrators tended to be notoriously sedentary.”

    I don’t claim that pre-47 Palestine was completely modern, but it wasn’t the desert backwater that Zionists claim it was. Even if it were, it doesn’t tie me to Israel or a Jewish elite in America that obviously defines itself as the enemy of traditional America.

    Here’s a Palestinian view of Twain’s visit: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Articles/Story845.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    In Touring in 1600, E.S. Bates describes Jerusalem about 1612:

    Of Jerusalem as a town they say that the walls
    were the best part of the building; that there were
    three Christians living there to every Turk; that
    the Christians dwelled there for devotion and the
    Turks for the income derived from the Christians,
    and that otherwise it would have been wholly
    deserted.
     
    Bates says that from about 1580 to late 1600's travel in the middle east became progressively more dangerious as local political organization crumbled. He cites many witnesses.
    , @Jack D
    The first rule of holes is to stop digging. According to your link, Twain had "racism emotions" and besides, he was worked up because 10,000 Christians had just been massacred by the local Muslims. If had had truly been an unbiased observer, he would not have let such things color his views of Muslims at all. If he had not been in such a rage, he would have seen Palestine as a haven of vibrant culture and not a godforsaken desert at all.

    Jerusalem was attractive mostly to Jewish and Christian fanatics who moved there for religious reasons. Muslims lived there mostly to provide services to the non-Jewish population - otherwise there was not much of an economy. At the time Twain visited, the estimated population was around 8,000 Jewish, 4,000 Muslim and 4,000 Christian (i.e only 1/4 Muslim) and in any case, with a total of 16,000 people, more of a small town than a city.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem#Ottoman_era
    , @Dave Pinsen
    You keep saying pre-1947 as if Jews showed up in 1947 and magically had a state a year later. They had been building the institutions of a modern state there for decades: hospitals, ports, universities, etc. Hadassah had hospitals built by 1918, Hebrew University was founded in 1925, etc. The Palestinian Arabs? Not so much. Even today, they are largely dependent on Israel for their utilities and the UN for housing, food, etc.
  235. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @OilcanFloyd
    "By the 1940s, there’d been about 60 years of Zionist immigration to Palestine. Take a look at some of the photos of Palestine from the 19th Century."

    The vast majority of the Jews who took up the call of Zionism did so just before and after WWII. Prior to that, Zionism wasn't really taken seriously. The British and Turks had more influence on pre-1947 Palestine than the Jews did. Besides, I have a hard time dismissing the people who built the Al Aqsa mosque as completely backwards, and that was done between the 700s and the 1100s. The Arabs/Muslims have a pretty good reputation as builders and architects. The Jews don't.

    Palestine was certainly no worse than much of Greece, Spain or Italy, and probably better than many of the backwaters in Poland, Russia and the Ukraine where many of the Early Zionists came from.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jxTseoru6g
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKYJ2WD79RE

    Tel Aviv was founded by Zionists in 1909. I doubt Palestine was on par with Spain in economic development then, but perhaps you have some data to offer on that.

    The Dome of The Rock is very nice. Per Wiki, one of the two fellows credited with building it was a non-Arab.

    Arabs/Muslims have a pretty good reputation as builders and architects. The Jews don’t.

    The Jewish temples of antiquity are supposed to have been quite impressive, but of course they’re gone now. The Muslims seem to have been impressed with the site, though, since they built the Dome of the Rock on the same exact spot.

    In modern times, some Jews have had modest renown as architects, e.g., Oscar Neimayer, Frank Ghery. And Israel has had some notable architects too, including some from the Bauhaus movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "Tel Aviv was founded by Zionists in 1909. I doubt Palestine was on par with Spain in economic development then, but perhaps you have some data to offer on that."

    Tel Aviv is basically joined with the old Arab city of Jaffa. Again, if all the money pumped into Israel were given to the Palestinians, they would have built more than refugee camps.

    I didn't claim that Palestine was economically on par with Spain. I stated that Palestine was on par with much of rural Italy, Spain and Greece, which is true. Palestine had nothing on par with Madrid, Rome, Athens or any of the major cities, and neither does modern day Israel.

