The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Jews and Money: The Stereotype, the History, the Reality"
🔊 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

With the Establishment media up in arms over Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar referencing the forbidden fact of Jewish wealth, it’s worth reading this old article in the Jewish News of Northern California:

Jews and money: The stereotype, the history, the reality
BY DAN PINE | APRIL 12, 2013

All Jews are rich. They’re really good with money and own all the banks. Oh, and they control the media, too, not to mention the government.

So go the stereotypes that have followed Jews for centuries. They are hateful and hurtful canards, and have triggered immeasurable Jewish suffering throughout history.

As a people, Jews traditionally have been extraordinarily generous, civic-minded and philanthropic. But the stereotypes endure, perhaps in part because there is an underlying truth: In this country, Jews overall are better off financially than most.

So what’s up with Jews and money? It’s a complicated question, and for the most part the collective Jewish community has avoided discussing it.

There is a tacit taboo on talking about the relationships connecting Jews and wealth, power and influence. It pushes buttons for some, and generally is not mentioned in polite society.

That is, until now. The Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is hosting “Loaded: Jews & Money,” a series of events, lectures and discussions that touch on various aspects of the subject. The series, which runs through May, is the latest of the Manovill Conversations, sponsored by the Laszlo N. Tauber Family Foundation.

Organizers know the topic might make some people uncomfortable. They say, bring it on.

“It’s a sensitive, emotional arena, and brings out all kinds of reactions,” said Barbara Lane, the JCC’s director of Arts & Ideas. “We wanted an environment to discuss some volatile issues in a reasoned and intelligent way.”

The numbers are telling, though they aren’t the whole story. A 2008 Pew Forum Institute study found that Jews are the nation’s wealthiest religious group, with 46 percent earning $100,000 or more a year, compared with 18 percent of the overall population.

As for mega-wealth, the most recent Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans included nearly 100 Jewish billionaires — a striking statistic for a group that represents less than 2 percent of the population. Then again, financial criminals such as Bernie Madoff and Jack Abramoff embarrassed many in the Jewish community.

It adds up to plenty of fodder for the JCC series. Panelists and lecturers include Rabbi David Wolpe, Slate journalist Matt Yglesias, writer and essayist Daphne Merkin, filmmaker Lewis Cohen and a certain former New York governor who built a reputation for prosecuting Wall Street profiteers — some of them Jews. …

One of the series’ lecturers who will speak to such historical stereotypes is scholar Jerry Muller, author of “Capitalism and the Jews.” Muller, a professor of economic history at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., will discuss his book on May 7.

He thinks the time is right for a series like this, even though its subject may make audience members squirm.

“Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically. In central and western Europe, and eventually the United States, Jews were the wealthiest group on average by a wide margin.”

He also busts the myth that the ghettoized Jews of medieval Europe languished in poverty.

“It’s not true that for most of European history the Jews were poorer than the surrounding population,” Muller noted. “They were richer and certainly a lot more literate. It’s true they didn’t have many rights, but then the vast majority didn’t have many rights.” …

 
Hide 279 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. So people want to murder Jews because Jews are meritocratically successful, wealthy, and generous? Okay, sounds like he has a fine grasp of the issue. Couldn’t anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism, which would clearly create problems irrespective of individual wealth level.
    Seriously though, who are the goofs showing up to the “Let Us Cure Your Virulent Anri-Semitism” hectures? I picture the guy on Catch A Predator who didn’t want the cookie.

    • Replies: @HA
    "Couldn’t [have] anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism..."

    I think it has more to do with how much of that Jewish money was earned through usury (which both Christians and Jews regarded as sinful exploitation, but as long as Jews were exploiting Christians, well, no biggie), tax-farming, the European slave-trade, and later on, other jobs (e.g. the liquor industry) that were regarded as exploitative, especially of the poor.

    True, it was the nobles who set up these policies (and no doubt replaced any kindly and easygoing Jewish tax collectors with those who were willing to be more ruthless and exploitative), but we typically don't absolve a hitman just because the one who hired him bears the ultimate responsibility for the murder. The Jews in the camps who hated the Jewish kapo even more than the Nazis who hired him knew he was only a hired gun, but they still despised him for using those brutal policies to take advantage of others, and that's understandable.

    But when people (e.g. Jack D) resentfully complain about how the Jews of the Holocaust were in some cases handed over by their neighbors, they forget to mention that the neighbors were likewise acting at the behest of other "nobles", and those who did NOT turn over Jews or who sheltered them would have been shot along with their families, and in the vast majority of cases Jew-hunting did not turn into a generational vocation as was the case with usury and tax-farming. So there's a fair amount of inconsistency there.

    I know what some will say, and I get it -- this all happened a long time ago, and has to be weighed against the pogroms and the Holocaust. Moreover, even though leftists hated big-capital Jews, while right-wingers hated Commie pinko Jews, the Jew that disproportionately died in such bloodbaths was more likely to be some down-on-his-luck schlemiel from the shtetls (along with wife and kids). But do keep that inconsistency in mind the next time hucksters like Jack D want you to believe that the only reason people resent Jews is because they think they must have horns on their head. There's a whole lot that people like that want you to forget about.

    What's more, you're definitely not allowed to forget any history when it comes to, say, white privilege, or male privilege, and it doesn't matter if your parents came here from Romania or Russia 20 years ago and were poor and subjugated for centuries beforehand. You, little white man, will still have to answer for what King Leopold and rich Southern plantation owners did -- and Hitler, too, while we're at it -- down to the seventh generation and beyond.

    , @Dave Pinsen

    Couldn’t anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism
     
    As any visit to The Vatican, in its Spartan austerity, will illustrate.
  2. The term “Jewish wealth” is a misrepresentation. Lots of people have money. It is Jews using their wealth in concert to undermine US government and Constitution that is the problem.

    • Replies: @Jake
    All you say is true, but that is not the whole story. Pure WASP Quakers and Unitarian-Universalists and Congregationalists also have used their wealth 'to undermine US government and Constitution.' In fact, almost as many Quakers and Unitarian-Unitarians as Jews per capita have used their wealth, education, and privilege to wage culture war against the vast majority of white Gentile Americans.
    , @Tom Verso
    “using their wealth in concert” is a very important sociological concept.

    This is my understanding of the works of Kevin MacDonald and E. Michael Jones. The Jewish people worldwide are a unified 'Nation' bound together by a common ideological goal of what is best for Jews. I read recently that a Mossad agent said that he could knock on any door of any Jew in the world and he would be welcomed and helped. I'm Italian-American. If an someone from an Italian agency knocks on my door, I tell him 'forget-about-it'.

    Further, the many local Jewish organizations integrate into national and international groups. This unified ideological perspective and behavior is the basis of Jewish power and influence. Their wealth is of secondary importance. If total Jewish wealth were halved they would still be a National force to be reckoned with.

    In short, it is sociologically meaningless to think of Jews as an ethnic or religious group akin to Italians, Catholics, etc. Rather they are a Nation akin to France, England, etc.

    Jews don’t work “in concert to undermine US government and Constitution.” They work in concert to promote their best interest as do all Nations of the world. What passes as anti-Semitism is rather contra-Semitism. Just as conflicts between say Germany and France were not anti-Germans of Frenchmen having to do with personal characteristics of the people of the respective nations. Rather, it was a conflict of perceived national interest.

    , @Jack D
    Absolutely right - us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert (we play a little klezmer music in the background) how we can use our wealth to undermine the Constitution today. No goys are allowed in these meetings. We get fined if we haven't used our wealth during the previous week to weaken the Constitution in some way. Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it's all fake.

    No other religion has Elders of Baptists or Elders of Presbyterians or Elders of Mormons.. oh, wait they do have those.

  3. When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    • Replies: @Anon
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    It's a canard in a goldmine.
    , @Anonym
    tvtropes.org

    Most everyone who stumbles on the site and exits, after a time, learns what tropes are. It is the same font bubbling forth Mary Sue, McGuffin, etc into the lexicon.
    , @Thirdtwin
    About the same time "alliance" was replaced by "allyship", I think.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Probably around the same time that social justice replaced actual justice, refugee replaced migrant carpetbagger, and single mother became a term of sanctification rather than abuse.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?
     
