The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Israeli Eugenics
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From Haaretz:

The Abortion Conundrum: How Far Israelis Go to Make Sure Their Babies Are Born Perfect

What do parents do if they discover the baby could be born deaf? Or sterile? Or suffer from a disease? Israelis choose to terminate such pregnancies much more frequently than in other Western countries

By Shany Littman Jun 13, 2019

 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
120 Comments to "Israeli Eugenics"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Wait – isn’t that eugenics?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Strictly it would be eugenics only if the cause of the problem were genetic. But in hand-waving terms, yes it could easily be referred to as eugenics.

    Why gentiles don't do it more often puzzles me. Before the era of births in hospitals there was plenty of infanticide of defective newborns, at least in rural areas. In other words, our Christian forebears did it. So did their pagan forebears.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Wait – isn’t that eugenics?
     
    Cloning is you-genics.
    , @George
    There is a difference between individual patients making decisions with consultation with their doctor and a government policy. It is also possible that what you are seeing is a difference between data collection techniques in different countries.
    , @NOTA
    It's not just eugenics, it's actually killing off the unfit rather than humanely sterilizing them. Nazi style eugenics rather than Sweden style eugenics.
  2. • Replies: @Escher
    Is she Jewish? Certainly a very eugenic product.
    , @Thulean Friend
    His girlfriend is not jewish. She is norwegian. Here's the Netanyahu family:

    https://i.imgur.com/afHyHAR.jpg

    And here's the average IDF unit:

    https://i.imgur.com/RHdpq1X.jpg

    It's hilarious to me that all these arabs have been brainwashed to think that they are not just like the palestinians. They share much more genetically with an arab muslim than they do with any of Yahoo's sons.
    , @bored identity
    Another proof that Yentlemen Prefer Blondes, but always keep Samsonite Option under the table.
  3. We are approaching Children of Men time. Israel is not in a good location when it comes to water – drinkable water – volcanoes purify water.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    See the last part, starting at the bottom of the second image.

    https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1135177575893016578?s=21
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Rest assured the good taxpayers of the United States will pay for all the desalination plants their "greatest ally in the world" might ever need.

    We'll get right on it after we wreck Iran for them.

    (After all, it could "only" have been the Iranians who put mines on a Japanese ship while the Japanese prime minister was on a peace mission to Iran. We even have the laughable video to prove it now. Those simply must be Iranians removing the unexploded mine before anyone can examine it and determine its true origin.)

  4. mean while Trump 2020:

    Kate Bush – Cloudbusting – Official Music Video

  5. The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.

    One of the interesting books available for reading here in the Unz Review, featured recently, is called Into the Darkness. The American author, Lothrop Stoddard, describes his visit to Germany during the early part of WWII. One chapter is titled “In a Eugenics Court” and provides a glimpse of the efforts being made to improve the race.

    A selection:

    As is well known, the Nazi viewpoint on race and the resultant policies are set forth by Adolf Hitler himself in the pages of Mein Kampf, the Bible of National Socialism. The future Fuehrer therein wrote: “It will be the duty of the People’s State to consider the race as the basis of the community’s existence. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a nation can have. It must make sure that only those who are healthy shall beget children and that there is only one infamy: namely, for parents who are ill or show other defects to bring children into the world. But on the other hand it must be branded as reprehensible to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation…”

    Doesn’t that seem a wee bit familiar now?

    Stoddard goes on to describe the proceedings he witnessed inside said eugenics court, where judges decided if potential parents who had serious health problems or other issues should be allowed to have children or be sterilized.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    They've gone Full Nazi for years! But Wasps and Wacs have been too polite to call them out on it.
    , @Anonymous

    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.
     
    One thing Steve should have mentioned in his post: Doesn't the Israeli State pay for all these eugenics analysis and abortions?
    , @nebulafox
    These kinds of proposals were extremely common stuff back all over late-bourgeois age Europe, whose product and destroyer Adolf Hitler was. Winston Churchill wrote a lot of very eugenics friendly things around the turn of the century. He supported mass sterilization, he openly worried about dysgenic trends, and casually talking about different "breeds" of men and how to improve England's stock. He was not in any way, shape or form an outlier at the turn of the century among the educated classes. If anything, it was the most common among progressive intellectuals.

    The irony was that Hitler was an *extremely* poor eugenicist, when all was said and done. Late 19th and early 20th century Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down. Not for nothing did "Nietzschean eugenics" advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers to get the best of both worlds.

    Instead, the Nazis decided to focus on making a race of peasant-soldiers in thrall to the LCD cultural standard and backwards nonsense when they weren't busy slaughtering Russian peasants in a permanent war and maintaining their farms in the Urals... but hey, pure stock.

    , @Prester John
    You noticed eh? Shame on you.
    , @Colin Wright
    'The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.'

    ? I think modern Israel is already a much more complete fulfillment of 'ol Adolph's dream than poor old Germany ever was.
  6. This is not news in Asia, where there’s no legacy of the Third Reich to make the idea of eugenics not suitable for civilized people to ponder. Polls routinely show that most parents there see not just nothing wrong in aborting a visibly defective child, but see it as arguably the right thing to do. It’s not even close.

    That legacy is fading fast in the West as older generations do. The public morality police can try all they will, but it is just not going to be viewed with the same reflexive horror anymore. I am already willing to bet that a healthy majority (discounting the ones who embrace SJWism to score) of under 40 male areligious STEM types in major tech centers would be theoretically open to the idea of softcore eugenics, though they certainly wouldn’t want that to become known to the HR ladies!

    As for the Israelis, they are already wayyyyy ahead of the curb on popular acceptance and institutionalization of a number of “alt-lite” beliefs, so maybe this shouldn’t be too shocking.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    The UK routinely aborts children with cleft palates, a condition which can be remedied with a not very difficult operation.

    Downs children are nearly all aborted, unless the parents (as we did) refuse the offer of a test and choose to spin the chambers. Downs kids (and adults) are pretty sweet-natured, but there's the worry as to what'll become of them when you're not around - they live longer these days.
    , @Desiderius
    As I can attest first-hand, the donor egg process involves several steps which happen to be highly eugenic. The trend toward delayed childbearing inevitably leads to higher incidence of donor eggs...
    , @Abelard Lindsey

    This is not news in Asia, where there’s no legacy of the Third Reich to make the idea of eugenics not suitable for civilized people to ponder. Polls routinely show that most parents there see not just nothing wrong in aborting a visibly defective child, but see it as arguably the right thing to do. It’s not even close.
     
    There is a large current school of thought that the U.S. is a waning empire and that China is the ascendant power to come. Accepting this as true, such implies that Western norms about these matter will decline as well and Asian norms become the de-facto international standard with regards to these matters.
    , @Anonymousse
    “public morality police” is the kind of phrase only invoked when we want to dismissively suggest some particular moral standard (in this case - not killing disabled humans in utero) is not a legitimate concern of sophisticated, worldly people like ourselves.

    Since social status is pretty much the highest possible virtue, this is a great way of dismissing inconvenient moral objections without engaging with them. In this case we can even join those reliable bien pensants in Tel Aviv and literally dismiss inconvenient *human beings*.

    Even so...

    One rarely hears about those square “public morality police” who oppose things like raping joggers or home invasions, although this is equally a matter of policing public morality and there are certainly any number of people named D’shawn who also find this a fuddy duddy hang up.

  7. @Lagertha
    We are approaching Children of Men time. Israel is not in a good location when it comes to water - drinkable water - volcanoes purify water.

    See the last part, starting at the bottom of the second image.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I can't really see what you want me to see? I am older than you ;D
  8. @Lagertha
    We are approaching Children of Men time. Israel is not in a good location when it comes to water - drinkable water - volcanoes purify water.

    Rest assured the good taxpayers of the United States will pay for all the desalination plants their “greatest ally in the world” might ever need.

    We’ll get right on it after we wreck Iran for them.

    (After all, it could “only” have been the Iranians who put mines on a Japanese ship while the Japanese prime minister was on a peace mission to Iran. We even have the laughable video to prove it now. Those simply must be Iranians removing the unexploded mine before anyone can examine it and determine its true origin.)

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    hahaaa! agree. Someone must have videod the bombs placed on the hulls - that is some really serious, precision shit, as the entire hull is "surface." I am gambiling on youth dissidents who want to burn the whole fucking world down, hahahahaaaa! Millennials will revolt.............it is just a matter of time. They will not be tax-slaves for the world's indolent and stupid.
    , @Lagertha
    but, what is the real point? I am so sick and tired of Iran, btw.
    , @Lagertha
    you are alone...and, in the end: you are alone. And, in the end, Iran was nopt JAWS, hahaaaa
    , @Thea
    We’ve already been selling much needed water to the Saudis for a decade our more while our southwest dehydrates.

    A while back NPR did a report on it as though it were a great business venture. Not once asking ‘how could this affect Americans ‘

    , @Mr. Anon
    The mined (or whatever) tankers are reminiscent of Syria's purported gas attacks. The US Government warns Syria it better not use poison gas, then the Syrian government ostensibly does just that, and in a completely ineffectual way, and despite the fact that they were winning anyway.

    Now a Japanese tanker is mined just as Japan was making diplomatic overtures to Iran. Must be the Iranians. Who else could it have been? Those Persians are so crazy - you never know what they might do - they're just insane.

    By the way, aren't mines usually placed below the waterline?
  9. @Buzz Mohawk
    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.

    One of the interesting books available for reading here in the Unz Review, featured recently, is called Into the Darkness. The American author, Lothrop Stoddard, describes his visit to Germany during the early part of WWII. One chapter is titled "In a Eugenics Court" and provides a glimpse of the efforts being made to improve the race.

    A selection:


    As is well known, the Nazi viewpoint on race and the resultant policies are set forth by Adolf Hitler himself in the pages of Mein Kampf, the Bible of National Socialism. The future Fuehrer therein wrote: “It will be the duty of the People’s State to consider the race as the basis of the community’s existence. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a nation can have. It must make sure that only those who are healthy shall beget children and that there is only one infamy: namely, for parents who are ill or show other defects to bring children into the world. But on the other hand it must be branded as reprehensible to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation..."
     
    Doesn't that seem a wee bit familiar now?

    Stoddard goes on to describe the proceedings he witnessed inside said eugenics court, where judges decided if potential parents who had serious health problems or other issues should be allowed to have children or be sterilized.

    They’ve gone Full Nazi for years! But Wasps and Wacs have been too polite to call them out on it.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    oh, duh, I get it now...that is what Pinsen and you have "sent" to me - I am so slow these days.
    , @Hail

    Wasps and Wacs
     
    Why not just say "Whites," for short?

    Alternatively, and rather euphemistically, "Christians"?

    Or, long form: "European-Christian-origin full-Whites." (see comment-41 in a June 2019 iSteve thread about NYC, and a reply on nomenclature at comment-75).

  10. @Buzz Mohawk
    Rest assured the good taxpayers of the United States will pay for all the desalination plants their "greatest ally in the world" might ever need.

    We'll get right on it after we wreck Iran for them.

    (After all, it could "only" have been the Iranians who put mines on a Japanese ship while the Japanese prime minister was on a peace mission to Iran. We even have the laughable video to prove it now. Those simply must be Iranians removing the unexploded mine before anyone can examine it and determine its true origin.)

    hahaaa! agree. Someone must have videod the bombs placed on the hulls – that is some really serious, precision shit, as the entire hull is “surface.” I am gambiling on youth dissidents who want to burn the whole fucking world down, hahahahaaaa! Millennials will revolt………….it is just a matter of time. They will not be tax-slaves for the world’s indolent and stupid.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    BTW, bombs on ships hulls are so Junior Varsity - will use Obama's term on this, because it is apt.

    Just....I do not think a fucking war is the right idea (fuck the right time) right now....Jesus! I am so sick of warmongers.