    The Al Aqsa mosque is quite impressive, and it is an example of Islamic architecture. Solomon's temple was supposed to be nice, but there isn't a whole lot of evidence for a great empire with great buildings in ancient Israel. There's hardly any evidence that King David existed. You have to be a bit skeptical of many of the claims about ancient Israel. We don't use descriptions of Noah's ark as evidence of the ship-building prowess of ancient Jews, who were, ironically, more likely to be the ancestors of modern Palestinians than of modern Jews.

    I don't consider Neimayer or Ghery to be great, but that's a matter of taste. Do you consider the Bauhaus movement to be a Jewish movement, rather than a German or European movement?
    , @Jack D
    There are many others. Louis Kahn, Daniel Libeskind, etc. Wikipedia has a long list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_architects Most are not super well known by the general public. But the racists at Wikipedia forgot to include a list of Muslim architects.

    One of the guys on the list , Irwin Chanin, had an exceptionally long life and he remained active until near the end (he died in 1988 at 96) so I had some interaction with his organization in the mid-1980s involving a lease negotiation. His offices were in the Chanin Building on 42nd Street in NY, which he had built new in 1929, just before the crash, and owned and managed ever since. The offices were perfectly preserved (though somewhat timeworn by then) examples of the Art Deco style. When he was building the building, he must have hired a loyal young staff in their 20s and they never left him, because the average age of the people that I interacted with (in-house counsel, building engineer, etc.) were in their 80s. It was the strangest negotiation ever, especially since I was in my 20s at the time so people in their 80s (or maybe they were only in their 70s -when you are young they just seem OLD) seemed unimaginably ancient and from another era. From time to time as we sat at the table, we would have a question and the counsel would summon in the relevant staff person and each one who shuffled in was older than the next - it was like a cross between a business office and a retirement home. And by that time, most legal documents were already being done on computers but of course they had nothing of the kind. It was all very Twilight Zone -ish.

  236. Truth says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    If you own a property, it's already yours.

    Anyhow, a quick perusal of the interwebs suggests Bantus made it to what is now South Africa about 1,000 to 1,200 years before the first Europeans did.

    One would assume it was much earlier than that. They did not, however make a priority out of recording their doings in perpetuity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Even if they did not write it down (hard to do since they had no written language) there would be archeological evidence. It's fairly well accepted (except by you, maybe) that S. Africa was largely populated (to the extent it was populated at all) by the hunter gatherer Khoi- San people (formerly known as Bushmen) and that the Bantu are fairly recent arrivals from the North, arriving starting around 300-500 AD . Of course that's about the same length of time many European peoples have been in their own countries. But the whole idea of "indigenous people" has been oversold. Most places have been occupied by different groups at different times so if you try to base a claim on who was there "first" there was usually someone there before you.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Why would one assume that? Southern Africa was kind of the sticks, relatively speaking. Civilization, and commerce were more toward the northeast. In any case, those estimates were based on archeological evidence rather than any recorded history by the Bantus.
  237. Jack D says:
    @SPMoore8
    Just a point: it's szlachta (shlakhta), and that class of nobility contained many people with some Jewish ancestry, due to the fact that there were numerous conversions among Jews as a result of the millenarian movement of Jacob Frank (mid 18th C.) which involved the conversion to Christianity of about 25,000 Polish Jews, and many of these also went into the minor nobility. (And I am not even mentioning any others, or the large number of conversions that took place in the 19th Century in all three Eastern European empires.)

    This isn't really news, because the same claim (of Jewish ancestry) has been made about Adam Mickiewicz (Polish national poet), as well as the German General Erich Manstein (his birth parents were named Lewinski but they were part of the Prussian nobility for some time.)

    As for Dzerzhinsky, I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant, I will say that ethnic mixture including Jews, Slavs, Germans, Tatars, Armenians and even Greeks was a lot more common between the Elbe and the Volga than probably any nationalist wants to admit.