    When did canards get old and get replaced back with stabilizers and elevators back on the tail, is what I wanna know?

    You get a benefit in efficiency by putting the stabilizing surface ahead of the center of mass so it's lift component can ADD to the total lift, rather than SUBTRACT from it ... or is that just some old canard?
    , @Lurker
    Around the same cliché became trope.
    , @Almost Missouri
    And when spouse became partner and when victim became survivor and when non-victims also became survivors.
    , @Anonymous

    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.
     
    What does "trope" mean?
  4. “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically.”

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    Seems to me pretty obvious that certain ethnic groups and races have different abilities. I have no idea about the reasons for this and won’t speculate here. Needless to say, this is not the officially accepted opinion in polite US society these days.

    So we run into all kinds of interesting things, like the sentence above, or all of the elaborate explanations for what we see in society: White privilege, stereotype threat, etc, etc… More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Anon
    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically.”

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    No need for 'but'.

    Stereotypes are generally true of the group as a whole. It is wrong only if we assume that it applies to every individual in the group.
    , @anonymous
    Jewish wealth is built by cooperation against the host society in which they live. They also specialise as middlemen instead of having a full occupational profile. In White countries they are particularly sucessful because Whites are atomised and believe in individualism so therefore Jewish tribalism wins. This is also the case with thier dominance in society. Jewish dominance owes more to ethnic networking and nepotism than it does to free and fair competition between individuals.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.
     
    Not this again. If you do not realize how head-up-the-ass stupid this claim is, there is no chance that your assessment of anything else will be at all accurate. If you have not managed to expel 400 year-old pieces of silly misinformation, how can you possibly understand the present moment?
    , @anon
    1. The Church didn't come up with geocentric models.
    2. Until Keppler it was the heliocentric circles that required more epicycles.
    3. Heliocentric models couldn't explain the seeming lack of stellar parallax without making additional assumptions such that the visible stars are extremely far away (turned out to be true) and given there apparent size in the sky must be many, many times larger than our entire solar system (not true, apparent diameter of stars is caused by a diffraction pattern).
    4. Observation couldn't distinguish between several different heliocentric and geocentric models that predicted where you would find dots in the sky on any given night and the geocentric models were in some ways much simpler (fewer epicycles, not requiring assumptions about size and distance of stars.
    , @Anon
    Many sterotyoes are true.
  5. That is, until now. The Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is hosting “Loaded: Jews & Money,”

    And according to a story on Drudge, there should be piles of human feces outside in the streets.

    Why didn’t they hold it in a clean city?

    • Replies: @Kaganovitch
    The article was from 2013. It was only a turd or 2 at the time.
    , @Anon
    No, it’s in the inner Richmond just west of presidio heights; a couple miles west of Van Ness the street that divides the fecal district from the rest of the city. Nice place, lots of kids programs open to everybody
  6. This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there’s a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    That's the tired old canard our grandparents recited. The Jews were kept out from non-lucrative occupations, you see, so they were forced to make tons of money and lord it over the goyim. Also Jews are really smart and of course smart people are naturally attracted to lots of money and the ability to lord it over the goyim. None of this is ever questioned--it's just regurgitated.

    Since the people in charge of popular narratives worship money and power, it's impossible for them to conceive of any worthy person devoting his or her life to anything else. But then, someone always has to pay retail.
    , @Jon

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there’s a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.
     
    If you are going the selective pressure route, I would think the periodic ethnic cleansings would have an even bigger effect. Every couple of generations, their population goes through a bottleneck. Probably due for another soon. Just imagine how much smarter they will be when only a few million of the smartest and wealthiest of today have a surviving line.
    , @Svigor

    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there’s a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.
     

    In the old days, nobility was key to landowning. It had fuck-all to do with discrimination. Not that there's anything wrong with native Europeans discriminating in their homelands against the foreign Jews, a people for whom discrimination has long been both a way of life, and a religion.

    Also, this "Jews had to survive by their wits" thing is way past its sell-by date. Like everyone else was farming because it was a great gig, but the poor Jews were locked out. Gimme a break already.

    P.S., thieves and con men have to live by their wits...

    , @Don't Look at Me
    A dumb farmer is a hungry farmer. Food doesn't just leap out of the ground and into your cart.

    Farmers have to live by the calendar, knowing when to plant and when to harvest. They have to have the discipline to get up every day and toil in the field, for a reward that is months away. They have to store food, firewood, and supplies for the winter or they will starve.

    The ant and the grasshopper, anyone?
    , @HA
    "Jews were often forbidden to own land"

    You mean they were forbidden to own estates. I.e., cry me a river. I'm sure the ghosts of the serfs -- who were literally slaves, i.e., property, of the estates on which they were born, and thereby stuck where they were for centuries -- are rattling their chains in agony to this day over the fact that Jews who had gotten rich via usury were not allowed to parlay their winnings into shipping and estate-ownership. Just like they're crying over the injustice of some princess not being allowed to rule just because she was a woman. The horror of it!

    And as Steve Sailer has noted, for those who really had a craving to work the land -- say, by choosing to becoming serfs and peasants, they would have found those to be easy-entry occupations.

    , @Rosamond Vincy
    There were plenty of Jewish peasants in pre-WWII Poland.
    They died.
  7. You cannot create a stereotype without a modicum of truth. For example let’s start a new stereotype about Jews that all they like to do is play basketball. Does anyone think that would even catch on? Of course not because there has to be some kernel of truth to it.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I'm ambivalent on that observation.

    Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor? Or the omnipresent perverted evil white racist? Or the wise Latina?

    These seem close to being inversions of the truth.

  8. Speaking of stereotypes:

    The creator got five times what he asked for on Kickstarter, so it has legs.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    https://youtu.be/E0ijTPri5us
  9. @Clifford Brown
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    It’s a canard in a goldmine.

  10. Anon[145] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @NJ Transit Commuter
    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically."

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    Seems to me pretty obvious that certain ethnic groups and races have different abilities. I have no idea about the reasons for this and won't speculate here. Needless to say, this is not the officially accepted opinion in polite US society these days.

    So we run into all kinds of interesting things, like the sentence above, or all of the elaborate explanations for what we see in society: White privilege, stereotype threat, etc, etc... More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.

    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically.”

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    No need for ‘but’.

    Stereotypes are generally true of the group as a whole. It is wrong only if we assume that it applies to every individual in the group.

    • Replies: @Neuday
    Anybody have stats on Jews below the Federal Poverty Line?
  11. Jewish involvement in financial scams and other economic crime is, of course, a factor in negative stereotypes about Jews. Another is the practice, apparently brought from Eastern Europe, of haggling with small business owners over prices instead of deciding whether or not to buy something based on the price marked on the item.

    A Jew who lived next to me in the dorms in college told me about his sister attending Stanford University’s business school. He said she bought stereo equipment with which she transferred music from turntable to audiotape. After she had the recordings she wanted, she returned the equipment (on what pretext I do not know). My neighbor was not embarassed about this; he was proud of how clever his sister was.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Oddly, when non-Jewish people of European descent do this, they're called, accurately, "white trash".
    , @Anon1
    In my local area, you always see hordes of Indian immigrants returning items at stores. They're also infamous for bringing books of coupons wherever they go.

    At one of the largest local stores, there's food for sale outside. Inside, there are tiny free food samples available. I rarely see Indians buying any food outside, but they're always swarming the free sample booths inside.

    Indians are Jews times ten. In comparison to Indians, Jews seem like New England WASPs.
  12. Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, over the anti-Semitism accusations. That is, he said he was disgusted and quit. His opponents said thay he was cynically motivated by political concerns, but he’s been a man of conscience his entire career.