  11. @Dave Pinsen
    See the last part, starting at the bottom of the second image.

    https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1135177575893016578?s=21

    I can’t really see what you want me to see? I am older than you ;D

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The part where weitzmann explains that the settlemntt of arabs results in desertisation and the settlement of jews results in fertile land (ie its only desert with no drinking water because of the primitiveness of the arabs).
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Here's the key part:

    I expressed some surprise about how Weizmann hoped to settle 5 million Jews on territory occupied by 1 million Arabs. "Oh, don't worry," Weizmann burst out laughing. "The Arab is often called the son of the desert. It would be truer to call him the father of the desert. His laziness and primitivism turn a flourishing garden into a desert. Give me the land occupied by a million Arabs, and I will easily settle five times that number of Jews on it."
     
  12. @Buzz Mohawk
    Rest assured the good taxpayers of the United States will pay for all the desalination plants their "greatest ally in the world" might ever need.

    We'll get right on it after we wreck Iran for them.

    (After all, it could "only" have been the Iranians who put mines on a Japanese ship while the Japanese prime minister was on a peace mission to Iran. We even have the laughable video to prove it now. Those simply must be Iranians removing the unexploded mine before anyone can examine it and determine its true origin.)

    but, what is the real point? I am so sick and tired of Iran, btw.

  13. Are not American Jews obsessed with abortion? Abortion is an unyielding issue with most Jews. Very strange. Many, many, many pro-abortion gentiles have moral qualms with abortion, though they support abortion nonetheless. I have never personally met a Jew who opposed abortion or even had any qualms about the procedure. Strange.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    it seems most people want poor minorities and poor whites to have abortions. Which is still the case as far as the demographic having abortions. Rich whites, or blacks and browns, do not have publicly paid abortions - fact. If you have never had abortions, stfu. I am so deep right now, that you need skills to drill my thoughts.
    , @Dr. X
    You can't be the Chosen People if you don't abort all your genetic defectives...
    , @njguy73
    Go to Crown Heights, Williamsburg, or Kiryas Joel. You'll meet plenty of anti-abortion Jews.
    , @stillCARealist
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyse_Hogue

    Here's your president of NARAL. She killed her first child and now will spend the rest of her life trying not to look into the pit of Hell.

    Seriously. Read the short entry for her; it's terrifying.
  14. @Lagertha
    They've gone Full Nazi for years! But Wasps and Wacs have been too polite to call them out on it.

    oh, duh, I get it now…that is what Pinsen and you have “sent” to me – I am so slow these days.

  15. @Lagertha
    hahaaa! agree. Someone must have videod the bombs placed on the hulls - that is some really serious, precision shit, as the entire hull is "surface." I am gambiling on youth dissidents who want to burn the whole fucking world down, hahahahaaaa! Millennials will revolt.............it is just a matter of time. They will not be tax-slaves for the world's indolent and stupid.

    BTW, bombs on ships hulls are so Junior Varsity – will use Obama’s term on this, because it is apt.

    Just….I do not think a fucking war is the right idea (fuck the right time) right now….Jesus! I am so sick of warmongers.

  16. Ok, it is time for me to go to sleep – I am cursing more and more -and hating humans – so, my time to say got natt.

    Be good. Hold the people you love close. Forgive those who you know you must forgive. Make a way to to break the barrier of Time which is so fleeting ;D Be a good boy or girl.

  17. Anonymous[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.

    One of the interesting books available for reading here in the Unz Review, featured recently, is called Into the Darkness. The American author, Lothrop Stoddard, describes his visit to Germany during the early part of WWII. One chapter is titled "In a Eugenics Court" and provides a glimpse of the efforts being made to improve the race.

    A selection:


    As is well known, the Nazi viewpoint on race and the resultant policies are set forth by Adolf Hitler himself in the pages of Mein Kampf, the Bible of National Socialism. The future Fuehrer therein wrote: “It will be the duty of the People’s State to consider the race as the basis of the community’s existence. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a nation can have. It must make sure that only those who are healthy shall beget children and that there is only one infamy: namely, for parents who are ill or show other defects to bring children into the world. But on the other hand it must be branded as reprehensible to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation..."
     
    Doesn't that seem a wee bit familiar now?

    Stoddard goes on to describe the proceedings he witnessed inside said eugenics court, where judges decided if potential parents who had serious health problems or other issues should be allowed to have children or be sterilized.

    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.

    One thing Steve should have mentioned in his post: Doesn’t the Israeli State pay for all these eugenics analysis and abortions?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    that seems to be obvious.
    , @Lagertha
    let's not blackmail our dear one?
  18. I don’t know how this relates to Israelis that consider abortions, but, eh, whatever. It is about life and death and…doing your job – if you are a blue collar worker.

  19. @Daniel H
    Are not American Jews obsessed with abortion? Abortion is an unyielding issue with most Jews. Very strange. Many, many, many pro-abortion gentiles have moral qualms with abortion, though they support abortion nonetheless. I have never personally met a Jew who opposed abortion or even had any qualms about the procedure. Strange.

    it seems most people want poor minorities and poor whites to have abortions. Which is still the case as far as the demographic having abortions. Rich whites, or blacks and browns, do not have publicly paid abortions – fact. If you have never had abortions, stfu. I am so deep right now, that you need skills to drill my thoughts.

  20. When my children were born, in the 1990’s, an amniocentesis would typically be performed at about the 16th week on women who were 35 years of age or older. An amniocentesis is a medical procedure that takes a small amount of amniotic fluid from the uterus using a needle; the analysis reveals a variety of genetic issues with a high degree of accuracy.

    The reason that age 35 was the cutoff is that there was about a 1 in 100 chance that test would reveal a defect that might cause the parents to seek an abortion, which balanced the 1 in 100 chance that the procedure itself would cause a miscarriage.

    Before we had children, my wife and I would have sought an abortion for her if a serious enough defect was found. My perspective is that life is hard enough when you have no serious physical or cognitive problems. Now that I have children, I’m not sure if I could make that difficult choice.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    don't be a coward, now, when you don't have those decisions anymore. The issues that are brought to our attention, nationwide, are not frivolous.
    , @jon

    Now that I have children, I’m not sure if I could make that difficult choice.
     
    It really does change everything related to your thinking on abortion. One of my kids was premature. No serious health issues, but it certainly effects how I think about late-term abortions.
    , @Bill P
    Yes, once you've had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:

    You don't love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    Furthermore, after you've felt the love of a child, the idea of killing one in the womb is repulsive.

    As for Jews killing their own children, it's very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so. I guess a lot has changed over the years.
  21. @Anonymous

    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.
     
    One thing Steve should have mentioned in his post: Doesn't the Israeli State pay for all these eugenics analysis and abortions?

    that seems to be obvious.

  22. you are alone…and, in the end: you are alone.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    you are alone…and, in the end: you are alone.
     
    What point are you making?
  23. @Buzz Mohawk
    Rest assured the good taxpayers of the United States will pay for all the desalination plants their "greatest ally in the world" might ever need.

    We'll get right on it after we wreck Iran for them.

    (After all, it could "only" have been the Iranians who put mines on a Japanese ship while the Japanese prime minister was on a peace mission to Iran. We even have the laughable video to prove it now. Those simply must be Iranians removing the unexploded mine before anyone can examine it and determine its true origin.)

    you are alone…and, in the end: you are alone. And, in the end, Iran was nopt JAWS, hahaaaa

  24. So common sense is considered a bad thing?

  25. @Anon7
    When my children were born, in the 1990's, an amniocentesis would typically be performed at about the 16th week on women who were 35 years of age or older. An amniocentesis is a medical procedure that takes a small amount of amniotic fluid from the uterus using a needle; the analysis reveals a variety of genetic issues with a high degree of accuracy.

    The reason that age 35 was the cutoff is that there was about a 1 in 100 chance that test would reveal a defect that might cause the parents to seek an abortion, which balanced the 1 in 100 chance that the procedure itself would cause a miscarriage.

    Before we had children, my wife and I would have sought an abortion for her if a serious enough defect was found. My perspective is that life is hard enough when you have no serious physical or cognitive problems. Now that I have children, I'm not sure if I could make that difficult choice.

    don’t be a coward, now, when you don’t have those decisions anymore. The issues that are brought to our attention, nationwide, are not frivolous.

  26. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Orthodox Jews are opposed to abortion in general but my accept it if the fetus is deformed or nonviable, I’m not sure. Reform and liberal minded Jews think it’s perfectly okay.

    I look at it under the Golden Rule, how would you like to be treated. I wouldn’t want to be a Down’s kid or a flipper baby or something so deformed a normal life would be impossible. I’d rather just never be.

    • Replies: @Elli
    And yet Downs' kids and flipper babies seldom choose the final solution , even when grown.
    , @MBlanc46
    Tell us that after you’re born.
  27. @Anonymous

    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.
     
    One thing Steve should have mentioned in his post: Doesn't the Israeli State pay for all these eugenics analysis and abortions?

    let’s not blackmail our dear one?

  28. @Buzz Mohawk
    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.

    One of the interesting books available for reading here in the Unz Review, featured recently, is called Into the Darkness. The American author, Lothrop Stoddard, describes his visit to Germany during the early part of WWII. One chapter is titled "In a Eugenics Court" and provides a glimpse of the efforts being made to improve the race.

    A selection:


    As is well known, the Nazi viewpoint on race and the resultant policies are set forth by Adolf Hitler himself in the pages of Mein Kampf, the Bible of National Socialism. The future Fuehrer therein wrote: “It will be the duty of the People’s State to consider the race as the basis of the community’s existence. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a nation can have. It must make sure that only those who are healthy shall beget children and that there is only one infamy: namely, for parents who are ill or show other defects to bring children into the world. But on the other hand it must be branded as reprehensible to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation..."
     
    Doesn't that seem a wee bit familiar now?

    Stoddard goes on to describe the proceedings he witnessed inside said eugenics court, where judges decided if potential parents who had serious health problems or other issues should be allowed to have children or be sterilized.

    These kinds of proposals were extremely common stuff back all over late-bourgeois age Europe, whose product and destroyer Adolf Hitler was. Winston Churchill wrote a lot of very eugenics friendly things around the turn of the century. He supported mass sterilization, he openly worried about dysgenic trends, and casually talking about different “breeds” of men and how to improve England’s stock. He was not in any way, shape or form an outlier at the turn of the century among the educated classes. If anything, it was the most common among progressive intellectuals.

    The irony was that Hitler was an *extremely* poor eugenicist, when all was said and done. Late 19th and early 20th century Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down. Not for nothing did “Nietzschean eugenics” advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers to get the best of both worlds.

    Instead, the Nazis decided to focus on making a race of peasant-soldiers in thrall to the LCD cultural standard and backwards nonsense when they weren’t busy slaughtering Russian peasants in a permanent war and maintaining their farms in the Urals… but hey, pure stock.

    • Agree: Lot, ic1000
    • Replies: @Lot
    “Not for nothing did “Nietzschean eugenics” advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers”

    Middle class Prussians and German Jews make a fine combination too!
    , @Anonymous

    Not for nothing did “Nietzschean eugenics” advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers
     
    Citation needed.
    , @Hail

    Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down
     
    Whatever that is exactly intended to mean, and I would not dispute the high IQ of the Jews of Europe, it is not the same as saying the Jews were an unmitigated boon to anywhere that hosted them.

    The classic problem with Jewish-European relations was that the latter were the hosts, did the work (e.g., farming) that kept the society/state running, while the former (the Jews) tended to be a tightly disciplined, ethnocentric, elite group that looked down on the supermajority (European Christians). This was not a recipe for smooth relations.

    The strong cultural tendency to take advantage of the average out-group member is something that would be expected in the Middle East, but was/is not expected among most Europeans, certainly not in the NW European core. (This cultural tendency to take advantage of the average man, writ large, becomes taking control of the state itself; a seriously negative thing for European Man's interests.) Anyway, all a way to say that core-Europeans and Jews really do not mix well.