    And yet the genetic studies seem to indicate very little gene flow between the Jews and the Slavs.

    Read More
  238. Jack D says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    The boat looks like Bonnie & Clyde’s V8 – once you’ve killed a cop, the other cops are going to do their best.

    I've never seen such alarmingly inept police work as the manhunt for the Tsarnaevs. Pumping a fusillade of 5.56 mm rounds at the boat in someone's backyard really took the cake. From Wikipedia: ". . . police began a large volume of gunfire at the boat, stopping only after the Superintendent on the scene called for a cease fire. . . . According to Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, and Watertown Police Chief Deveau, Tsarnaev was shooting from inside the boat at police, 'exchanging fire for an hour.' After he was captured, Tsarnaev was found not to have any weapons."

    Not that I care about Tsarnaev, but there were dozens of bullet holes in neighboring houses.

    Tensions were high and once one cop started shooting, the others assumed that it was coming from the cop-killer and “returned fire”. In any case, the unwritten law of the streets is that the rest of us get trials, but once you’ve shot at a cop (and esp. if you have killed one), the police are going to execute you on the spot if they can justify it in any way. So they were primed to imagine that Tsarnaev was shooting at them so they would be justified in shooting back. It’s very fortunate that no civilians were killed by police gunfire – shooting the cop killer was much more important to them than whether any civilians were hurt. It’s also miraculous that the cops didn’t end up shooting each other with all that lead flying.

    Last night the SWAT team thought that they had found a house where the Ferguson cop shooters were, so naturally they entered by breaking a hole in the roof. Wrong house – oops. I wonder who pays to fix the house? The gov. took no responsibility for that guy’s boat. It was replaced only thru voluntary donations.

    Read More
  239. Jack D says:
    @ABN
    Yes, Steve's emphasis on finding a modus vivendi for all concerned is the mark of a gentleman.

    There is a certain segment of Jewish opinion that takes for granted the existence of latent hostility toward Jews among the gentile ethno-cultural majority. This viewpoint encourages a reciprocal hostility toward gentile cultural and ethnic dominance in the host society. I don't necessarily blame Jews for this, since even patriotic assimilation couldn't save German Jews from Nazi persecution, but I do think it's a deeply anachronistic attitude in America in the year 2015.

    More to the point, it's counter-productive and irresponsible for Jews to believe that their safety requires the dispossession and deracination of the historic nation. Such an attitude may well create a positive feedback loop of antisemitism and anti-gentilism. Presumably it will end disastrously for either the historic nation or the Jews (or, more likely, both, if the racial-socialist Huddled Masses turn out to be not such big fans of either).

    In a sane world, Steve's efforts to encourage a nationalistic sense of noblesse oblige from American's most wildly successful white European ethnic group would be regarded as a noble act of statesmanship.

    In the world we actually inhabit, SPLC and ADL types place Jewish interests on a collision course with generic gentile American interests, slam the accelerator pedal down, and then attribute "hate" to people like Steve who notice that this game of chicken can have only one winner, at most.

    A couple of points here:

    1. If you read George Washington’s letter to the Jewish community of Newport, RI, you will see that he understood the issue better than most of you. Noblesse oblige implies someone higher having pity on someone lower. Washington understood that in the US, Christians would not “tolerate” Jews, rather Christian and Jews would stand on an equal footing. It was not the case that it was the Christians’ country and Jews were just living in it. I understand how (even though they don’t practice it anymore) someone could say “France is for the French” but America is for the Americans is nonsense because we are all (except for Indians) recent arrivals and white Christians are no more American than anyone else. Or at least that’s what it says in the 14th Amendment.