    Here’s why the Guardian says you’re supposed to hate him;

    Immigration he views solely through the prism of its perceived effects on “the white working class”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/frank-field-labour-mp-brexit-birkenhead

    Recently, also, there was the attempt to push out Luciana Berger, a Jewish MP, by her own constituency head. That idiot also posts on social media about David Icke, the Rothschilds and other nuttiness. Considering that Mrs Berger is 8 months pregnant, and the facts above, it hasn’t been difficult for the right wing to further tarnish the Labour brand.

    Or here is the Labour party’s British “Barack Obama” calling said party “institutionally racist” against Jews. Again, not a headline that has helped their popularity.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ9a604LrgAhWC3OAKHZdLBzUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F09%2Fchuka-umunna-labour-is-institutionally-racist&psig=AOvVaw012upeDZyc6Wq1uGl8hlmL&ust=1550217516368183

    The Conservative party have now won three elections in a row and the Labour party are still behind in the polls. This is unique in British history, where the opposition generally is higher during non-election years, and the election may see the government catch up. It also comes at a time when the government is pursuing a compromise on the issue of the day that satisfies no one, while the Labour party gets the luxury of being all things to all people. Also, Theresa May is hardly a leader of great charisma, though the country does mostly now feel sorry for her…

    In all, it isn’t just that the anti-Semitism accusations have totally stuck. It is that Labour can barely talk about anything else. It is an effective political tool, especially when excited loons crawl out of the woodwork to make it true.

    This lady (a very low rent Ilhan Omar) is not a vote winner:

    Labour councillor suspended over claims she called Hitler ‘the greatest man in history’

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj3qM6s4rrgAhXb6OAKHRunA0kQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F04%2F10%2Flabour-councillor-suspended-over-claims-she-called-hitler-the-gr%2F&psig=AOvVaw1Ckhfaw6j6V-ZzH8az46qS&ust=1550218036980191

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    See? We can all just get along.

    Just before a vote on the Yemen war powers resolution, House GOP forced a vote to add an amendment condemning anti-Semitism "in the interest of national security."

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted 'present'.

    “In a defining moment for the U.S. House of Representatives and the country as a whole, Republicans and Democrats voted as one today to condemn anti-Semitism around the world, to denounce all attempts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, and to oppose efforts to impose boycotts on Israel,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division. This overwhelmingly positive and cohesive vote shows there is no place for anti-Semitism in any form, anytime, anywhere.”

    https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IO-e1548248014934.jpg
     

    , @anonymous
    'Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, '

    Crypto trotskyite controlled opposition. Used to write for all of these atrange left wing magazines.
    , @Sean
    Frank Field always stuck me as Labour's Enoch Powell (he even looks and talks like him). He is working class ethic English. It is only a few years ago that the British Labour Party leadership contest for came down to the Milibrands In September 2010, Miliband narrowly lost the Labour leadership election to his brother Ed.. Jeremy Corbyn had very little Jewish ancestry, even less than Blair, but really you cannot pretend Labour is Anti-Semitic.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3413292,00.html

    LONDON – Many of the key players in the escalating British campaign to boycott Israel are Jewish or Israeli, the Jewish Chronicle revealed in an investigation published Thursday.


    According to the investigation, the Jewish academics justify their stance as part of the struggle for Palestinian rights and ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.


    The report stated that a high proportion of the academics were deeply involved in UCU, the University and College Union, which last month sparked an international outcry by voting to facilitate a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.


    Anti-boycott figures suggest that the campaign has been fuelled by a well-organized mix of far-left activists and Islamic organizations, the JC reported. In reality, the main proponents are a loosely knit collection of academics and trade unionists linked to groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for the Boycotting of Israeli Goods, and Bricup, the British Committee for Universities of Palestine
     
    Working class British do not have their own intellectuals, and so need Jews to do our thinking for us, doing what they say is a habit we don't spend much time questioning. I know that the brilliant public relations and political experts working for Israel must always lead with their Sunday punch and go nuclear with a moralising onslaught on white gentiles to get them to altruistically punish anyone Israel does not like, but could you stop getting us to blame ourselves for your own self hating intelligentsia please?
    , @duncsbaby
    Ilhna Omar is a very low rent Ilhan Omar.
  13. @istevefan
    You cannot create a stereotype without a modicum of truth. For example let's start a new stereotype about Jews that all they like to do is play basketball. Does anyone think that would even catch on? Of course not because there has to be some kernel of truth to it.

    I’m ambivalent on that observation.

    Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor? Or the omnipresent perverted evil white racist? Or the wise Latina?

    These seem close to being inversions of the truth.

    • Replies: @donut
    Hebrew you're clutching at straws .
    , @Anon
    “Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor?...”

    Naw you willfully missed his point. Your examples are top down media efforts at propaganda. Stereotypes are bottom up. They obviously become stereotypical because enough people have a similar experience that it takes on a life of its own. You can do better.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I was about to write something similar to what Anon-#243 wrote. I'll add this - to determine whether some aphorism is a stereotype or not, just think to yourself if you would use it as a useful piece of information, like this:

    "Oh, I have an idea for this invention - let me check with the nearest historically black college to see if I can get some help fleshing it out."

    "My black friend is not the type who knows how to defend himself. I'd better warn him about walking around when all those people will be leaving the antique road show ."

    "I really want to know if I've been heading in the right direction in life lately. What is the meaning of it all? Let me go ask that roofer."

    See what I mean? It works!
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Those 3 ideas are not stereotypes. They are high-visibility hard-core propaganda. If you never watch TV, view the mainstream (Yahoo, etc.) websites, talk with dipshits on the street about politics and attend a university, you will never know of this stupidity.
    , @Svigor
    Insofar as those are actual stereotypes, they are, as you say, reverse stereotypes: endlessly propagated by the (((Big Media))), but generally the butt of jokes among the populace. Only extremely caved-in-head NPCs take them seriously, and they're generally too dumb to even know what a stereotype is.
  14. I think there is a term called ‘market dominant minority’ that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can’t put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Well, the lawyers would be a benefit for America, a disaster for Israel.
    , @anonymous
    'Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation'

    They had a nasty habit of leaving menial/dangerous work to cheap Arab labour before the intafada
    , @anonymous
    'Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers'

    OH NO!

    Fewer lawyers!

    Please yidden save us from this appaling fate!

    Yeah because Whites cant produce thier own doctors
    , @anonymous
    'What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel?'

    Work for a living instead of earning commission by hooking thier patients on opiods. Remeber Zionism was (ostensibly) about turning the Jewish nation into a normal one with territorial integrity and a full occupation profile.
    , @anonymous
    'So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?'

    Negative without a doubt.

    Forget it. They are not leaving unless we make them. Israel and its supporters in congress had to pass special laws in the 1970s and 1990s to make sure that Russian Jews went to Israel instead of America (Israel would have been minority Ashkenazi without them).Virtually no Jews from Russia wanted to make aliyah.
    , @Jack D
    Short term it would be a negative no doubt. This in fact happened to a lot of the Soviet Jews who went to Israel. The USSR had a very large system of state subsidized orchestras and half the Jews emigrating got off the plane carrying their violin cases. When they got to Israel it was explained to them that Israel had exactly 1 symphony orchestra and that they were going to have find something else to do.

    However, long term, Israel has gone from being extremely poor to approaching European levels of income, despite having large groups of ultra-religious, Arabs, Ethiopian "Jews", etc. who are never going to carry their weight. Tel Aviv real estate prices are among the highest in the world. They have all kinds of high tech industries. A larger Israel (especially one filled with high IQ diaspora Ashkenazis) would, long term, be a richer place.
    , @TWS
    Nobody would miss the lawyers
    , @Ibound1
    Financially it would certainly be worse for the diaspora Jews, unless the neighbors of Israel opened up their markets to Israel. But that is never, ever, going to happen. However considering that Israeli Jews have a lot of kids and American Jews don't, from a purely biological imperative point of view, it would be much better for them to move to Israel. Would it be better for America ? I think it would be an even trade. Yes, we would lose a lot of talented doctors and scientists and business people. But we would also lose Sarah Silverman and Chelsea Handler. So definitely even for America.
    , @AnotherDad
    istevefan, just wanted to say this is a first class comment.