    The solution, as certain commenters here often pithily remark, is -- "separate nations."

  29. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lagertha
    I can't really see what you want me to see? I am older than you ;D

    The part where weitzmann explains that the settlemntt of arabs results in desertisation and the settlement of jews results in fertile land (ie its only desert with no drinking water because of the primitiveness of the arabs).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The part where weitzmann claims

    Fixed that for you.
    , @Lagertha
    duh, When I moved to this cuntry in 1969, it was a very, quickly, noted while a child, that white-skinned kids (kinda' a diverse group) were different (Brooklyn). My family lived there just 3 years, and, it is still, the strangest time of my life. I really do detest the early Spies that made right wingers confused.
  30. @Anon7
    When my children were born, in the 1990's, an amniocentesis would typically be performed at about the 16th week on women who were 35 years of age or older. An amniocentesis is a medical procedure that takes a small amount of amniotic fluid from the uterus using a needle; the analysis reveals a variety of genetic issues with a high degree of accuracy.

    The reason that age 35 was the cutoff is that there was about a 1 in 100 chance that test would reveal a defect that might cause the parents to seek an abortion, which balanced the 1 in 100 chance that the procedure itself would cause a miscarriage.

    Before we had children, my wife and I would have sought an abortion for her if a serious enough defect was found. My perspective is that life is hard enough when you have no serious physical or cognitive problems. Now that I have children, I'm not sure if I could make that difficult choice.

    Now that I have children, I’m not sure if I could make that difficult choice.

    It really does change everything related to your thinking on abortion. One of my kids was premature. No serious health issues, but it certainly effects how I think about late-term abortions.

    • Replies: @simple_pseudonymic_handle
    A friend of mine had a difficult pregnancy in her late 30's and the child was born so early that only 100 000's of dollars of extreme medical supervision could enable him to survive.

    18 years later he is an athlete and a scholar and the idea of taking an easier path back when things were extremely difficult for her is a complete horror.

    He must be 6' 3" and the last time I saw him he was like a living breathing trophy kid.

  31. @Lagertha
    I can't really see what you want me to see? I am older than you ;D

    Here’s the key part:

    I expressed some surprise about how Weizmann hoped to settle 5 million Jews on territory occupied by 1 million Arabs. “Oh, don’t worry,” Weizmann burst out laughing. “The Arab is often called the son of the desert. It would be truer to call him the father of the desert. His laziness and primitivism turn a flourishing garden into a desert. Give me the land occupied by a million Arabs, and I will easily settle five times that number of Jews on it.”

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    "I will easily settle five times that number of Jews on it."
     
    Until, in a few decades, the foreign colonialists use up the aquifers that autochthonous Arab methods of farming had preserved for millennia. It is no accident that water levels in the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea began falling when Jewish invaders arrived and have now reached historically low levels.
    , @Lagertha
    so erguuughhhhh.
  32. @Anon7
    When my children were born, in the 1990's, an amniocentesis would typically be performed at about the 16th week on women who were 35 years of age or older. An amniocentesis is a medical procedure that takes a small amount of amniotic fluid from the uterus using a needle; the analysis reveals a variety of genetic issues with a high degree of accuracy.

    The reason that age 35 was the cutoff is that there was about a 1 in 100 chance that test would reveal a defect that might cause the parents to seek an abortion, which balanced the 1 in 100 chance that the procedure itself would cause a miscarriage.

    Before we had children, my wife and I would have sought an abortion for her if a serious enough defect was found. My perspective is that life is hard enough when you have no serious physical or cognitive problems. Now that I have children, I'm not sure if I could make that difficult choice.

    Yes, once you’ve had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:

    You don’t love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    Furthermore, after you’ve felt the love of a child, the idea of killing one in the womb is repulsive.

    As for Jews killing their own children, it’s very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so. I guess a lot has changed over the years.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “As for Jews killing their own children, it’s very sad”

    Abortion is sad. The US white birthrate is sadder. More children with Down’s or Tay Sachs or birth defects will make the issue worse.
    , @Anonymous

    it’s very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so.
     
    No they didn't.
    , @ThreeCranes

    "Yes, once you’ve had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:
    You don’t love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have."
     
    This is the most deluded BS I've read on the internet.

    Read the papers. Millions of kids are abused by their mothers and fathers, step dads and foster parents. Not all parents love their kids, by any stretch of the imagination. And many adults are not qualified to raise kids, especially today, when good-paying jobs are scarce. You're cluelessness makes you dangerous.

    , @ScarletNumber

    You don’t love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.
     
    While this may be true, this unconditional love doesn't pass down to their siblings, who will resent their retarded brethren. Also, generally speaking you will die before your children, so you have passed along a burden that they didn't ask for.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Period data broken down by birth cohort bear this out. When a cohort's average age is young, the women in that cohort tend to support abortion. As a cohort ages, support for abortion by women in that cohort declines dramatically. This pattern has persisted from Roe v. Wade to the present. It was first noticed by the demographer, Judith Blake Davis.
  33. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:

    Literally Hitler.

  34. @nebulafox
    These kinds of proposals were extremely common stuff back all over late-bourgeois age Europe, whose product and destroyer Adolf Hitler was. Winston Churchill wrote a lot of very eugenics friendly things around the turn of the century. He supported mass sterilization, he openly worried about dysgenic trends, and casually talking about different "breeds" of men and how to improve England's stock. He was not in any way, shape or form an outlier at the turn of the century among the educated classes. If anything, it was the most common among progressive intellectuals.

    The irony was that Hitler was an *extremely* poor eugenicist, when all was said and done. Late 19th and early 20th century Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down. Not for nothing did "Nietzschean eugenics" advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers to get the best of both worlds.

    Instead, the Nazis decided to focus on making a race of peasant-soldiers in thrall to the LCD cultural standard and backwards nonsense when they weren't busy slaughtering Russian peasants in a permanent war and maintaining their farms in the Urals... but hey, pure stock.

    “Not for nothing did “Nietzschean eugenics” advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers”

    Middle class Prussians and German Jews make a fine combination too!

  35. @Bill P
    Yes, once you've had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:

    You don't love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    Furthermore, after you've felt the love of a child, the idea of killing one in the womb is repulsive.

    As for Jews killing their own children, it's very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so. I guess a lot has changed over the years.

    “As for Jews killing their own children, it’s very sad”

    Abortion is sad. The US white birthrate is sadder. More children with Down’s or Tay Sachs or birth defects will make the issue worse.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
  36. surely the orthodox don’t do this? and won’t they come to predominate eventually.

  37. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    These kinds of proposals were extremely common stuff back all over late-bourgeois age Europe, whose product and destroyer Adolf Hitler was. Winston Churchill wrote a lot of very eugenics friendly things around the turn of the century. He supported mass sterilization, he openly worried about dysgenic trends, and casually talking about different "breeds" of men and how to improve England's stock. He was not in any way, shape or form an outlier at the turn of the century among the educated classes. If anything, it was the most common among progressive intellectuals.

    The irony was that Hitler was an *extremely* poor eugenicist, when all was said and done. Late 19th and early 20th century Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down. Not for nothing did "Nietzschean eugenics" advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers to get the best of both worlds.

    Instead, the Nazis decided to focus on making a race of peasant-soldiers in thrall to the LCD cultural standard and backwards nonsense when they weren't busy slaughtering Russian peasants in a permanent war and maintaining their farms in the Urals... but hey, pure stock.

    Not for nothing did “Nietzschean eugenics” advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers

    Citation needed.

    • Replies: @Flip
    Bismarck said that German stallions should be paired with Jewish mares.
  38. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The part where weitzmann explains that the settlemntt of arabs results in desertisation and the settlement of jews results in fertile land (ie its only desert with no drinking water because of the primitiveness of the arabs).

    The part where weitzmann claims

    Fixed that for you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yeah i wasnt saying i agreed with him.
  39. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P
    Yes, once you've had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:

    You don't love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    Furthermore, after you've felt the love of a child, the idea of killing one in the womb is repulsive.

    As for Jews killing their own children, it's very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so. I guess a lot has changed over the years.

    it’s very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so.

    No they didn’t.

    • Agree: Change that Matters
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Yeah, where did that come from? Jews as foundation-of-morals people? What a sick joke.
  40. @nebulafox
    This is not news in Asia, where there's no legacy of the Third Reich to make the idea of eugenics not suitable for civilized people to ponder. Polls routinely show that most parents there see not just nothing wrong in aborting a visibly defective child, but see it as arguably the right thing to do. It's not even close.

    That legacy is fading fast in the West as older generations do. The public morality police can try all they will, but it is just not going to be viewed with the same reflexive horror anymore. I am already willing to bet that a healthy majority (discounting the ones who embrace SJWism to score) of under 40 male areligious STEM types in major tech centers would be theoretically open to the idea of softcore eugenics, though they certainly wouldn't want that to become known to the HR ladies!

    As for the Israelis, they are already wayyyyy ahead of the curb on popular acceptance and institutionalization of a number of "alt-lite" beliefs, so maybe this shouldn't be too shocking.

    The UK routinely aborts children with cleft palates, a condition which can be remedied with a not very difficult operation.

    Downs children are nearly all aborted, unless the parents (as we did) refuse the offer of a test and choose to spin the chambers. Downs kids (and adults) are pretty sweet-natured, but there’s the worry as to what’ll become of them when you’re not around – they live longer these days.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    There are only about eleven a year in the UK, hardly genocide.
    , @asdafasf

    "there’s the worry as to what’ll become of them when you’re not around"
     
    https://www.camphill.org
  41. @Sextus Empiricus
    Wait - isn’t that eugenics?

    Strictly it would be eugenics only if the cause of the problem were genetic. But in hand-waving terms, yes it could easily be referred to as eugenics.

    Why gentiles don’t do it more often puzzles me. Before the era of births in hospitals there was plenty of infanticide of defective newborns, at least in rural areas. In other words, our Christian forebears did it. So did their pagan forebears.

    • Replies: @Elli
    I once read a quote from an ancient writer (Herodotus?) that the Jews alone did not expose their children.
  42. It is still very common in the Orthodox community in Lakewood NJ to see extremely disabled children. A not insignificant number of families can be seen pushing specialized strollers with older disabled children inside. There are also a large number of schools for disabled children. There are some financial shenanigans, but unquestionably they still appear to have children with congenital problems at a much higher rate.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    There are some financial shenanigans, but unquestionably they still appear to have children with congenital problems at a much higher rate.
     
    You could have stopped after the comma. The blacks have nothing on the Hasidim when it comes to welfare fraud.
  43. @YetAnotherAnon
    The UK routinely aborts children with cleft palates, a condition which can be remedied with a not very difficult operation.

    Downs children are nearly all aborted, unless the parents (as we did) refuse the offer of a test and choose to spin the chambers. Downs kids (and adults) are pretty sweet-natured, but there's the worry as to what'll become of them when you're not around - they live longer these days.

    There are only about eleven a year in the UK, hardly genocide.

  44. @Daniel H
    Are not American Jews obsessed with abortion? Abortion is an unyielding issue with most Jews. Very strange. Many, many, many pro-abortion gentiles have moral qualms with abortion, though they support abortion nonetheless. I have never personally met a Jew who opposed abortion or even had any qualms about the procedure. Strange.

    You can’t be the Chosen People if you don’t abort all your genetic defectives…

  45. @Bill P
    Yes, once you've had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:

    You don't love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    Furthermore, after you've felt the love of a child, the idea of killing one in the womb is repulsive.

    As for Jews killing their own children, it's very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so. I guess a lot has changed over the years.

    “Yes, once you’ve had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:
    You don’t love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.”

    This is the most deluded BS I’ve read on the internet.