    2. Sailer may not be an anti-Semite, but he sure brings them out of the woodwork. I thought that anti-Semitism in the US was pretty much dead (except for anti-Israel types on the left) but it has just been hidden because it is so disreputable (and ask the kids in Oklahoma what happens nowadays when you publicly proclaim your racism). But here on the internet under the veil of anonymity people tell us how they REALLY feel. For me, it has been eye opening and confirmed to me that the current approach of making pariahs out of anti-Semites is the right one. I really don’t want what some of you guys are saying to be publicly respectable again. Whether or not this would lead to another Holocaust in America (probably not), it’s just nasty. Jesus or Washington would not say half the stuff that some of you say, not even in private.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "I understand how (even though they don’t practice it anymore) someone could say “France is for the French” but America is for the Americans is nonsense because we are all (except for Indians) recent arrivals and white Christians are no more American than anyone else. Or at least that’s what it says in the 14th Amendment."

    I've never really gotten a couple things about you and a few more of what I'll just call Dissenting Posters on this site are driving at. I mean a drive-by is one thing, but you come back repeatedly.

    Nothing at all wrong with that, but who exactly is your audience? Surely you must know that you aren't convincing anyone that posts here of a single thing, one way or another. Well you could I'm sure, but you and the others never seem to do anything but recycle arguments that were already old when the kids were passing a joint around at the protest in the 60's.

    I guess you posting for people who are just reading this site, maybe to try to influence their opinions. I don't know.

    Okay that said I think your argument is totally wrong. Okay the founders of this country were influenced by Enlightenment idealism. Well sorta because they only wanted landed people like themselves to be able to decide things.

    Aside from that they had all these other ideals like Freedom of Religion and the like. They meant every word of it - as long as what they were seeing were Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox, any of a number of flavors of protestantism, and yes Judaism since the odd synagogue had already been in this country for a while and there wasn't a beef with it.

    But there is a pretty far stretch to claim they envisioned something like the inroads that Islam has already made into America. I doubt any of them would have gone along with more than a curiosity mosque. You start getting more than that, and the old guys with the wigs would have reconsidered things pretty quickly.

    In short I'd like to say most of you guys (Art Deco is another if you two aren't the same person), tend to try to be glib and facile about making arguments to sway people. In this case you are invoking the idealism (such as it was practically) of the founders of this country as some kind of argument that cannot be denied by the posters and readers here.

    This is pretty dumb. I'm sure the founders were all pretty smart. And 200+ years is a decent chunk of time. But when these guys were around Pluto wasn't known to exist, let alone not be a planet.

    I just have the belief that if you brought these guys to the present in a time machine, kept them around for 6 months or so....

    Then sent them back with a question before they left: "You sure this is really where you wanted to go?"

    I just think that there would have been a whole lot of things done differently from the beginning.

    So to throw something else at you. There is an "American People." Thing is, you just know if you are a member or not. And this knowing has more importance than every word written in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

    I don't expect you to understand.
  240. Jack D says:
    @iSteveFan
    Re the Palestinians. In some of the comments people are stating that the Palestinians only started referring to themselves as such about 50 years or so ago. What difference does it make what they called themselves? If those peoples' ancestors lived on the land that is present day Israel, then they would have some type of claim to it. Of course like other displaced populations throughout history, claims like that mean nothing if you don't have the power to enforce them.

    We know this about the American Indians, who I suppose did not call themselves American Indians prior to their introduction to the white man. They don't have the power to get their land back, but white Americans acknowledge their conquest and attempt to pay them back through many measures up to and including reservations and lucrative casinos. But the return of all their land is never on the table.

    I think Canada and Australia have similar policies where they acknowledge their conquests. But I don't know how many other people do the same. For example, do the Turks pay any sort of lip service to the Greeks? I guess not since they solved that problem through ethnic cleansing. But I wonder if the Chinese do the same in Tibet?

    Israel would not have to give up its land to make such an acknowledgement. And they have already given the Palestinians a reservation called Gaza. If the Palestinians or Arabs or whatever they are called did live there for generations prior to the creation of Israel, what is so bad about acknowledging it? Are they afraid of establishing some sort of collective guilt amongst their population? Do they think that might be bad for their future prospects as a people? Do they know something we don't?

    Maybe collective guilt is something that can only be foisted upon Europeans.