    It's important to do these thought experiments. I think about them coming from the science side, but it seems to me they are quite--maybe even more--useful on the social\political side.

    .... But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.
     
    Super important. It's good for any people to do everything themselves. Develop the full range of capabilities.

    A notable historic data point is that Britain and France expelled their Jews ... and went on to lead the modern world. Britain in particular didn't have a significant number of Jews come back until quite recently, and as a result developed all the "middle man" capabilities in actual Britons, with terrific effect.

    But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward.
     
    This point can't be emphasized enough. It's been a tremendous boon to Jews to come to America and be able to do their middle-man activities on top of a big rich white--prosperous and rule-of-law--nation. Israel is there now. They really can do "next year in Jerusalem" ... but they don't go! Revealed preference.

    America has been absolutely terrific for the Jews ... the Jews for Americans? Uh not, so much and perhaps even fatal.


    But this pattern doesn't just apply to the Jews. Every member of the Democrats "coalition of fringes"--pretty much the same story. Jewish minoritarianism keeps preaching how just golly gee gosh golly terrible for minorities to bear the burden of life amongst those racist white (i.e. gentile) people.

    Yet ... they won't leave! Blacks--legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. etc.--live way way better than they would or could in Africa. Cheap air travel is here. And they are relative to Africans quite rick. But they won't pack up and go. And in fact, more Africans keep coming. Hispanics? Same story. Asians? Same story. Jews? Same story. Somehow all that white "racism" and "anti-Semitism" just isn't doing the trick.

    Nope the minoritarian demand is never "leave us alone" but rather is always "let us in!". Your schools, your country clubs, your neighborhoods, your nations.

    Revealed preference.
  15. @Tyrion 2
    I'm ambivalent on that observation.

    Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor? Or the omnipresent perverted evil white racist? Or the wise Latina?

    These seem close to being inversions of the truth.

    Hebrew you’re clutching at straws .

  16. Anon[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2
    I'm ambivalent on that observation.

    Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor? Or the omnipresent perverted evil white racist? Or the wise Latina?

    These seem close to being inversions of the truth.

    “Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor?…”

    Naw you willfully missed his point. Your examples are top down media efforts at propaganda. Stereotypes are bottom up. They obviously become stereotypical because enough people have a similar experience that it takes on a life of its own. You can do better.

    • Agree: peterike
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I don't think the stereotype of white people being particularly bigoted is (only) top down. It seems more of a case of social scapegoating. Do black Americans really need the New York Times to give them permission to think of white people as anti-black haters? Are the black Americans who don't read not actually often more reflexively disliking of white people?

    As for the black inventors, I think black Americans may be not be genius inventors by bottom up stereotype but they are sort of "numinous" to many, sanctified by slavery. Meanwhile, Latinas probably get allocated wisdom on the old-fashioned basis that people who don't make a lot of noise don't out themselves as fools.

    Anyway, you may disagree with the above but hand-waving away what you don't like as "top down" and welcoming what you do as "bottom up" is too easy. I'm tempted to just agree with you,but it seems to me like too much of a way to avoid doing some real thinking.
  17. @PapayaSF
    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there's a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    That’s the tired old canard our grandparents recited. The Jews were kept out from non-lucrative occupations, you see, so they were forced to make tons of money and lord it over the goyim. Also Jews are really smart and of course smart people are naturally attracted to lots of money and the ability to lord it over the goyim. None of this is ever questioned–it’s just regurgitated.

    Since the people in charge of popular narratives worship money and power, it’s impossible for them to conceive of any worthy person devoting his or her life to anything else. But then, someone always has to pay retail.

    • Agree: densa
    • Replies: @IHTG
    Merchant > peasant, but landowning noble > merchant
  18. So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    If it were a net positive, they probably would have already moved there. Conversely, for the many who did move there, I assume it was a net positive.

    Naturally people make mistakes but revealed preferences are superior to wild speculation.

    I’d also add though, that while you make room for Jews moving to Israel for non-materialist reasons, you don’t make room for them staying in their countries (of birth) for non-materialist reasons. Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.

    Indeed, many Jews have moved to Israel for materialistic reasons, foregoing immaterial preferences for their country of departure. Though they’d be loathe to admit it.

    As always, these things are complicated and people make decisions based on innumerable and changing factors.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    'you don’t make room for them staying in their countries (of birth) for non-materialist reasons. '

    Who are you kidding.
    , @anonymous
    'Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.'

    Israel has massive poverty. Jews who were engineers in other countries sweep the streets. It also has one of the highest living costs in the developed world and a massive housing crisis. The aliyah benefits are not that great and are more than matched for when you take into the account the poor jobs market. The services there are run as monopolies and everything is expensive.

    They are much better off here (among a White host) and they know it.
    , @Erik L
    The reason I'm not moving to Israel is that I am an American
    , @res

    Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.
     
    One thing about subsidies like that. In a competitive larger environment (e.g. with access to the US available) the subsidies are more attractive to those of lesser ability (less able to succeed competitively). Does Israel screen the people it subsidizes at all? If not, that seems like the kind of "mistake" SJWs tend to make, not the hard headed behavior I think of as characteristic of Israel.
  19. A friend of mine told me his Jewish girlfriend did get the two of them a price break on a couple of bowling balls. She asked the man who sold and drilled the balls at the bowling alley if a discount could be had for buying two balls. He cut the price a little. My friend was embarrassed when she did that sort of thing.

    • Replies: @william munny
    This stuff embarrasses me too, but can be fun to watch if you are not involved. I live near an area that is overwhelmingly orthodox Jewish. It is funny watching them try to negotiate with 18-year-old cashiers at Lowe's and Staples. Every time they pay.
    , @Almost Missouri
    In the Middle East everyone haggles. Even among Westerners, haggling still holds a purchase (heh) among Southern Europeans and Levantines. A Tunisian friend of mine was badly cheated by an Italian merchant in a way that would have made me genocidally enraged, yet he could only express admiration for the cut-throated way the Italian had outdone him. Similarly, a Greek Consular officer there liked to express how the Middle Eastern culture was similar to Greece, in terms of bargaining and family-work intermingling. Translated into my WEIRD framework, he was saying that he too engaged in market anarchy, nepotism and insider-dealing.

    I myself probably caused some consternation by WEIRDing when I should have When-In-Rome-ed. For instance a customer of my employer invited me to partake some of his residential privileges, which did sound enticing, but I offhandedly replied that I couldn't accept because I had to maintain "clean hands" with respect to my employer's interest. I think this really offended him. Probably he found other employees who were more amenable.

    But this culture can change, though it takes a lifetime. I was amused there by a local friend who was very good at haggling but who had married co-ethnic/co-religionist girl who had grown up in the West whom he then brought back to the Middle East (in effect importing a wife back to her "native" country—sort of the reverse of what we see Muslim immigrant men do here nowadays). His Westernized wife always quailed with embarrassment whenever her husband started squeezing the haggle-vise on a vendor, which was whenever they bought something, so all the time in other words. The irony was that I, a native Westerner, had theretofore always watched these haggle sessions with keen interest since I knew I needed to learn to haggle better so as not to get taken in every deal, but whenever his wife was around, I found it impossible not to feel her embarrassment.

    , @Jack D
    I think of all the "bad" things that Jews do, that one is among the least bad (at least compared to Bernie Madoff). And it's not unique to Jews - in most non-Western cultures, haggling is the norm.

    Remember that "price fixing" is a bad thing and is anti-consumer. I think haggling got bred out of Western culture due to the monopoly power of the guilds and then later the monopoly power of the trusts. Bargaining was a waste of time because it wasn't going to get you anywhere. In colonial Philadelphia, the Carpenter's Guild had a little secret book of prices for every job and which every member had to adhere to. When a member died, someone from the guild came around and took the book back. If you got several estimates from different carpenters, surprise surprise they were exactly the same.

    https://cstorb.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/the-carpenters-company-of-the-city-and-county-of-philadelphia/

    Later on, it was no use bargaining with Rockefeller over the price of kerosene - either you paid his price or you weren't going to get any.