    Read the papers. Millions of kids are abused by their mothers and fathers, step dads and foster parents. Not all parents love their kids, by any stretch of the imagination. And many adults are not qualified to raise kids, especially today, when good-paying jobs are scarce. You’re cluelessness makes you dangerous.

  46. @Anonymous

    it’s very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so.
     
    No they didn't.

    Yeah, where did that come from? Jews as foundation-of-morals people? What a sick joke.

    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Yeah, where did that come from? Jews as foundation-of-morals people? What a sick joke.
     
    Probably the most famous relevant incident involves G-d asking a father to kill his son, and the father agreeing. It's right there in the foundational documents.
  47. @Buzz Mohawk
    Rest assured the good taxpayers of the United States will pay for all the desalination plants their "greatest ally in the world" might ever need.

    We'll get right on it after we wreck Iran for them.

    (After all, it could "only" have been the Iranians who put mines on a Japanese ship while the Japanese prime minister was on a peace mission to Iran. We even have the laughable video to prove it now. Those simply must be Iranians removing the unexploded mine before anyone can examine it and determine its true origin.)

    We’ve already been selling much needed water to the Saudis for a decade our more while our southwest dehydrates.

    A while back NPR did a report on it as though it were a great business venture. Not once asking ‘how could this affect Americans ‘

  48. @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/yairnetanyahu/status/1136023185416175616?s=21

    Is she Jewish? Certainly a very eugenic product.

    • Replies: @Lot
    She’s Norwegian and they’ve been dating for five years.

    A prior girlfriend is this model, who is half Israeli and half Danish.

    http://www.pmamodels.co.il/women/lee-levi/
  49. @Lagertha
    They've gone Full Nazi for years! But Wasps and Wacs have been too polite to call them out on it.

    Wasps and Wacs

    Why not just say “Whites,” for short?

    Alternatively, and rather euphemistically, “Christians”?

    Or, long form: “European-Christian-origin full-Whites.” (see comment-41 in a June 2019 iSteve thread about NYC, and a reply on nomenclature at comment-75).

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    Wasps and Wacs
     
    Why not just say “Whites,” for short?

     

    https://epub.stripes.com/?issue=Women-Airforce-Service-Pilots&page=medium.jpg

    https://www.508pir.org/posters/images/join_wac.jpg
    , @Lot
    For virtually all Americans, AJs and SJs are considered white. The legal definition for the 150+ years where it was relevant to our federal naturalization law and state miscegenation law agreed.

    If you or Moses have a great reason to redefine the term, go for it. But seems more like antisemitic trolling to me (or in the case of leftist AJs who say they aren’t white, what Steve calls “flight from white).

    The naturalization cases described here are fairly interesting, and I think on balance they got things right. They asked: “who were commonly considered white to Americans in 1790 or 1875?”

    The hardest cases appeared to be pale south Asians, with most deciding “not white” while admitting it is a close call.

    https://raceandlaw.wordpress.com/cases-and-laws/
    , @Lagertha
    hahahaahaaaa. I am still struggling to be nice to all the wonderful Jewish people I have been friends with, since a child, for the last 50 years. But, I am aware of the machinations...I am an EU citizen as well as an American. I know the bs. It hurts me to think that some of the many Jewish friends I have had for 4 decades, hate people like me...Nordics.
  50. @Sextus Empiricus
    Wait - isn’t that eugenics?

    Wait – isn’t that eugenics?

    Cloning is you-genics.

  51. @Hail

    Wasps and Wacs
     
    Why not just say "Whites," for short?

    Alternatively, and rather euphemistically, "Christians"?

    Or, long form: "European-Christian-origin full-Whites." (see comment-41 in a June 2019 iSteve thread about NYC, and a reply on nomenclature at comment-75).

    Wasps and Wacs

    Why not just say “Whites,” for short?

    • Replies: @Hail

    Women's Army Corps
     
    That takes care of Wacs. As for Wasps, "Women's Army Service Pilots" is likely too obscure for Lagertha's purposes. Alternative suggestion:

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

    The name of eleven U.S. Navy vessels since 1775, the first of significance being "the captured Confederate Emma Henry, renamed Wasp in June 1865," and the most significant being two aircraft carriers of the mid-20th century, one lost to Japanese attack at Guadalcanal, the second launched months later and apparently named in the lost Wasp's honor:

    http://www.angelfire.com/planet/solomon0/WaspIntro3.jpg

    Alternate interpretation of Lagertha's comment: All those have who served aboard vessels named the U.S.S. Wasp, and all persons who were members of the Women's Army Corps from 1942 to 1945, are afraid to criticize Israel.
  52. @Buzz Mohawk
    Rest assured the good taxpayers of the United States will pay for all the desalination plants their "greatest ally in the world" might ever need.

    We'll get right on it after we wreck Iran for them.

    (After all, it could "only" have been the Iranians who put mines on a Japanese ship while the Japanese prime minister was on a peace mission to Iran. We even have the laughable video to prove it now. Those simply must be Iranians removing the unexploded mine before anyone can examine it and determine its true origin.)

    The mined (or whatever) tankers are reminiscent of Syria’s purported gas attacks. The US Government warns Syria it better not use poison gas, then the Syrian government ostensibly does just that, and in a completely ineffectual way, and despite the fact that they were winning anyway.

    Now a Japanese tanker is mined just as Japan was making diplomatic overtures to Iran. Must be the Iranians. Who else could it have been? Those Persians are so crazy – you never know what they might do – they’re just insane.

    By the way, aren’t mines usually placed below the waterline?

  53. @Buzz Mohawk
    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.

    One of the interesting books available for reading here in the Unz Review, featured recently, is called Into the Darkness. The American author, Lothrop Stoddard, describes his visit to Germany during the early part of WWII. One chapter is titled "In a Eugenics Court" and provides a glimpse of the efforts being made to improve the race.

    A selection:


    As is well known, the Nazi viewpoint on race and the resultant policies are set forth by Adolf Hitler himself in the pages of Mein Kampf, the Bible of National Socialism. The future Fuehrer therein wrote: “It will be the duty of the People’s State to consider the race as the basis of the community’s existence. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a nation can have. It must make sure that only those who are healthy shall beget children and that there is only one infamy: namely, for parents who are ill or show other defects to bring children into the world. But on the other hand it must be branded as reprehensible to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation..."
     
    Doesn't that seem a wee bit familiar now?

    Stoddard goes on to describe the proceedings he witnessed inside said eugenics court, where judges decided if potential parents who had serious health problems or other issues should be allowed to have children or be sterilized.

    You noticed eh? Shame on you.

  54. Hail says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar


    Wasps and Wacs
     
    Why not just say “Whites,” for short?

     

    https://epub.stripes.com/?issue=Women-Airforce-Service-Pilots&page=medium.jpg

    https://www.508pir.org/posters/images/join_wac.jpg

    Women’s Army Corps

    That takes care of Wacs. As for Wasps, “Women’s Army Service Pilots” is likely too obscure for Lagertha’s purposes. Alternative suggestion:

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

    The name of eleven U.S. Navy vessels since 1775, the first of significance being “the captured Confederate Emma Henry, renamed Wasp in June 1865,” and the most significant being two aircraft carriers of the mid-20th century, one lost to Japanese attack at Guadalcanal, the second launched months later and apparently named in the lost Wasp‘s honor:

    Alternate interpretation of Lagertha’s comment: All those have who served aboard vessels named the U.S.S. Wasp, and all persons who were members of the Women’s Army Corps from 1942 to 1945, are afraid to criticize Israel.

  55. @Sextus Empiricus
    Wait - isn’t that eugenics?

    There is a difference between individual patients making decisions with consultation with their doctor and a government policy. It is also possible that what you are seeing is a difference between data collection techniques in different countries.

  56. @Anonymous

    Not for nothing did “Nietzschean eugenics” advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers
     
    Citation needed.

    Bismarck said that German stallions should be paired with Jewish mares.

  57. @Buzz Mohawk
    The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.

    One of the interesting books available for reading here in the Unz Review, featured recently, is called Into the Darkness. The American author, Lothrop Stoddard, describes his visit to Germany during the early part of WWII. One chapter is titled "In a Eugenics Court" and provides a glimpse of the efforts being made to improve the race.

    A selection:


    As is well known, the Nazi viewpoint on race and the resultant policies are set forth by Adolf Hitler himself in the pages of Mein Kampf, the Bible of National Socialism. The future Fuehrer therein wrote: “It will be the duty of the People’s State to consider the race as the basis of the community’s existence. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a nation can have. It must make sure that only those who are healthy shall beget children and that there is only one infamy: namely, for parents who are ill or show other defects to bring children into the world. But on the other hand it must be branded as reprehensible to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation..."
     
    Doesn't that seem a wee bit familiar now?

    Stoddard goes on to describe the proceedings he witnessed inside said eugenics court, where judges decided if potential parents who had serious health problems or other issues should be allowed to have children or be sterilized.

    ‘The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.’

    ? I think modern Israel is already a much more complete fulfillment of ‘ol Adolph’s dream than poor old Germany ever was.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Nothing says lebensraum like being 15km wide at your narrowest point.
  58. @jon

    Now that I have children, I’m not sure if I could make that difficult choice.
     
    It really does change everything related to your thinking on abortion. One of my kids was premature. No serious health issues, but it certainly effects how I think about late-term abortions.

    A friend of mine had a difficult pregnancy in her late 30’s and the child was born so early that only 100 000’s of dollars of extreme medical supervision could enable him to survive.

    18 years later he is an athlete and a scholar and the idea of taking an easier path back when things were extremely difficult for her is a complete horror.

    He must be 6′ 3″ and the last time I saw him he was like a living breathing trophy kid.

  59. @nebulafox
    This is not news in Asia, where there's no legacy of the Third Reich to make the idea of eugenics not suitable for civilized people to ponder. Polls routinely show that most parents there see not just nothing wrong in aborting a visibly defective child, but see it as arguably the right thing to do. It's not even close.

    That legacy is fading fast in the West as older generations do. The public morality police can try all they will, but it is just not going to be viewed with the same reflexive horror anymore. I am already willing to bet that a healthy majority (discounting the ones who embrace SJWism to score) of under 40 male areligious STEM types in major tech centers would be theoretically open to the idea of softcore eugenics, though they certainly wouldn't want that to become known to the HR ladies!

    As for the Israelis, they are already wayyyyy ahead of the curb on popular acceptance and institutionalization of a number of "alt-lite" beliefs, so maybe this shouldn't be too shocking.

    As I can attest first-hand, the donor egg process involves several steps which happen to be highly eugenic. The trend toward delayed childbearing inevitably leads to higher incidence of donor eggs…

  60. @nebulafox
    This is not news in Asia, where there's no legacy of the Third Reich to make the idea of eugenics not suitable for civilized people to ponder. Polls routinely show that most parents there see not just nothing wrong in aborting a visibly defective child, but see it as arguably the right thing to do. It's not even close.

    That legacy is fading fast in the West as older generations do. The public morality police can try all they will, but it is just not going to be viewed with the same reflexive horror anymore. I am already willing to bet that a healthy majority (discounting the ones who embrace SJWism to score) of under 40 male areligious STEM types in major tech centers would be theoretically open to the idea of softcore eugenics, though they certainly wouldn't want that to become known to the HR ladies!

    As for the Israelis, they are already wayyyyy ahead of the curb on popular acceptance and institutionalization of a number of "alt-lite" beliefs, so maybe this shouldn't be too shocking.

    This is not news in Asia, where there’s no legacy of the Third Reich to make the idea of eugenics not suitable for civilized people to ponder. Polls routinely show that most parents there see not just nothing wrong in aborting a visibly defective child, but see it as arguably the right thing to do. It’s not even close.

    There is a large current school of thought that the U.S. is a waning empire and that China is the ascendant power to come. Accepting this as true, such implies that Western norms about these matter will decline as well and Asian norms become the de-facto international standard with regards to these matters.