    So by your logic, the descendants of the Tejano Mexicans who left Texas in the 1840s have a claim to take Texas back and establish their own country of Tejas, even though before that they were just undifferentiated Mexicans living in a province of Mexico that was conquered by someone else and even though no country of Tejas ever existed before. As you say, “if those peoples’ ancestors lived on the land that is present day [Texas], then they would have some type of claim to it.”

    And if these Tejano liberationists started firing rockets across the Rio Grande, what would the US do?

    Read More
  241. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    You could easily argue that Hitler won. He largely eradicated Jews from Europe. Compare the Jewish population in, say, Poland, before World War 2 and today. Sure, Germany has a Turkish minority, but it had one under Hitler too. Hitler didn't have an issue with Muslims.

    And West Germany was arguably the biggest winner of the post-WW2 peace. It was booming economically by the early '50s while the UK was mired in poverty. And, thanks to a system designed by the U.S. to make west Germans untempted by communism, the rewards of Germany's long economic boom were broadly shared by the volk.

    Actually during the ’50s, the standard of living in Germany was significantly lower than in the UK. Germany doesn’t pass the UK in per capita GDP until the late ’60s:

    http://www.edmundconway.com/2015/02/the-uk-germany-and-france-gdp-over-history/

    That the Germans caught up was a tribute to their hard work and ingenuity and ability to make high quality, export grade products such as automobiles, which was aided by non-adversarial labor relations. In the same period, UK auto workers were going out on strike frequently and doing their best to sabotage production or at least work as little as possible. A lot of this had to do with the British class system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    That's surprising, considering the British were rationing food up until 1954: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom
  242. Jack D says:
    @iSteveFan

    The reality is every country is the product of conquest and settlement. Real estate law implicitly acknowledges this: when you do a title search, you go back as far as the last sovereign owner. You don’t litigate how the sovereign got the land.
     
    I don't dispute this. But in my earlier post I wrote that Americans, Canadians and Aussies actually display guilt, both through public policy and cultural channels, over how their ancestors acquired and founded their nations. Why does Israel not do the same?

    Instead it seems they argue over the semantics of what the Palestinians or Arabs called themselves prior to the founding of Israel. And since they didn't call themselves Palestinians, then apparently they have no standing. Or they argue that since the Palestinians or Arabs are so culturally close to other Arabs who have a whole lot of land, then they should have just left to live with their cousins and all would be well.

    It seems like they will argue anything to avoid acknowledging there was a population of human beings who lived in the place before the founding.

    They are not alone. The Turks and others don't seem to show remorse over their founding. But I thought Israels were more similar to us. Don't they have a Howard Zinn writing their history books?

    Jews not displaying guilt? Are you kidding me? Jews INVENTED guilt. There are plenty of self-hating leftists Jews in Israel who feel guilty for even being alive, let alone for having taken the land of the noble indigenous people.

    A common anti-Semite mistake is to attribute things to “the Jews”. Jews are highly disunited and disagree about many things (the old joke is 2 Jews, 3 opinions). So opinions in Israel vary from those who feel terribly guilty to those who think “the only good Arab is a dead Arab”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    A common anti-Semite mistake is to attribute things to “the Jews”. Jews are highly disunited and disagree about many things (the old joke is 2 Jews, 3 opinions).
     
    The Jewish community is highly organized in a way that enables it to marshal group resources despite internal disagreement about how best to achieve group goals.
    , @iSteveFan

    Jews not displaying guilt? Are you kidding me? Jews INVENTED guilt. There are plenty of self-hating leftists Jews in Israel who feel guilty for even being alive, let alone for having taken the land of the noble indigenous people.
     
    I don't know if they invented it, but they probably know how to manipulate it in others.

    Of course there are Jews in Israel who display guilt. I don't know why you would describe them as 'self-hating' though. What I asked is if Israel had a Howard Zinn equivalent who was writing the history books used in Israeli schools. Having a few people with guilt and allowing one to inculcate his guilt into the young minds of the next generation by using his history book in your schools seems to be a big difference.

    So by your logic, the descendants of the Tejano Mexicans who left Texas in the 1840s have a claim to take Texas back and establish their own country of Tejas, ....
     