    When I was a kid, they still had "Fair Trade" laws where merchants were not allowed to sell under MSRP, airline ticket prices were fixed, trucking rates were fixed, etc. because big business was able to get these kind of laws passed in their favor.

    Only dumb goyim would think that the right to be screwed by vendors is a FEATURE and not a BUG in the American system. It's so CONVENIENT when you don't have to haggle over the price. Doesn't it occur to you that if the merchant is setting the price that he is going to set it in a way that it advantageous to him?
    , @Jack D
    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is "embarrassing"? Is it because the sum is "trivial"? Say that the merchant cut the price by $5 and that it took you 1 minute to ask and get the merchant's answer. That comes out to $300 per hour - it seems like a pretty good use of your time.
    , @Stan Adams
    My mother isn't Jewish (or Asian or Hispanic or Middle Eastern), but she used to do the same thing. When I was growing up, I assumed that it was just the normal way that people did their shopping.

    Her technique was to patronize the same stores and restaurants often enough to get to know all of the managers. Then she would sweet-talk and strong-arm them into giving her special deals and discounts.

    As a child, I was taught to keep one eye on the ground for any spare pennies that might be lying around. I was also admonished *never* to give any money to anyone.

    One time, when I was probably about ten, my mother sent me into a store to buy something. On the way out, I gave a dollar to a beggar. When my mother found out that I had given away some of her change, she was so angry that she screamed at me for half an hour. I never made that mistake again.

    Of course, she was constantly stiffing me on lunch money, so I was always having to borrow from my teachers. My mother never made much of an effort to pay them back. I usually had to ask my grandmother for the cash.
  20. Given the propensity of some of your commentators to unfounded generalization (not to speak of simple malice), listening to the actual substance of the talk mentioned in the article may be of use:

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
  21. @Paul
    Jewish involvement in financial scams and other economic crime is, of course, a factor in negative stereotypes about Jews. Another is the practice, apparently brought from Eastern Europe, of haggling with small business owners over prices instead of deciding whether or not to buy something based on the price marked on the item.


    A Jew who lived next to me in the dorms in college told me about his sister attending Stanford University's business school. He said she bought stereo equipment with which she transferred music from turntable to audiotape. After she had the recordings she wanted, she returned the equipment (on what pretext I do not know). My neighbor was not embarassed about this; he was proud of how clever his sister was.

    Oddly, when non-Jewish people of European descent do this, they’re called, accurately, “white trash”.

  22. @Tyrion 2
    Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, over the anti-Semitism accusations. That is, he said he was disgusted and quit. His opponents said thay he was cynically motivated by political concerns, but he's been a man of conscience his entire career.

    Here's why the Guardian says you're supposed to hate him;

    Immigration he views solely through the prism of its perceived effects on “the white working class”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/frank-field-labour-mp-brexit-birkenhead

    Recently, also, there was the attempt to push out Luciana Berger, a Jewish MP, by her own constituency head. That idiot also posts on social media about David Icke, the Rothschilds and other nuttiness. Considering that Mrs Berger is 8 months pregnant, and the facts above, it hasn't been difficult for the right wing to further tarnish the Labour brand.

    Or here is the Labour party's British "Barack Obama" calling said party "institutionally racist" against Jews. Again, not a headline that has helped their popularity.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ9a604LrgAhWC3OAKHZdLBzUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F09%2Fchuka-umunna-labour-is-institutionally-racist&psig=AOvVaw012upeDZyc6Wq1uGl8hlmL&ust=1550217516368183

    The Conservative party have now won three elections in a row and the Labour party are still behind in the polls. This is unique in British history, where the opposition generally is higher during non-election years, and the election may see the government catch up. It also comes at a time when the government is pursuing a compromise on the issue of the day that satisfies no one, while the Labour party gets the luxury of being all things to all people. Also, Theresa May is hardly a leader of great charisma, though the country does mostly now feel sorry for her...

    In all, it isn't just that the anti-Semitism accusations have totally stuck. It is that Labour can barely talk about anything else. It is an effective political tool, especially when excited loons crawl out of the woodwork to make it true.

    This lady (a very low rent Ilhan Omar) is not a vote winner:

    Labour councillor suspended over claims she called Hitler 'the greatest man in history'

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj3qM6s4rrgAhXb6OAKHRunA0kQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F04%2F10%2Flabour-councillor-suspended-over-claims-she-called-hitler-the-gr%2F&psig=AOvVaw1Ckhfaw6j6V-ZzH8az46qS&ust=1550218036980191

    See? We can all just get along.

    Just before a vote on the Yemen war powers resolution, House GOP forced a vote to add an amendment condemning anti-Semitism “in the interest of national security.”

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted ‘present’.

    “In a defining moment for the U.S. House of Representatives and the country as a whole, Republicans and Democrats voted as one today to condemn anti-Semitism around the world, to denounce all attempts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, and to oppose efforts to impose boycotts on Israel,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division. This overwhelmingly positive and cohesive vote shows there is no place for anti-Semitism in any form, anytime, anywhere.”

    https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IO-e1548248014934.jpg

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    That reminds me of my old Student Union. For three hours a time, they "debated" how violence against women was bad, slavery was bad and rape was bad etc.

    Of course, their 3 hour mutual masturbation sessions were the only time I felt sympathy for the opposing positions.
    , @AnotherDad

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted ‘present’.
     
    But see, it wasn't really zero, it was 424-0-2. There is much work to be done here in the US to stamp out the terrible virus of anti-Semitism.

    Cue up more holocaust movies!
    , @AnotherDad
    Have to say, huge respect to these two guys Massie and Amash for standing up to--or at least sitting out--this Jewish Stalinism.

    Amash is a Christian Arab--looked it up, father Palestinian--more straightforward for him, but still politically dangerous. Massie is just a sharp--EE MIT, successful business founder--good old boy.

    Don't know whether they tried, but offer an amendment to add condemnation of all racism in all forms including anti-white racism, anti-gentilism, anti-Arabism, anti-redneckism and anti-flyover-country-white racism.

    And add to the "denounce all attempts to deligitimize Israel's right to exist", "or Europeans peoples' nations right to exist as distinct nations or the right of the native people of any nation to maintain themselves as a distinct people and nation for theirselves and their posterity."
    , @Jack D
    At least there is SOMETHING that all Americans agree about!

    Isn't this like voting for motherhood and apple pie? Except for around here and maybe a few Muslima congresswomen, aren't most Americans against anti-Semitism, or at least not actively in favor of it?
  23. @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    Well, the lawyers would be a benefit for America, a disaster for Israel.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  24. Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades. They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,… in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate…

    See more comprehensive histories by Simon Dubnov, or a more accessible & shorter authored by German historian Werner Keller.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    This is completely untrue. Islam made Jews second class citizens and forbade moneylending. This is why Jews went into trade and manufacturing.


    Obvious troll is obvious.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    Suggest you give proper references, of form:
    author
    title
    publisher, date

    If you don't want the whole reference, you can give search terms that locate the source in Amazon.com. If the source is trivial (e.g. Wikipedia), just use a URL.

    If it's not worth your time to specify a refrence, it's not worth mine to dig it out, which defeats your purpose.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Svigor
    They're not particularly successful in Iran, either, where they are essentially walled off and ignored, and prevented from "assimilating" into Iranian society.

    Maybe there's a connection? Something tells me the Romans, Parthians, and caliphates weren't content to sit back and let Jews crowd the plum jobs and play the nepotism game, either.

    In other words, I suspect you have it backwards; prevented from taking over native societies, Jews were forced to work for a living.

    , @Jack D
    Even in Poland right up to the eve of the Holocaust, those were the exact occupations that most Jews were involved in, not banking. If you ask American Jews what great grandpa did when he got off the boat at Ellis Island, it was that kind of thing.