    • Agree: Daniel H
  61. @Sextus Empiricus
    Wait - isn’t that eugenics?

    It’s not just eugenics, it’s actually killing off the unfit rather than humanely sterilizing them. Nazi style eugenics rather than Sweden style eugenics.

    • Replies: @Anon

    It’s not just eugenics, it’s actually killing off the unfit rather than humanely sterilizing them. Nazi style eugenics rather than Sweden style eugenics.
     
    Did Germany actually kill off the "unfit"? If so, was it a few isolated instances or was it largescale?
  62. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The part where weitzmann claims

    Fixed that for you.

    Yeah i wasnt saying i agreed with him.

  63. @NOTA
    It's not just eugenics, it's actually killing off the unfit rather than humanely sterilizing them. Nazi style eugenics rather than Sweden style eugenics.

    It’s not just eugenics, it’s actually killing off the unfit rather than humanely sterilizing them. Nazi style eugenics rather than Sweden style eugenics.

    Did Germany actually kill off the “unfit”? If so, was it a few isolated instances or was it largescale?

    • Replies: @Elli
    300,000 people unfit and "unworthy of life" were killed under the Nazi Aktion T4 program.
  64. Lot says:
    @Hail

    Wasps and Wacs
     
    Why not just say "Whites," for short?

    Alternatively, and rather euphemistically, "Christians"?

    Or, long form: "European-Christian-origin full-Whites." (see comment-41 in a June 2019 iSteve thread about NYC, and a reply on nomenclature at comment-75).

    For virtually all Americans, AJs and SJs are considered white. The legal definition for the 150+ years where it was relevant to our federal naturalization law and state miscegenation law agreed.

    If you or Moses have a great reason to redefine the term, go for it. But seems more like antisemitic trolling to me (or in the case of leftist AJs who say they aren’t white, what Steve calls “flight from white).

    The naturalization cases described here are fairly interesting, and I think on balance they got things right. They asked: “who were commonly considered white to Americans in 1790 or 1875?”

    The hardest cases appeared to be pale south Asians, with most deciding “not white” while admitting it is a close call.

    https://raceandlaw.wordpress.com/cases-and-laws/

    • Replies: @SFG
    This is one of the very few cases where Nazis and social-justice Jews agree.
    , @Druid
    OH boo- hoo, the old anti-semitism charge!!!
  65. @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/yairnetanyahu/status/1136023185416175616?s=21

    His girlfriend is not jewish. She is norwegian. Here’s the Netanyahu family:

    And here’s the average IDF unit:

    It’s hilarious to me that all these arabs have been brainwashed to think that they are not just like the palestinians. They share much more genetically with an arab muslim than they do with any of Yahoo’s sons.

  66. @Dave Pinsen
    Here's the key part:

    I expressed some surprise about how Weizmann hoped to settle 5 million Jews on territory occupied by 1 million Arabs. "Oh, don't worry," Weizmann burst out laughing. "The Arab is often called the son of the desert. It would be truer to call him the father of the desert. His laziness and primitivism turn a flourishing garden into a desert. Give me the land occupied by a million Arabs, and I will easily settle five times that number of Jews on it."
     

    “I will easily settle five times that number of Jews on it.”

    Until, in a few decades, the foreign colonialists use up the aquifers that autochthonous Arab methods of farming had preserved for millennia. It is no accident that water levels in the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea began falling when Jewish invaders arrived and have now reached historically low levels.

    • Replies: @FPD72
    The Sea of Galilee reached its measured low in 2001. The level is now considerably above that. And I can’t find any sources that identify aquifers as being a significant source of water for the lake.

    As of 2016, Israel used 25,000,000 cubic meters of water from the lake for its own consumption and 50,000,000 cubic meters for Jordan.

    According to Wikipedia, Israel is making plans to pump desalinated water into the lake to maintain the pressure necessary to keep saline springs from seeping into the lake.

    So what if the Dead Sea is at a low? That just means the Israelis are efficiently using Jordan River resources and not letting the water go wastefully into the Dead Sea, or is there an aspect of “Dead” I’m not understanding. And yes, I know there are small organisms that have adapted to its high salinity, but I’m guessing that the Israelis put a higher premium on other uses of the water.
  67. @Bill P
    Yes, once you've had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:

    You don't love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    Furthermore, after you've felt the love of a child, the idea of killing one in the womb is repulsive.

    As for Jews killing their own children, it's very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so. I guess a lot has changed over the years.

    You don’t love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    While this may be true, this unconditional love doesn’t pass down to their siblings, who will resent their retarded brethren. Also, generally speaking you will die before your children, so you have passed along a burden that they didn’t ask for.

    • Replies: @Random Smartaleck

    While this may be true, this unconditional love doesn’t pass down to their siblings, who will resent their retarded brethren.
     
    How dare we ask our children to rise to their better natures?

    Also, generally speaking you will die before your children, so you have passed along a burden that they didn’t ask for.
     
    There will be many, many unasked-for burdens of all kinds facing them throughout their lives. That's simply the nature of existence. The only way out is to never have children, if you care to take the nihilistic route.
  68. @Daniel H
    Are not American Jews obsessed with abortion? Abortion is an unyielding issue with most Jews. Very strange. Many, many, many pro-abortion gentiles have moral qualms with abortion, though they support abortion nonetheless. I have never personally met a Jew who opposed abortion or even had any qualms about the procedure. Strange.

    Go to Crown Heights, Williamsburg, or Kiryas Joel. You’ll meet plenty of anti-abortion Jews.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    njguy73:

    These same Crown Heights and Williamsburg anti-abortion Jews also overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Unfortunately, they are only a microcosm of NYC Jews. Even more unfortunately, most NYC Jews are secular and revel in both abortion and far-left politics!

  69. @Bill P
    Yes, once you've had children it changes your perspective. You realize two things:

    You don't love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.

    Furthermore, after you've felt the love of a child, the idea of killing one in the womb is repulsive.

    As for Jews killing their own children, it's very sad, because it was Jews who first showed the Western world that it was morally wrong to do so. I guess a lot has changed over the years.

    Period data broken down by birth cohort bear this out. When a cohort’s average age is young, the women in that cohort tend to support abortion. As a cohort ages, support for abortion by women in that cohort declines dramatically. This pattern has persisted from Roe v. Wade to the present. It was first noticed by the demographer, Judith Blake Davis.

  70. Bizarrely, the alt-right has been seized lately by people obsessed with making abortion illegal in all cases, even rape.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    This is both interesting and ironic given that the alt-right is an outgrowth of HBD realism.
    , @Desiderius
    Not the alt-right, the regular one along with a lot of the people who keep things running. You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists.

    Ultrasounds change the timing, not the principle.
  71. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    This will reach critical mass when if, as they say, homosexuals are, ” born this way” Israel China etc begin to simply screen out the genes.

    We already have the ancient tradition of outright murdering female infants among Indians Chinese and other asiatics imported to our soicety via mass immigration

    Abortion is great. Homosexuals and women are great, you just don’t want to birth and raise them.

    • Replies: @Corn
    Rush Limbaugh allegedly said back in the ‘90s if homosexuality were ever found to have a genetic cause the gay rights crowd would shift to a pro-life position, however liberal they remained on other matters.
  72. @Anonymous
    Orthodox Jews are opposed to abortion in general but my accept it if the fetus is deformed or nonviable, I'm not sure. Reform and liberal minded Jews think it's perfectly okay.


    I look at it under the Golden Rule, how would you like to be treated. I wouldn't want to be a Down's kid or a flipper baby or something so deformed a normal life would be impossible. I'd rather just never be.

    And yet Downs’ kids and flipper babies seldom choose the final solution , even when grown.

  73. @dearieme
    Strictly it would be eugenics only if the cause of the problem were genetic. But in hand-waving terms, yes it could easily be referred to as eugenics.

    Why gentiles don't do it more often puzzles me. Before the era of births in hospitals there was plenty of infanticide of defective newborns, at least in rural areas. In other words, our Christian forebears did it. So did their pagan forebears.

    I once read a quote from an ancient writer (Herodotus?) that the Jews alone did not expose their children.

  74. @Anon

    It’s not just eugenics, it’s actually killing off the unfit rather than humanely sterilizing them. Nazi style eugenics rather than Sweden style eugenics.
     
    Did Germany actually kill off the "unfit"? If so, was it a few isolated instances or was it largescale?

    300,000 people unfit and “unworthy of life” were killed under the Nazi Aktion T4 program.

  75. @ScarletNumber

    You don’t love them any less for their imperfections, and they are full individuals with all the rights you have.
     
    While this may be true, this unconditional love doesn't pass down to their siblings, who will resent their retarded brethren. Also, generally speaking you will die before your children, so you have passed along a burden that they didn't ask for.

    While this may be true, this unconditional love doesn’t pass down to their siblings, who will resent their retarded brethren.

    How dare we ask our children to rise to their better natures?

    Also, generally speaking you will die before your children, so you have passed along a burden that they didn’t ask for.

    There will be many, many unasked-for burdens of all kinds facing them throughout their lives. That’s simply the nature of existence. The only way out is to never have children, if you care to take the nihilistic route.

  76. @Escher
    Is she Jewish? Certainly a very eugenic product.

    She’s Norwegian and they’ve been dating for five years.

    A prior girlfriend is this model, who is half Israeli and half Danish.

    http://www.pmamodels.co.il/women/lee-levi/

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    She’s Norwegian and they’ve been dating for five years.
     
    Five years is a long time. Why haven't they married?
    , @IHTG
    This is a different girl, Stephanie Khazaniuk. He dumped the Norwegian chick a long time ago.
  77. @ATBOTL
    Bizarrely, the alt-right has been seized lately by people obsessed with making abortion illegal in all cases, even rape.

    This is both interesting and ironic given that the alt-right is an outgrowth of HBD realism.

  78. @njguy73
    Go to Crown Heights, Williamsburg, or Kiryas Joel. You'll meet plenty of anti-abortion Jews.

    njguy73:

    These same Crown Heights and Williamsburg anti-abortion Jews also overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Unfortunately, they are only a microcosm of NYC Jews. Even more unfortunately, most NYC Jews are secular and revel in both abortion and far-left politics!

    • Replies: @BigDickNick
    they revel in anti-gentile politics. Look at England, when the left party became pro-palestinian they all became "right wing." same thing happened in reverse with the neo-cons during the 2016 election. Most jews aren't left or right in the same way white gentiles are.
  79. @william munny
    It is still very common in the Orthodox community in Lakewood NJ to see extremely disabled children. A not insignificant number of families can be seen pushing specialized strollers with older disabled children inside. There are also a large number of schools for disabled children. There are some financial shenanigans, but unquestionably they still appear to have children with congenital problems at a much higher rate.

    There are some financial shenanigans, but unquestionably they still appear to have children with congenital problems at a much higher rate.

    You could have stopped after the comma. The blacks have nothing on the Hasidim when it comes to welfare fraud.

  80. Abortion should be illegal for white, healthy fetuses.

  81. @ATBOTL
    Bizarrely, the alt-right has been seized lately by people obsessed with making abortion illegal in all cases, even rape.

    Not the alt-right, the regular one along with a lot of the people who keep things running. You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists.

    Ultrasounds change the timing, not the principle.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists.
     
    Agreed.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists."
     
    This is an unusual moral/metaphysical question in that it plays directly into politics without a lot of self-interest intermediating.

    The position encapsulated above has suddenly taken over the right in this decade. But is it correct, or logical?

    Everyone still agrees that rape is wrong (I think), but why? No one is killed, no tangible property is stolen. It is frightening, but causing fear is not illegal. People even pay to be scared at horror movies or amusement park rides. It can be painful, but on the other hand many rape victims report having orgasms, so apparently it can be pleasurable too, and no one is proposing to legalize rape based on whether the victim orgasms or not, so we don't consider it wrong for this reason. There are often accompanying injuries, but assault and battery are already illegal on their own, so why should rape be a separate crime, one that is prosecuted irrespective of accompanying injuries?