    From comment #198 I wrote, "Of course like other displaced populations throughout history, claims like that mean nothing if you don’t have the power to enforce them."

    So yes, those Tejano Mexicans have a claim to Texas. Indigenous Indian tribes have a claim to Texas. The Spanish have a claim to Texas. The Spanish have a claim to Mexico too. But all of that means nothing if they do not have the power to enforce that claim.

    I suppose there is always the chance that the party in possession of the disputed property might die off unexpectedly or commit cultural suicide. In that case the aggrieved party might be able to enforce their claim without the need for force. Maybe in a hundred years or so the Mexicans will have staked their claim on Texas in this manner.

    Of course if our nation wasn't to the point where we were allowing the Howard Zinns of the world to write our children's history books, we probably wouldn't have to worry about that scenario.
  243. Jack D says:
    @Truth
    One would assume it was much earlier than that. They did not, however make a priority out of recording their doings in perpetuity.

    Even if they did not write it down (hard to do since they had no written language) there would be archeological evidence. It’s fairly well accepted (except by you, maybe) that S. Africa was largely populated (to the extent it was populated at all) by the hunter gatherer Khoi- San people (formerly known as Bushmen) and that the Bantu are fairly recent arrivals from the North, arriving starting around 300-500 AD . Of course that’s about the same length of time many European peoples have been in their own countries. But the whole idea of “indigenous people” has been oversold. Most places have been occupied by different groups at different times so if you try to base a claim on who was there “first” there was usually someone there before you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    If you take it to the bottom of the rabbit hole, there are no indigenous people. the earth predates humanity by billions of years.
    , @Anonymous
    Sure, it's oversold, but it does have some meaning. And its meaning is abused when some people try to suggest that Jews who have been living in Europe and the Mideast for thousands of years and have genetic ties to the other people in the area, are somehow not indigenous while the Boers are.
  244. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Truth
    One would assume it was much earlier than that. They did not, however make a priority out of recording their doings in perpetuity.

    Why would one assume that? Southern Africa was kind of the sticks, relatively speaking. Civilization, and commerce were more toward the northeast. In any case, those estimates were based on archeological evidence rather than any recorded history by the Bantus.

    Read More
  245. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Jack D
    Actually during the '50s, the standard of living in Germany was significantly lower than in the UK. Germany doesn't pass the UK in per capita GDP until the late '60s:

    http://www.edmundconway.com/2015/02/the-uk-germany-and-france-gdp-over-history/

    That the Germans caught up was a tribute to their hard work and ingenuity and ability to make high quality, export grade products such as automobiles, which was aided by non-adversarial labor relations. In the same period, UK auto workers were going out on strike frequently and doing their best to sabotage production or at least work as little as possible. A lot of this had to do with the British class system.

    That’s surprising, considering the British were rationing food up until 1954: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    From the wiki

    "[W]ith .... a centrally-planned economy under the post-war Labour government, resources were not available to expand food production and food imports."

    If you put socialists in charge of Alaska, soon there would a shortage of snow.

    I don't know the details, but my recollection is that they had price controls as well, so rationing was necessary in order to balance supply and demand. If they had let food prices float to the market level they would not have needed rationing but that would have favored "the rich" who could have afforded the higher prices - this way everyone got the same amount of meat, etc.
  246. Truth says:
    @Jack D
    Even if they did not write it down (hard to do since they had no written language) there would be archeological evidence. It's fairly well accepted (except by you, maybe) that S. Africa was largely populated (to the extent it was populated at all) by the hunter gatherer Khoi- San people (formerly known as Bushmen) and that the Bantu are fairly recent arrivals from the North, arriving starting around 300-500 AD . Of course that's about the same length of time many European peoples have been in their own countries. But the whole idea of "indigenous people" has been oversold. Most places have been occupied by different groups at different times so if you try to base a claim on who was there "first" there was usually someone there before you.

    If you take it to the bottom of the rabbit hole, there are no indigenous people. the earth predates humanity by billions of years.