    (BTW, most people don't associate Jews with blacksmithing but it was in fact a Jewish trade). Samuel Yellin was perhaps the greatest metal worker in American history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Yellin
    , @Colin Wright
    'Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades...'

    If so, they've changed.

    Witness Israel. On the one hand, she has to import agricultural workers, while on the other hand, she's a major center of international financial fraud.

    Perhaps in the societies you mention Jews weren't involved in monetary professions simply because there wasn't much money in circulation? People don't realize to what extent finance, banks, etc are a relatively recent innovation. Only so many people can be tax farmers...
    , @Anon
    Jews always lived in their own neighborhoods so obviously they worked for each other building and repairing, specializing in various trades and crafts buying and selling necessary things. Jews weren’t allowed to own land but farm land was often rented. Sometimes people did farm work for a share of the crops or animals or rented a mule ox horse or equipment for a share of the harvest.

    If they’d lived among Christians they could have survived just being money lenders. But in segregated communities they’d have to engage in all the normal economic activities.

    This is just my opinion. I don’t believe all the Christians virtuously abstained from money lending usurious or not.
    , @HA
    "Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people"

    That's apparently not true, however much an earlier generation of historians of Judaism wished it to be so. The newer consensus is that Jews sought out money-oriented professions:


    Jewish scholars have often sought to emphasize the socialist elements of their culture.... But that situation seems to be changing....A similar [updated] approach is taken in “The Chosen Few” (2012), by Maristella Botticini and Zvi Eckstein. Their book describes usurious moneylending as a Jewish trade, one in which Jews specialized of their own volition, in order to exploit their relative advantages over the uneducated general population. In this way, the authors maintain, the Jews brought prosperity to the countries in which they were active.
     
    There's also a "survival of the fittest and most money-oriented" effect at work here. As the above text noted, given how expensive it was to teach a child to read, it was the richer "money-oriented" Jews who were more able to stay Jewish. Those who couldn't afford to allow their sons the time off from farm-work and the like to go to school were more likely to drift off from Judaism. Later, of course, once a flood of poorer Jews settled in the Pale, it was easier to stay Jewish while being poor.
     
     
    , @HA
    "They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,… in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate…"

    They were also major players in the European and Muslim slave trade. (For some bizarre reason, that always seems to get left off the rundown of all the cobbling and tailoring and blacksmithing and whatnot that they were engaged in.)

    Also, in the case of Russia,


    The Jews were engaged principally in petty trading, as middlemen, or holding various rights leased to them by the landowners, such as milling, fish ponds, and orchards; most of them however, earned their livelihood by the sale of liquor.
     
    That, too, keeps getting omitted from lists such as the one above, for some reason.
  25. @UndulyOptimistic
    Given the propensity of some of your commentators to unfounded generalization (not to speak of simple malice), listening to the actual substance of the talk mentioned in the article may be of use:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzGbhI77G04

    Thanks.

  26. @Anon
    “Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor?...”

    Naw you willfully missed his point. Your examples are top down media efforts at propaganda. Stereotypes are bottom up. They obviously become stereotypical because enough people have a similar experience that it takes on a life of its own. You can do better.

    I don’t think the stereotype of white people being particularly bigoted is (only) top down. It seems more of a case of social scapegoating. Do black Americans really need the New York Times to give them permission to think of white people as anti-black haters? Are the black Americans who don’t read not actually often more reflexively disliking of white people?

    As for the black inventors, I think black Americans may be not be genius inventors by bottom up stereotype but they are sort of “numinous” to many, sanctified by slavery. Meanwhile, Latinas probably get allocated wisdom on the old-fashioned basis that people who don’t make a lot of noise don’t out themselves as fools.

    Anyway, you may disagree with the above but hand-waving away what you don’t like as “top down” and welcoming what you do as “bottom up” is too easy. I’m tempted to just agree with you,but it seems to me like too much of a way to avoid doing some real thinking.

    • Replies: @peterike

    Do black Americans really need the New York Times to give them permission to think of white people as anti-black haters? Are the black Americans who don’t read not actually often more reflexively disliking of white people?

     

    You know there are other forms of media that engage in anti-white propaganda. You don't have to read the New York Times. You could, say, watch television, go to a movie, turn on the radio, see a play, listen to a sermon in church, sit in a classroom from Pre-K to PhD. In every one of these cases, a significant portion of the message you receive will be "white people are racist."
    , @res
    You make a good point about the risk of that type of thinking, but I think in this case Anon has the right of it. A good way to think about this might be as the balance of "stereotype prevalence in society" and "quantity (and sign) of top down messaging on that topic." I think that metric Occam Razors right through your objection for the specific examples discussed.

    P.S. Should probably add "prevalence of the stereotypical trait/behavior in reality" to the above.
    , @AnotherDad
    Tyrion, res took a pretty good stab at it. But i'll throw in here as well.


    I'm sympathetic to Anon's point about "bottom up" vs. "top down", but i'm not unsympathic to your critique.

    So i'd say that at minimum a stereotype must be something that people actually believe--that has some actual mind share. Phony nonsense pushed from top down, that doesn't take root, aren't sterotypes, they are just tropes. Two of your three examples clearly arne't stereotypes.

    The "wise Latina" thing is just a joke. No one thinks of Latinas as "wise". And no one says "wise Latina" but as a mocking joke.

    The "black inventor" thing is more complicated. Basically every American school kid has to learn about some black inventor. And so there is some sort of "black inventor" thing. But it isn't a stereotype. Just some kool-aid everyone has to drink. A trope. It's like Hollywood's black rocket scientist thing. Everyone--ok, most everyone--understands that's PC nonsense. Even good-whites, as respectible opinion is always whining about how blacks and Hispanics and women are underrepresented in tech.

    Your other example the "perverted white racist" does at least have some mind share. There were--and are some tiny few--"perverted white racists" performing bad acts out of "racist" hate. And those past acts have been propagandized enough that this is a "stereotype" particularly in the minds of blacks, Jews and good whites, for whom it is psychically and politically positive.

    ~

    I think an easy way to clarify these sort of distinction is just go in from one side, and see if the sterotype pops to mind.

    If you think about the characteristics of "Latinas" does anyone actually think "wise". Not the verbal juxaposition or the trope, but actually think Latinas are "wise". No. "Booty", "chubby", "three kids and pregnant" ... sure. But "wise"--no.

    Likewise if you think about the characteristics of blacks you might get "athlete", "criminal", "poor student", "got rhythm" "noisy at 2 a.m."--actual stereotypes--but never get to inventor, other than the trope--"oh yeah, we had to study George Washington Carver in february. Likewise think about "inventor" the mental image of blacks will not pop into people's minds.

    Thinking about whites, then again for a bunch of people--mostly blacks, Jews and good-whites--"racist" would come to mind. For them it is a real stereotype.


    Bottom line: istevefan is basically right here. Stereotypes--at least the "bottom up" ones--are things that are statistically true--at least more true of the group in the stereotype than people in general.

  27. @Mr McKenna
    See? We can all just get along.

    Just before a vote on the Yemen war powers resolution, House GOP forced a vote to add an amendment condemning anti-Semitism "in the interest of national security."

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted 'present'.

    “In a defining moment for the U.S. House of Representatives and the country as a whole, Republicans and Democrats voted as one today to condemn anti-Semitism around the world, to denounce all attempts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, and to oppose efforts to impose boycotts on Israel,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division. This overwhelmingly positive and cohesive vote shows there is no place for anti-Semitism in any form, anytime, anywhere.”

    https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IO-e1548248014934.jpg
     

    That reminds me of my old Student Union. For three hours a time, they “debated” how violence against women was bad, slavery was bad and rape was bad etc.

    Of course, their 3 hour mutual masturbation sessions were the only time I felt sympathy for the opposing positions.

  28. anonymous[590] • Disclaimer says:
    @NJ Transit Commuter
    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically."

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    Seems to me pretty obvious that certain ethnic groups and races have different abilities. I have no idea about the reasons for this and won't speculate here. Needless to say, this is not the officially accepted opinion in polite US society these days.