    I'd venture to say everyone considers rape wrong because it is without consent. The rapist uses the victim's body without the permission of the victim. Furthermore, given that the part of the victim's body that is used is (usually) the reproductive organs, in the case of man-on-fertile-woman rape, the rapist has the possibility of imposing his spawn on the victim forever.

    If this is the reason that rape is wrong, and that the rapist is justly condemned, then shouldn't we at least consider that the spawn of the rapist is in a sense a partner in this crime? After all, the rapist may use the victim's body for a few minutes or a few hours, but the spawn will use the victim for the rest of her life. So couldn't it be that the spawn is committing a much greater wrong than even the rapist? And as such, shouldn't very strong penalties—or remedies—be on the table?

    Of course, there can be objections, such as the that the spawn is a minor, or not even a minor. In the latter case, if the spawn has no legal existence, then neither can there be a legal objection to its extinguishment. In the former case, then spawn must be a minor, yet minors may still be guilty of crimes, even if we use a reduced schedule of punishments. So if life begins at conception, doesn't culpability too?

    This is not to say that that some rape victims don't choose to raise their children of rape, or that those children can't go on to lead worthwhile lives. But the same can be said for the victims and perpetrators of any crime: that the victims may forgive and accept, and that the perpetrators may have virtues beside their crimes. In neither case though, do we consider that a reason to deprive other victims of a remedy long available.

  82. @Lot
    For virtually all Americans, AJs and SJs are considered white. The legal definition for the 150+ years where it was relevant to our federal naturalization law and state miscegenation law agreed.

    If you or Moses have a great reason to redefine the term, go for it. But seems more like antisemitic trolling to me (or in the case of leftist AJs who say they aren’t white, what Steve calls “flight from white).

    The naturalization cases described here are fairly interesting, and I think on balance they got things right. They asked: “who were commonly considered white to Americans in 1790 or 1875?”

    The hardest cases appeared to be pale south Asians, with most deciding “not white” while admitting it is a close call.

    https://raceandlaw.wordpress.com/cases-and-laws/

    This is one of the very few cases where Nazis and social-justice Jews agree.

  83. @nebulafox
    This is not news in Asia, where there's no legacy of the Third Reich to make the idea of eugenics not suitable for civilized people to ponder. Polls routinely show that most parents there see not just nothing wrong in aborting a visibly defective child, but see it as arguably the right thing to do. It's not even close.

    That legacy is fading fast in the West as older generations do. The public morality police can try all they will, but it is just not going to be viewed with the same reflexive horror anymore. I am already willing to bet that a healthy majority (discounting the ones who embrace SJWism to score) of under 40 male areligious STEM types in major tech centers would be theoretically open to the idea of softcore eugenics, though they certainly wouldn't want that to become known to the HR ladies!

    As for the Israelis, they are already wayyyyy ahead of the curb on popular acceptance and institutionalization of a number of "alt-lite" beliefs, so maybe this shouldn't be too shocking.

    “public morality police” is the kind of phrase only invoked when we want to dismissively suggest some particular moral standard (in this case – not killing disabled humans in utero) is not a legitimate concern of sophisticated, worldly people like ourselves.

    Since social status is pretty much the highest possible virtue, this is a great way of dismissing inconvenient moral objections without engaging with them. In this case we can even join those reliable bien pensants in Tel Aviv and literally dismiss inconvenient *human beings*.

    Even so…

    One rarely hears about those square “public morality police” who oppose things like raping joggers or home invasions, although this is equally a matter of policing public morality and there are certainly any number of people named D’shawn who also find this a fuddy duddy hang up.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    some particular moral standard (in this case – not killing disabled humans in utero)
     
    The law Gov Reagan signed in California was a slight liberalization, not a legalization, of abortion. Reagan's main influence was in getting "fetal deformity" removed as a justification.

    52 years ago today!

    https://todayinclh.com/?event=governor-reagan-signs-liberal-california-abortion-law

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/04/californias_abortion_law_a_road_not_taken_117773-full.html

  84. Hail says: • Website
    @nebulafox
    These kinds of proposals were extremely common stuff back all over late-bourgeois age Europe, whose product and destroyer Adolf Hitler was. Winston Churchill wrote a lot of very eugenics friendly things around the turn of the century. He supported mass sterilization, he openly worried about dysgenic trends, and casually talking about different "breeds" of men and how to improve England's stock. He was not in any way, shape or form an outlier at the turn of the century among the educated classes. If anything, it was the most common among progressive intellectuals.

    The irony was that Hitler was an *extremely* poor eugenicist, when all was said and done. Late 19th and early 20th century Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down. Not for nothing did "Nietzschean eugenics" advocate intermixing the hardiest Prussian military noble clans with the most intellectual and/or fiscally successful German Jewish burghers to get the best of both worlds.

    Instead, the Nazis decided to focus on making a race of peasant-soldiers in thrall to the LCD cultural standard and backwards nonsense when they weren't busy slaughtering Russian peasants in a permanent war and maintaining their farms in the Urals... but hey, pure stock.

    Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down

    Whatever that is exactly intended to mean, and I would not dispute the high IQ of the Jews of Europe, it is not the same as saying the Jews were an unmitigated boon to anywhere that hosted them.

    The classic problem with Jewish-European relations was that the latter were the hosts, did the work (e.g., farming) that kept the society/state running, while the former (the Jews) tended to be a tightly disciplined, ethnocentric, elite group that looked down on the supermajority (European Christians). This was not a recipe for smooth relations.

    The strong cultural tendency to take advantage of the average out-group member is something that would be expected in the Middle East, but was/is not expected among most Europeans, certainly not in the NW European core. (This cultural tendency to take advantage of the average man, writ large, becomes taking control of the state itself; a seriously negative thing for European Man’s interests.) Anyway, all a way to say that core-Europeans and Jews really do not mix well.

    The solution, as certain commenters here often pithily remark, is — “separate nations.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous


    Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down.
     
    Whatever that is exactly intended to mean, and I would not dispute the high IQ of the Jews of Europe, it is not the same as saying the Jews were an unmitigated boon to anywhere that hosted them.
     
    It's also not like Mitteleuropean Gentiles were lacking in intellectual horsepower.
  85. Anonymous[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down
     
    Whatever that is exactly intended to mean, and I would not dispute the high IQ of the Jews of Europe, it is not the same as saying the Jews were an unmitigated boon to anywhere that hosted them.

    The classic problem with Jewish-European relations was that the latter were the hosts, did the work (e.g., farming) that kept the society/state running, while the former (the Jews) tended to be a tightly disciplined, ethnocentric, elite group that looked down on the supermajority (European Christians). This was not a recipe for smooth relations.

    The strong cultural tendency to take advantage of the average out-group member is something that would be expected in the Middle East, but was/is not expected among most Europeans, certainly not in the NW European core. (This cultural tendency to take advantage of the average man, writ large, becomes taking control of the state itself; a seriously negative thing for European Man's interests.) Anyway, all a way to say that core-Europeans and Jews really do not mix well.

    The solution, as certain commenters here often pithily remark, is -- "separate nations."

    Mitteleuropean Jews were one of the highest horsepower intellectual talent groups you will find in human history, hands down.

    Whatever that is exactly intended to mean, and I would not dispute the high IQ of the Jews of Europe, it is not the same as saying the Jews were an unmitigated boon to anywhere that hosted them.

    It’s also not like Mitteleuropean Gentiles were lacking in intellectual horsepower.

    • Agree: Hail
  86. @Anonymous
    This will reach critical mass when if, as they say, homosexuals are, " born this way" Israel China etc begin to simply screen out the genes.

    We already have the ancient tradition of outright murdering female infants among Indians Chinese and other asiatics imported to our soicety via mass immigration

    Abortion is great. Homosexuals and women are great, you just don't want to birth and raise them.

    Rush Limbaugh allegedly said back in the ‘90s if homosexuality were ever found to have a genetic cause the gay rights crowd would shift to a pro-life position, however liberal they remained on other matters.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    don't be so cucksure. I may have aborted a gay baby (so not known) when I was a dumb-ass 40 years ago. Rest assured, I had the abortion. However, people/cultures who really care about the fetus, will abort from now on - abortions are super easy. Why be a poor parent? That, is what this is really all about. Baby parts, also, do not benefit the woman who goes to 8-9 months....just sayin' So, Democrats love, love, love abortions...and, that is what I heard all my youth. Women, Democrat women, love abortions...because they see that as empowerment.
  87. @Desiderius
    Not the alt-right, the regular one along with a lot of the people who keep things running. You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists.

    Ultrasounds change the timing, not the principle.

    You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists.

    Agreed.

  88. @Dan Hayes
    njguy73:

    These same Crown Heights and Williamsburg anti-abortion Jews also overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Unfortunately, they are only a microcosm of NYC Jews. Even more unfortunately, most NYC Jews are secular and revel in both abortion and far-left politics!

    they revel in anti-gentile politics. Look at England, when the left party became pro-palestinian they all became “right wing.” same thing happened in reverse with the neo-cons during the 2016 election. Most jews aren’t left or right in the same way white gentiles are.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @SFG
    How is that anti-gentile? The Palestinians are local enemies of their relatives. The neocons in 2016 kind of make your point, though sending them loads of pictures of them photoshopped into a concentration camp didn't help matters.
  89. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lagertha
    you are alone...and, in the end: you are alone.

    you are alone…and, in the end: you are alone.

    What point are you making?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    that you are alone. Whatever you believe; conspiracies or lucky, local facts, you still have to make a decision and BELIEVE...if you sense that this, this idea, is some load of bs, is what I call: confusion and disbelief, which will not conform to any party-conformism of any kind. Capice?
  90. @Anonymousse
    “public morality police” is the kind of phrase only invoked when we want to dismissively suggest some particular moral standard (in this case - not killing disabled humans in utero) is not a legitimate concern of sophisticated, worldly people like ourselves.

    Since social status is pretty much the highest possible virtue, this is a great way of dismissing inconvenient moral objections without engaging with them. In this case we can even join those reliable bien pensants in Tel Aviv and literally dismiss inconvenient *human beings*.

    Even so...

    One rarely hears about those square “public morality police” who oppose things like raping joggers or home invasions, although this is equally a matter of policing public morality and there are certainly any number of people named D’shawn who also find this a fuddy duddy hang up.

    some particular moral standard (in this case – not killing disabled humans in utero)

    The law Gov Reagan signed in California was a slight liberalization, not a legalization, of abortion. Reagan’s main influence was in getting “fetal deformity” removed as a justification.

    52 years ago today!

    https://todayinclh.com/?event=governor-reagan-signs-liberal-california-abortion-law

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/04/californias_abortion_law_a_road_not_taken_117773-full.html

  91. The “selfish gene”?

  92. @Desiderius
    Not the alt-right, the regular one along with a lot of the people who keep things running. You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists.

    Ultrasounds change the timing, not the principle.

    “You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists.”

    This is an unusual moral/metaphysical question in that it plays directly into politics without a lot of self-interest intermediating.

    The position encapsulated above has suddenly taken over the right in this decade. But is it correct, or logical?

    Everyone still agrees that rape is wrong (I think), but why? No one is killed, no tangible property is stolen. It is frightening, but causing fear is not illegal. People even pay to be scared at horror movies or amusement park rides. It can be painful, but on the other hand many rape victims report having orgasms, so apparently it can be pleasurable too, and no one is proposing to legalize rape based on whether the victim orgasms or not, so we don’t consider it wrong for this reason. There are often accompanying injuries, but assault and battery are already illegal on their own, so why should rape be a separate crime, one that is prosecuted irrespective of accompanying injuries?