    Read More
  247. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    That's surprising, considering the British were rationing food up until 1954: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom

    From the wiki

    “[W]ith …. a centrally-planned economy under the post-war Labour government, resources were not available to expand food production and food imports.”

    If you put socialists in charge of Alaska, soon there would a shortage of snow.

    I don’t know the details, but my recollection is that they had price controls as well, so rationing was necessary in order to balance supply and demand. If they had let food prices float to the market level they would not have needed rationing but that would have favored “the rich” who could have afforded the higher prices – this way everyone got the same amount of meat, etc.

    Read More
  248. David says:
    @OilcanFloyd
    "Mark Twain visited Palestine and wasn’t impressed, as you can read in “Innocents Abroad.”

    Ottoman imperial administrators tended to be notoriously sedentary."

    I don't claim that pre-47 Palestine was completely modern, but it wasn't the desert backwater that Zionists claim it was. Even if it were, it doesn't tie me to Israel or a Jewish elite in America that obviously defines itself as the enemy of traditional America.

    Here's a Palestinian view of Twain's visit: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Articles/Story845.html

    In Touring in 1600, E.S. Bates describes Jerusalem about 1612:

    Of Jerusalem as a town they say that the walls
    were the best part of the building; that there were
    three Christians living there to every Turk; that
    the Christians dwelled there for devotion and the
    Turks for the income derived from the Christians,
    and that otherwise it would have been wholly
    deserted.

    Bates says that from about 1580 to late 1600′s travel in the middle east became progressively more dangerious as local political organization crumbled. He cites many witnesses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "Bates says that from about 1580 to late 1600′s travel in the middle east became progressively more dangerious as local political organization crumbled. He cites many witnesses."

    Being at a crossroads of civilizations has always been a problem for Palestine and its inhabitants, and that's still the case. Is that a reason to discount or oppose the Palestinian people?
  249. Sunbeam says:
    @Jack D
    A couple of points here:

    1. If you read George Washington's letter to the Jewish community of Newport, RI, you will see that he understood the issue better than most of you. Noblesse oblige implies someone higher having pity on someone lower. Washington understood that in the US, Christians would not "tolerate" Jews, rather Christian and Jews would stand on an equal footing. It was not the case that it was the Christians' country and Jews were just living in it. I understand how (even though they don't practice it anymore) someone could say "France is for the French" but America is for the Americans is nonsense because we are all (except for Indians) recent arrivals and white Christians are no more American than anyone else. Or at least that's what it says in the 14th Amendment.

    2. Sailer may not be an anti-Semite, but he sure brings them out of the woodwork. I thought that anti-Semitism in the US was pretty much dead (except for anti-Israel types on the left) but it has just been hidden because it is so disreputable (and ask the kids in Oklahoma what happens nowadays when you publicly proclaim your racism). But here on the internet under the veil of anonymity people tell us how they REALLY feel. For me, it has been eye opening and confirmed to me that the current approach of making pariahs out of anti-Semites is the right one. I really don't want what some of you guys are saying to be publicly respectable again. Whether or not this would lead to another Holocaust in America (probably not), it's just nasty. Jesus or Washington would not say half the stuff that some of you say, not even in private.

    “I understand how (even though they don’t practice it anymore) someone could say “France is for the French” but America is for the Americans is nonsense because we are all (except for Indians) recent arrivals and white Christians are no more American than anyone else. Or at least that’s what it says in the 14th Amendment.”

    I’ve never really gotten a couple things about you and a few more of what I’ll just call Dissenting Posters on this site are driving at. I mean a drive-by is one thing, but you come back repeatedly.

    Nothing at all wrong with that, but who exactly is your audience? Surely you must know that you aren’t convincing anyone that posts here of a single thing, one way or another. Well you could I’m sure, but you and the others never seem to do anything but recycle arguments that were already old when the kids were passing a joint around at the protest in the 60′s.

    I guess you posting for people who are just reading this site, maybe to try to influence their opinions. I don’t know.

    Okay that said I think your argument is totally wrong. Okay the founders of this country were influenced by Enlightenment idealism. Well sort