    So we run into all kinds of interesting things, like the sentence above, or all of the elaborate explanations for what we see in society: White privilege, stereotype threat, etc, etc... More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.

    Jewish wealth is built by cooperation against the host society in which they live. They also specialise as middlemen instead of having a full occupational profile. In White countries they are particularly sucessful because Whites are atomised and believe in individualism so therefore Jewish tribalism wins. This is also the case with thier dominance in society. Jewish dominance owes more to ethnic networking and nepotism than it does to free and fair competition between individuals.

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    A Jewish surgeon just operated on my wife. He was considered the best in our area for the type of sensitive surgery she had. I am fully aware of the problems which Jewish liberalism brings. However, I don't begrudge our surgeon his skill or his wealth and I think this kind of comment is utter nonsense.
  29. @Tyrion 2
    Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, over the anti-Semitism accusations. That is, he said he was disgusted and quit. His opponents said thay he was cynically motivated by political concerns, but he's been a man of conscience his entire career.

    Here's why the Guardian says you're supposed to hate him;

    Immigration he views solely through the prism of its perceived effects on “the white working class”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/frank-field-labour-mp-brexit-birkenhead

    Recently, also, there was the attempt to push out Luciana Berger, a Jewish MP, by her own constituency head. That idiot also posts on social media about David Icke, the Rothschilds and other nuttiness. Considering that Mrs Berger is 8 months pregnant, and the facts above, it hasn't been difficult for the right wing to further tarnish the Labour brand.

    Or here is the Labour party's British "Barack Obama" calling said party "institutionally racist" against Jews. Again, not a headline that has helped their popularity.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ9a604LrgAhWC3OAKHZdLBzUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F09%2Fchuka-umunna-labour-is-institutionally-racist&psig=AOvVaw012upeDZyc6Wq1uGl8hlmL&ust=1550217516368183

    The Conservative party have now won three elections in a row and the Labour party are still behind in the polls. This is unique in British history, where the opposition generally is higher during non-election years, and the election may see the government catch up. It also comes at a time when the government is pursuing a compromise on the issue of the day that satisfies no one, while the Labour party gets the luxury of being all things to all people. Also, Theresa May is hardly a leader of great charisma, though the country does mostly now feel sorry for her...

    In all, it isn't just that the anti-Semitism accusations have totally stuck. It is that Labour can barely talk about anything else. It is an effective political tool, especially when excited loons crawl out of the woodwork to make it true.

    This lady (a very low rent Ilhan Omar) is not a vote winner:

    Labour councillor suspended over claims she called Hitler 'the greatest man in history'

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj3qM6s4rrgAhXb6OAKHRunA0kQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F04%2F10%2Flabour-councillor-suspended-over-claims-she-called-hitler-the-gr%2F&psig=AOvVaw1Ckhfaw6j6V-ZzH8az46qS&ust=1550218036980191

    ‘Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, ‘

    Crypto trotskyite controlled opposition. Used to write for all of these atrange left wing magazines.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Frank Field is left wing. He is also a patriot. If you don't get that, you know nothing about UK politics.
  30. anonymous[590] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    ‘Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation’

    They had a nasty habit of leaving menial/dangerous work to cheap Arab labour before the intafada

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Why is that "nasty"? Throughout history, it has been very common for certain jobs to be done by imported labor or certain groups - the American railroads were built by Irish and Chinese, the mines of the West were filled with Poles and Finns, etc. The dangerous job of walking the high steel on skyscraper construction was a speciality of certain American Indian tribes. In countries where immigration was not possible, they developed castes of local to do the menial jobs. The dominant class is never going to send their sons and daughters to dig ditches. This is considered mutually beneficial in that (absent slavery) the people doing this work consider it to pay better than whatever they could be doing absent such employment and do it voluntarily.

    The idea (posited at the beginning of this thread) that other societies are more egalitarian than the Jews because in say ( pre-WWII) Britain, EVERY job, from latrine digger to prince, was held by a Brit, is stupid. The Brits who were digging latrines were not from the same social class as the princes. Maybe they all had the same religion but they were just as distinct as Jews vs non-Jews. In many cases they were even genetically distinct, with upper class Brits having Norman French surnames because they were the conquerors of 1066.
  31. anonymous[590] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    ‘Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers’

    OH NO!

    Fewer lawyers!

    Please yidden save us from this appaling fate!

    Yeah because Whites cant produce thier own doctors

  32. @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    ‘What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel?’

    Work for a living instead of earning commission by hooking thier patients on opiods. Remeber Zionism was (ostensibly) about turning the Jewish nation into a normal one with territorial integrity and a full occupation profile.

  33. anonymous[590] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    ‘So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?’

    Negative without a doubt.

    Forget it. They are not leaving unless we make them. Israel and its supporters in congress had to pass special laws in the 1970s and 1990s to make sure that Russian Jews went to Israel instead of America (Israel would have been minority Ashkenazi without them).Virtually no Jews from Russia wanted to make aliyah.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    When America changed laws and they could no longer go there they tried Germany. Germany buckled under Israeli opposition (because holocaust) and eventually they went to Israel. Even then many of them left as soon as they could.
    , @Anonym
    Israel is like one of those utopic ideas like Communism (imagine how fair it would be if doctors just busted their a** for a worker's wage! I bet a lot of people study medicine in such a system!). Wouldn't it be great if we Jews had our own country? How about you make Aliyah. No you go. No really, I think it's a good idea for you to go. Take one for the team. You first.
  34. @Tyrion 2

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?
     
    If it were a net positive, they probably would have already moved there. Conversely, for the many who did move there, I assume it was a net positive.

    Naturally people make mistakes but revealed preferences are superior to wild speculation.

    I'd also add though, that while you make room for Jews moving to Israel for non-materialist reasons, you don't make room for them staying in their countries (of birth) for non-materialist reasons. Yet there's plenty of poor Jews who don't move to Israel despite the fact that the "returning" diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.

    Indeed, many Jews have moved to Israel for materialistic reasons, foregoing immaterial preferences for their country of departure. Though they'd be loathe to admit it.

    As always, these things are complicated and people make decisions based on innumerable and changing factors.

    ‘you don’t make room for them staying in their countries (of birth) for non-materialist reasons. ‘

    Who are you kidding.

  35. anonymous[590] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?
     
    If it were a net positive, they probably would have already moved there. Conversely, for the many who did move there, I assume it was a net positive.

    Naturally people make mistakes but revealed preferences are superior to wild speculation.

    I'd also add though, that while you make room for Jews moving to Israel for non-materialist reasons, you don't make room for them staying in their countries (of birth) for non-materialist reasons. Yet there's plenty of poor Jews who don't move to Israel despite the fact that the "returning" diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.

    Indeed, many Jews have moved to Israel for materialistic reasons, foregoing immaterial preferences for their country of departure. Though they'd be loathe to admit it.

    As always, these things are complicated and people make decisions based on innumerable and changing factors.

    ‘Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.’

    Israel has massive poverty. Jews who were engineers in other countries sweep the streets. It also has one of the highest living costs in the developed world and a massive housing crisis. The aliyah benefits are not that great and are more than matched for when you take into the account the poor jobs market. The services there are run as monopolies and everything is expensive.

    They are much better off here (among a White host) and they know it.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    You've just made a bunch of stuff up. Israel is 22nd on the HDI rankings. That includes the 25% of the population who aren't Jewish and the Chassids.
    , @neutral
    Don't forget that Israel extracts huge amounts of free cash from USA, Germany, France, etc. This gives it a massive head start over other nations, despite this it still is not such a great place to live.
  36. @Bardon Kaldian
    Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades. They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,... in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate...

    See more comprehensive histories by Simon Dubnov, or a more accessible & shorter authored by German historian Werner Keller.

    This is completely untrue. Islam made Jews second class citizens and forbade moneylending. This is why Jews went into trade and manufacturing.

    Obvious troll is obvious.