    I’d venture to say everyone considers rape wrong because it is without consent. The rapist uses the victim’s body without the permission of the victim. Furthermore, given that the part of the victim’s body that is used is (usually) the reproductive organs, in the case of man-on-fertile-woman rape, the rapist has the possibility of imposing his spawn on the victim forever.

    If this is the reason that rape is wrong, and that the rapist is justly condemned, then shouldn’t we at least consider that the spawn of the rapist is in a sense a partner in this crime? After all, the rapist may use the victim’s body for a few minutes or a few hours, but the spawn will use the victim for the rest of her life. So couldn’t it be that the spawn is committing a much greater wrong than even the rapist? And as such, shouldn’t very strong penalties—or remedies—be on the table?

    Of course, there can be objections, such as the that the spawn is a minor, or not even a minor. In the latter case, if the spawn has no legal existence, then neither can there be a legal objection to its extinguishment. In the former case, then spawn must be a minor, yet minors may still be guilty of crimes, even if we use a reduced schedule of punishments. So if life begins at conception, doesn’t culpability too?

    This is not to say that that some rape victims don’t choose to raise their children of rape, or that those children can’t go on to lead worthwhile lives. But the same can be said for the victims and perpetrators of any crime: that the victims may forgive and accept, and that the perpetrators may have virtues beside their crimes. In neither case though, do we consider that a reason to deprive other victims of a remedy long available.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    The position encapsulated above has suddenly taken over the right in this decade. But is it correct, or logical?
     
    Suddenly?

    You can't be serious. Not killing innocents has been the civilized poisition across the board for millenia. What changed was, as usual, the technology - ultrasound resolution and utilization. It shows up mostly on the Right because the Left can't manage to have children.

    , @Bill P
    By that logic, any unwanted pregnancy - even in marriage - should be considered a candidate for termination. If the crime is "use of woman," then what difference does it make whether rape was involved? Maybe her birth control failed, or maybe she thought she was infertile. The child is a criminal for using her body without her explicit permission, whether due to rape or some other reason.

    This is exactly the logic used by NARAL, which is at least consistent.

    Another argument that conservatives might use is that a moral woman will only willingly have sex when she is open to reproduction, but the rapist does not give her that choice, so she is now under no obligation to keep the child of a rapist.

    But that is backward, because the obligation to have sex only when one is open to reproduction is because of the sanctity of life, so that innocents will not be exposed to the dangers that result from sexual immorality. The innocent are not to be condemned by the immorality of others, and victims are not permitted to commit crimes against others by virtue of their status as victims.

    It sounds hard to live up to, but consider that there are millions of men out there who are paying child support for children they neither wanted nor expected. Quite a few are paying for children who are not even their biological kids. Probably significantly more than women who are impregnated by rapists.

    Yet our society has no qualms about "using" these men to support children, because, after all, it wasn't the children's fault.
  93. @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/yairnetanyahu/status/1136023185416175616?s=21

    Another proof that Yentlemen Prefer Blondes, but always keep Samsonite Option under the table.

  94. @BigDickNick
    they revel in anti-gentile politics. Look at England, when the left party became pro-palestinian they all became "right wing." same thing happened in reverse with the neo-cons during the 2016 election. Most jews aren't left or right in the same way white gentiles are.

    How is that anti-gentile? The Palestinians are local enemies of their relatives. The neocons in 2016 kind of make your point, though sending them loads of pictures of them photoshopped into a concentration camp didn’t help matters.

    • Replies: @BigDickNick
    They were "left wing" because it promoted their interests in England meaning multiculturalism, mass immigration, destruction of the english majority. Once the left wing actually applied those same values to the israel palestinian conflict they became "right wing."
  95. Personally, I never had a problem with eugenics, as practiced by Jews or anyone else. You better believe the Chinese don’t.

    Mass murder, yes, but that’s wrong no matter what excuse you use, and the Holocaust was actually pretty bad eugenics.

  96. @Colin Wright
    'The Israelis might as well go full Nazi.'

    ? I think modern Israel is already a much more complete fulfillment of 'ol Adolph's dream than poor old Germany ever was.

    Nothing says lebensraum like being 15km wide at your narrowest point.

  97. Anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Yeah, where did that come from? Jews as foundation-of-morals people? What a sick joke.

    Yeah, where did that come from? Jews as foundation-of-morals people? What a sick joke.

    Probably the most famous relevant incident involves G-d asking a father to kill his son, and the father agreeing. It’s right there in the foundational documents.

  98. @SFG
    How is that anti-gentile? The Palestinians are local enemies of their relatives. The neocons in 2016 kind of make your point, though sending them loads of pictures of them photoshopped into a concentration camp didn't help matters.

    They were “left wing” because it promoted their interests in England meaning multiculturalism, mass immigration, destruction of the english majority. Once the left wing actually applied those same values to the israel palestinian conflict they became “right wing.”

  99. @Almost Missouri

    "You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists."
     
    This is an unusual moral/metaphysical question in that it plays directly into politics without a lot of self-interest intermediating.

    The position encapsulated above has suddenly taken over the right in this decade. But is it correct, or logical?

    Everyone still agrees that rape is wrong (I think), but why? No one is killed, no tangible property is stolen. It is frightening, but causing fear is not illegal. People even pay to be scared at horror movies or amusement park rides. It can be painful, but on the other hand many rape victims report having orgasms, so apparently it can be pleasurable too, and no one is proposing to legalize rape based on whether the victim orgasms or not, so we don't consider it wrong for this reason. There are often accompanying injuries, but assault and battery are already illegal on their own, so why should rape be a separate crime, one that is prosecuted irrespective of accompanying injuries?

    I'd venture to say everyone considers rape wrong because it is without consent. The rapist uses the victim's body without the permission of the victim. Furthermore, given that the part of the victim's body that is used is (usually) the reproductive organs, in the case of man-on-fertile-woman rape, the rapist has the possibility of imposing his spawn on the victim forever.

    If this is the reason that rape is wrong, and that the rapist is justly condemned, then shouldn't we at least consider that the spawn of the rapist is in a sense a partner in this crime? After all, the rapist may use the victim's body for a few minutes or a few hours, but the spawn will use the victim for the rest of her life. So couldn't it be that the spawn is committing a much greater wrong than even the rapist? And as such, shouldn't very strong penalties—or remedies—be on the table?

    Of course, there can be objections, such as the that the spawn is a minor, or not even a minor. In the latter case, if the spawn has no legal existence, then neither can there be a legal objection to its extinguishment. In the former case, then spawn must be a minor, yet minors may still be guilty of crimes, even if we use a reduced schedule of punishments. So if life begins at conception, doesn't culpability too?

    This is not to say that that some rape victims don't choose to raise their children of rape, or that those children can't go on to lead worthwhile lives. But the same can be said for the victims and perpetrators of any crime: that the victims may forgive and accept, and that the perpetrators may have virtues beside their crimes. In neither case though, do we consider that a reason to deprive other victims of a remedy long available.

    The position encapsulated above has suddenly taken over the right in this decade. But is it correct, or logical?

    Suddenly?

    You can’t be serious. Not killing innocents has been the civilized poisition across the board for millenia. What changed was, as usual, the technology – ultrasound resolution and utilization. It shows up mostly on the Right because the Left can’t manage to have children.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I don't recall anyone, left or right, saying rape victims ought to be deprived of abortions over ten years ago. In the last ten years, this opinion has started appearing on the right, in what looks suspiciously like a right wing virtue spiral. If you can show me older references, I'd be interested. If you can show me cogent reasoning in favor of this view, I'll accede to your point.
  100. @Desiderius

    The position encapsulated above has suddenly taken over the right in this decade. But is it correct, or logical?
     
    Suddenly?

    You can't be serious. Not killing innocents has been the civilized poisition across the board for millenia. What changed was, as usual, the technology - ultrasound resolution and utilization. It shows up mostly on the Right because the Left can't manage to have children.

    I don’t recall anyone, left or right, saying rape victims ought to be deprived of abortions over ten years ago. In the last ten years, this opinion has started appearing on the right, in what looks suspiciously like a right wing virtue spiral. If you can show me older references, I’d be interested. If you can show me cogent reasoning in favor of this view, I’ll accede to your point.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Should the doctor be able be able to off the kid at three when she recovers her repressed memory of the rape? At 23?

    It's not about the woman, it's about the killer.
    , @Corn
    “In the last ten years, this opinion has started appearing on the right, in what looks suspiciously like a right wing virtue spiral.”

    Maybe my memory is hazy or I’m thinking of what Bob Casey wanted before his own party smacked him down but when I was coming of age in the ‘90s the pro-life attitude seemed to be “illegal abortion except in case of rape, incest, life of mother is threatened”.

    Now we basically have to pick between “no abortion whatsoever” and “taxpayer funded abortion until the mother’s water breaks”.
  101. @Anonymous
    Orthodox Jews are opposed to abortion in general but my accept it if the fetus is deformed or nonviable, I'm not sure. Reform and liberal minded Jews think it's perfectly okay.


    I look at it under the Golden Rule, how would you like to be treated. I wouldn't want to be a Down's kid or a flipper baby or something so deformed a normal life would be impossible. I'd rather just never be.

    Tell us that after you’re born.

  102. @Almost Missouri

    "You don’t kill innocents, even the offspring of rapists."
     
    This is an unusual moral/metaphysical question in that it plays directly into politics without a lot of self-interest intermediating.

    The position encapsulated above has suddenly taken over the right in this decade. But is it correct, or logical?

    Everyone still agrees that rape is wrong (I think), but why? No one is killed, no tangible property is stolen. It is frightening, but causing fear is not illegal. People even pay to be scared at horror movies or amusement park rides. It can be painful, but on the other hand many rape victims report having orgasms, so apparently it can be pleasurable too, and no one is proposing to legalize rape based on whether the victim orgasms or not, so we don't consider it wrong for this reason. There are often accompanying injuries, but assault and battery are already illegal on their own, so why should rape be a separate crime, one that is prosecuted irrespective of accompanying injuries?

    I'd venture to say everyone considers rape wrong because it is without consent. The rapist uses the victim's body without the permission of the victim. Furthermore, given that the part of the victim's body that is used is (usually) the reproductive organs, in the case of man-on-fertile-woman rape, the rapist has the possibility of imposing his spawn on the victim forever.

    If this is the reason that rape is wrong, and that the rapist is justly condemned, then shouldn't we at least consider that the spawn of the rapist is in a sense a partner in this crime? After all, the rapist may use the victim's body for a few minutes or a few hours, but the spawn will use the victim for the rest of her life. So couldn't it be that the spawn is committing a much greater wrong than even the rapist? And as such, shouldn't very strong penalties—or remedies—be on the table?

    Of course, there can be objections, such as the that the spawn is a minor, or not even a minor. In the latter case, if the spawn has no legal existence, then neither can there be a legal objection to its extinguishment. In the former case, then spawn must be a minor, yet minors may still be guilty of crimes, even if we use a reduced schedule of punishments. So if life begins at conception, doesn't culpability too?

    This is not to say that that some rape victims don't choose to raise their children of rape, or that those children can't go on to lead worthwhile lives. But the same can be said for the victims and perpetrators of any crime: that the victims may forgive and accept, and that the perpetrators may have virtues beside their crimes. In neither case though, do we consider that a reason to deprive other victims of a remedy long available.

    By that logic, any unwanted pregnancy – even in marriage – should be considered a candidate for termination. If the crime is “use of woman,” then what difference does it make whether rape was involved? Maybe her birth control failed, or maybe she thought she was infertile. The child is a criminal for using her body without her explicit permission, whether due to rape or some other reason.

    This is exactly the logic used by NARAL, which is at least consistent.

    Another argument that conservatives might use is that a moral woman will only willingly have sex when she is open to reproduction, but the rapist does not give her that choice, so she is now under no obligation to keep the child of a rapist.

    But that is backward, because the obligation to have sex only when one is open to reproduction is because of the sanctity of life, so that innocents will not be exposed to the dangers that result from sexual immorality. The innocent are not to be condemned by the immorality of others, and victims are not permitted to commit crimes against others by virtue of their status as victims.

    It sounds hard to live up to, but consider that there are millions of men out there who are paying child support for children they neither wanted nor expected. Quite a few are paying for children who are not even their biological kids. Probably significantly more than women who are impregnated by rapists.

    Yet our society has no qualms about “using” these men to support children, because, after all, it wasn’t the children’s fault.

  103. @Lot
    For virtually all Americans, AJs and SJs are considered white. The legal definition for the 150+ years where it was relevant to our federal naturalization law and state miscegenation law agreed.

    If you or Moses have a great reason to redefine the term, go for it. But seems more like antisemitic trolling to me (or in the case of leftist AJs who say they aren’t white, what Steve calls “flight from white).

    The naturalization cases described here are fairly interesting, and I think on balance they got things right. They asked: “who were commonly considered white to Americans in 1790 or 1875?”

    The hardest cases appeared to be pale south Asians, with most deciding “not white” while admitting it is a close call.

    https://raceandlaw.wordpress.com/cases-and-laws/

    OH boo- hoo, the old anti-semitism charge!!!

  104. @Almost Missouri
    I don't recall anyone, left or right, saying rape victims ought to be deprived of abortions over ten years ago. In the last ten years, this opinion has started appearing on the right, in what looks suspiciously like a right wing virtue spiral. If you can show me older references, I'd be interested. If you can show me cogent reasoning in favor of this view, I'll accede to your point.

    Should the doctor be able be able to off the kid at three when she recovers her repressed memory of the rape? At 23?

    It’s not about the woman, it’s about the killer.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The law, that is. The principle is about the killed. or spared as the case may be. Eliminating the exceptions is just about recognizing that. That's not the moral spiral. That comes in when you start theorizing when life begins.

    In reality it begins when the ultrasounds that get circulated by excited moms and dads and grandparents and gay godparents et. al. all over social media say it does. Six weeks is a stretch, but isn't Europe already at like twenty with viability already approaching that? That's where things will settle and everyone will wonder what all the hubbub was about.

    The Plan to reduce black Parenthood will be infringed on the margins but will still carry on much as before.
  105. @Desiderius
    Should the doctor be able be able to off the kid at three when she recovers her repressed memory of the rape? At 23?

    It's not about the woman, it's about the killer.

    The law, that is. The principle is about the killed. or spared as the case may be. Eliminating the exceptions is just about recognizing that. That’s not the moral spiral. That comes in when you start theorizing when life begins.

    In reality it begins when the ultrasounds that get circulated by excited moms and dads and grandparents and gay godparents et. al. all over social media say it does. Six weeks is a stretch, but isn’t Europe already at like twenty with viability already approaching that? That’s where things will settle and everyone will wonder what all the hubbub was about.

    The Plan to reduce black Parenthood will be infringed on the margins but will still carry on much as before.

  106. @Almost Missouri
    I don't recall anyone, left or right, saying rape victims ought to be deprived of abortions over ten years ago. In the last ten years, this opinion has started appearing on the right, in what looks suspiciously like a right wing virtue spiral. If you can show me older references, I'd be interested. If you can show me cogent reasoning in favor of this view, I'll accede to your point.

    “In the last ten years, this opinion has started appearing on the right, in what looks suspiciously like a right wing virtue spiral.”

    Maybe my memory is hazy or I’m thinking of what Bob Casey wanted before his own party smacked him down but when I was coming of age in the ‘90s the pro-life attitude seemed to be “illegal abortion except in case of rape, incest, life of mother is threatened”.

    Now we basically have to pick between “no abortion whatsoever” and “taxpayer funded abortion until the mother’s water breaks”.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They’re getting their chits together for the big deal.

    The rape and incest exception has always been a decal the GOPe sticks on to signal they’re not really serious about life (i.e. they can be counted on not to mess up the Plan to reduce Black Parenthood).

    Mother’s life is a different story. Mother’s health in practice used to justify all sorts of abuses.
  107. @Jus' Sayin'...

    "I will easily settle five times that number of Jews on it."
     
    Until, in a few decades, the foreign colonialists use up the aquifers that autochthonous Arab methods of farming had preserved for millennia. It is no accident that water levels in the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea began falling when Jewish invaders arrived and have now reached historically low levels.

    The Sea of Galilee reached its measured low in 2001. The level is now considerably above that. And I can’t find any sources that identify aquifers as being a significant source of water for the lake.

    As of 2016, Israel used 25,000,000 cubic meters of water from the lake for its own consumption and 50,000,000 cubic meters for Jordan.

    According to Wikipedia, Israel is making plans to pump desalinated water into the lake to maintain the pressure necessary to keep saline springs from seeping into the lake.

    So what if the Dead Sea is at a low? That just means the Israelis are efficiently using Jordan River resources and not letting the water go wastefully into the Dead Sea, or is there an aspect of “Dead” I’m not understanding. And yes, I know there are small organisms that have adapted to its high salinity, but I’m guessing that the Israelis put a higher premium on other uses of the water.

  108. Anonymous[238] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    She’s Norwegian and they’ve been dating for five years.

    A prior girlfriend is this model, who is half Israeli and half Danish.

    http://www.pmamodels.co.il/women/lee-levi/

    She’s Norwegian and they’ve been dating for five years.

    Five years is a long time. Why haven’t they married?

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    If he marries a non-Jew how do you think that will affect Netanyahu’s election chances?

    I would guess that an Israeli PM’s son marrying a non-Jew would have the same effect as a US Presidential candidate’s son marrying a black woman - in 1935.
  109. @Anonymous

    She’s Norwegian and they’ve been dating for five years.
     
    Five years is a long time. Why haven't they married?

    If he marries a non-Jew how do you think that will affect Netanyahu’s election chances?

    I would guess that an Israeli PM’s son marrying a non-Jew would have the same effect as a US Presidential candidate’s son marrying a black woman – in 1935.

    • Replies: @Anon

    I would guess that an Israeli PM’s son marrying a non-Jew would have the same effect as a US Presidential candidate’s son marrying a black woman – in 1935.
     
    If he wasn't intending to marry her, how fair was it for him to monopolize her and keep her barren for five of her most fertile childbearing years?
  110. @Corn
    “In the last ten years, this opinion has started appearing on the right, in what looks suspiciously like a right wing virtue spiral.”

    Maybe my memory is hazy or I’m thinking of what Bob Casey wanted before his own party smacked him down but when I was coming of age in the ‘90s the pro-life attitude seemed to be “illegal abortion except in case of rape, incest, life of mother is threatened”.

    Now we basically have to pick between “no abortion whatsoever” and “taxpayer funded abortion until the mother’s water breaks”.

    They’re getting their chits together for the big deal.

    The rape and incest exception has always been a decal the GOPe sticks on to signal they’re not really serious about life (i.e. they can be counted on not to mess up the Plan to reduce Black Parenthood).

    Mother’s life is a different story. Mother’s health in practice used to justify all sorts of abuses.

  111. @Daniel H
    Are not American Jews obsessed with abortion? Abortion is an unyielding issue with most Jews. Very strange. Many, many, many pro-abortion gentiles have moral qualms with abortion, though they support abortion nonetheless. I have never personally met a Jew who opposed abortion or even had any qualms about the procedure. Strange.

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

    Here’s your president of NARAL. She killed her first child and now will spend the rest of her life trying not to look into the pit of Hell.

    Seriously. Read the short entry for her; it’s terrifying.

  112. @Lot
    She’s Norwegian and they’ve been dating for five years.

    A prior girlfriend is this model, who is half Israeli and half Danish.

    http://www.pmamodels.co.il/women/lee-levi/

    This is a different girl, Stephanie Khazaniuk. He dumped the Norwegian chick a long time ago.

  113. Anon[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ibound1
    If he marries a non-Jew how do you think that will affect Netanyahu’s election chances?

    I would guess that an Israeli PM’s son marrying a non-Jew would have the same effect as a US Presidential candidate’s son marrying a black woman - in 1935.

    I would guess that an Israeli PM’s son marrying a non-Jew would have the same effect as a US Presidential candidate’s son marrying a black woman – in 1935.

    If he wasn’t intending to marry her, how fair was it for him to monopolize her and keep her barren for five of her most fertile childbearing years?

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    Hell if I know. I couldn’t care any less about either of them.
  114. @Anon

    I would guess that an Israeli PM’s son marrying a non-Jew would have the same effect as a US Presidential candidate’s son marrying a black woman – in 1935.
     
    If he wasn't intending to marry her, how fair was it for him to monopolize her and keep her barren for five of her most fertile childbearing years?

    Hell if I know. I couldn’t care any less about either of them.

  115. @YetAnotherAnon
    The UK routinely aborts children with cleft palates, a condition which can be remedied with a not very difficult operation.

    Downs children are nearly all aborted, unless the parents (as we did) refuse the offer of a test and choose to spin the chambers. Downs kids (and adults) are pretty sweet-natured, but there's the worry as to what'll become of them when you're not around - they live longer these days.

    “there’s the worry as to what’ll become of them when you’re not around”

    https://www.camphill.org

  116. @Anonymous
    The part where weitzmann explains that the settlemntt of arabs results in desertisation and the settlement of jews results in fertile land (ie its only desert with no drinking water because of the primitiveness of the arabs).

    duh, When I moved to this cuntry in 1969, it was a very, quickly, noted while a child, that white-skinned kids (kinda’ a diverse group) were different (Brooklyn). My family lived there just 3 years, and, it is still, the strangest time of my life. I really do detest the early Spies that made right wingers confused.

  117. @Hail

    Wasps and Wacs
     
    Why not just say "Whites," for short?

    Alternatively, and rather euphemistically, "Christians"?

    Or, long form: "European-Christian-origin full-Whites." (see comment-41 in a June 2019 iSteve thread about NYC, and a reply on nomenclature at comment-75).

    hahahaahaaaa. I am still struggling to be nice to all the wonderful Jewish people I have been friends with, since a child, for the last 50 years. But, I am aware of the machinations…I am an EU citizen as well as an American. I know the bs. It hurts me to think that some of the many Jewish friends I have had for 4 decades, hate people like me…Nordics.

  118. @Corn
    Rush Limbaugh allegedly said back in the ‘90s if homosexuality were ever found to have a genetic cause the gay rights crowd would shift to a pro-life position, however liberal they remained on other matters.

    don’t be so cucksure. I may have aborted a gay baby (so not known) when I was a dumb-ass 40 years ago. Rest assured, I had the abortion. However, people/cultures who really care about the fetus, will abort from now on – abortions are super easy. Why be a poor parent? That, is what this is really all about. Baby parts, also, do not benefit the woman who goes to 8-9 months….just sayin’ So, Democrats love, love, love abortions…and, that is what I heard all my youth. Women, Democrat women, love abortions…because they see that as empowerment.

  119. @Dave Pinsen
    Here's the key part:

    I expressed some surprise about how Weizmann hoped to settle 5 million Jews on territory occupied by 1 million Arabs. "Oh, don't worry," Weizmann burst out laughing. "The Arab is often called the son of the desert. It would be truer to call him the father of the desert. His laziness and primitivism turn a flourishing garden into a desert. Give me the land occupied by a million Arabs, and I will easily settle five times that number of Jews on it."
     

    so erguuughhhhh.

  120. @Anonymous

    you are alone…and, in the end: you are alone.
     
    What point are you making?

    that you are alone. Whatever you believe; conspiracies or lucky, local facts, you still have to make a decision and BELIEVE…if you sense that this, this idea, is some load of bs, is what I call: confusion and disbelief, which will not conform to any party-conformism of any kind. Capice?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?