  37. @Paul
    A friend of mine told me his Jewish girlfriend did get the two of them a price break on a couple of bowling balls. She asked the man who sold and drilled the balls at the bowling alley if a discount could be had for buying two balls. He cut the price a little. My friend was embarrassed when she did that sort of thing.

    This stuff embarrasses me too, but can be fun to watch if you are not involved. I live near an area that is overwhelmingly orthodox Jewish. It is funny watching them try to negotiate with 18-year-old cashiers at Lowe’s and Staples. Every time they pay.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    Eh, there are lots of fools from the Middle East and the developing world who seem to think that Lowe's, Staples, and WalMart work exactly like the soukback home where the marked prices are merely a suggestion.
    , @Pericles

    I live near an area that is overwhelmingly orthodox Jewish. It is funny watching them try to negotiate with 18-year-old cashiers at Lowe’s and Staples. Every time they pay.

     

    Perhaps the cashiers should put it on their CVs when applying for enterprise sales positions. "STAPLES - Customer-facing sales position with daily Jewish purchasers."

    I was somewhat recently roped into a consumer sales interaction by a levantine Jewess during a vacation in the Med. When, after a long argument, I managed to convince her I had no use for her products, I was then subjected to what amounts to a lengthy probing (but respectful) interview regarding my purchasing habits.

    The whole situation felt extra odd because, though not directly unattractive, she also reminded me of a lemur or some huge-eyed nightdwelling mammal. Anyway, I have been through B2B purchases that were less rigorous, and the time I was somehow drawn into a carpet store in Turkey was child's play to escape in comparison.
  38. @anonymous
    'Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, '

    Crypto trotskyite controlled opposition. Used to write for all of these atrange left wing magazines.

    Frank Field is left wing. He is also a patriot. If you don’t get that, you know nothing about UK politics.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    'he is also a patriot'

    Im sure he sings the hatikvah very well
    , @Hibernian
    Left wing and patriot really go well together.
  39. @anonymous
    'So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?'

    Negative without a doubt.

    Forget it. They are not leaving unless we make them. Israel and its supporters in congress had to pass special laws in the 1970s and 1990s to make sure that Russian Jews went to Israel instead of America (Israel would have been minority Ashkenazi without them).Virtually no Jews from Russia wanted to make aliyah.

    When America changed laws and they could no longer go there they tried Germany. Germany buckled under Israeli opposition (because holocaust) and eventually they went to Israel. Even then many of them left as soon as they could.

    • Replies: @Anon
    New York and California are full of Russian Jews who went to Israel first and then to America.
  40. I’ve known some poor jews, and they were insufferable, but better than their Westport cousins.

    • Agree: Trevor H.
  41. @Mr McKenna
    That's the tired old canard our grandparents recited. The Jews were kept out from non-lucrative occupations, you see, so they were forced to make tons of money and lord it over the goyim. Also Jews are really smart and of course smart people are naturally attracted to lots of money and the ability to lord it over the goyim. None of this is ever questioned--it's just regurgitated.

    Since the people in charge of popular narratives worship money and power, it's impossible for them to conceive of any worthy person devoting his or her life to anything else. But then, someone always has to pay retail.

    Merchant > peasant, but landowning noble > merchant

    • Replies: @Muse
    In the United States, the value of owning productive land or real estate has been vastly diminshed. In states where property taxes are at a confiscatory level, it is very difficult to stay afloat unless your holdings are enormous, or you allow yourself to be coopted by government Section 8 income, TIF tax incentives or government arranged financing, which typically specifies a percentage of low income units in a development. You then have to rent to whom they tell you, and build what and where they specify.

    Farmers have to grow certain types of crops such as corn or beans based on Ag policies or ethanol subsidies to make adequate income. Profit from Agribusiness goes to mega farms, firms like ADM, Bunge and Cargill.

    By eschewing the entire rigged system, the Amish seem to manage some level of independence. It seems they knew instinctively to avoid the Swift network.
  42. @Tyrion 2
    Frank Field is left wing. He is also a patriot. If you don't get that, you know nothing about UK politics.

    ‘he is also a patriot’

    Im sure he sings the hatikvah very well

    • Replies: @anonymous
    does this mean tyrion that you are British?
    , @Jus' Sayin'...

    "... the hatikvah ..."
     
    FYI: The "the" is superfluous. "Ha" is a prefix in Hebrew that functions somewhat like a definite article. "Tikvah" can be translated as "hope", "hatikvah" as "the hope". You're making the same type of error as people who write about "the hoi polloi".
  43. @anonymous
    'he is also a patriot'

    Im sure he sings the hatikvah very well

    does this mean tyrion that you are British?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Obviously. Just as you are obviously some sort of deluded acolyte of Allah.
  44. @anonymous
    'Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.'

    Israel has massive poverty. Jews who were engineers in other countries sweep the streets. It also has one of the highest living costs in the developed world and a massive housing crisis. The aliyah benefits are not that great and are more than matched for when you take into the account the poor jobs market. The services there are run as monopolies and everything is expensive.

    They are much better off here (among a White host) and they know it.

    You’ve just made a bunch of stuff up. Israel is 22nd on the HDI rankings. That includes the 25% of the population who aren’t Jewish and the Chassids.

  45. @Bardon Kaldian
    Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades. They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,... in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate...

    See more comprehensive histories by Simon Dubnov, or a more accessible & shorter authored by German historian Werner Keller.

    Suggest you give proper references, of form:
    author
    title
    publisher, date

    If you don’t want the whole reference, you can give search terms that locate the source in Amazon.com. If the source is trivial (e.g. Wikipedia), just use a URL.

    If it’s not worth your time to specify a refrence, it’s not worth mine to dig it out, which defeats your purpose.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Suggest you give proper references, of form:
    author
    title
    publisher, date
     
    Nah, that's too much.



    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51n1pETWYxL._SX338_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://www.amazon.com/Diaspora-Post-Biblical-History-Werner-Keller/dp/B0006BVKOS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1550149837&sr=1-1&keywords=werner+keller+jews

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/21uGlRCJMvL._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31Ki8ysRiRL._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ReCdsl6GL._SX398_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
  46. @anonymous
    does this mean tyrion that you are British?

    Obviously. Just as you are obviously some sort of deluded acolyte of Allah.

    • Replies: @Lurker

    Just as you are obviously some sort of deluded acolyte of Allah.
     
    Well that's the first time I've seen that stock response implemented so elegantly.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    Allah, Yahweh, Christ, Baal (Hillary Clinton's god), Krishna, Buddah are all roads that lead to God. And God is an impersonal energy field in which we are all molecules.
  47. @Paul
    Jewish involvement in financial scams and other economic crime is, of course, a factor in negative stereotypes about Jews. Another is the practice, apparently brought from Eastern Europe, of haggling with small business owners over prices instead of deciding whether or not to buy something based on the price marked on the item.


    A Jew who lived next to me in the dorms in college told me about his sister attending Stanford University's business school. He said she bought stereo equipment with which she transferred music from turntable to audiotape. After she had the recordings she wanted, she returned the equipment (on what pretext I do not know). My neighbor was not embarassed about this; he was proud of how clever his sister was.

    In my local area, you always see hordes of Indian immigrants returning items at stores. They’re also infamous for bringing books of coupons wherever they go.

    At one of the largest local stores, there’s food for sale outside. Inside, there are tiny free food samples available. I rarely see Indians buying any food outside, but they’re always swarming the free sample booths inside.

    Indians are Jews times ten. In comparison to Indians, Jews seem like New England WASPs.

    • Agree: Travis, Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Prodigal son
    True, and there are now more Indians in American than Jews.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    After seeing Raj's parents in BBT, I can see the resemblance.
  48. @Clifford Brown
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    tvtropes.org

    Most everyone who stumbles on the site and exits, after a time, learns what tropes are. It is the same font bubbling forth Mary Sue, McGuffin, etc into the lexicon.

    • Replies: @Clifford Brown
    Good point.
    , @WowJustWow
    I guess they decided the word "topos" would have been too hard for people to spell, pronounce, or pluralize, so they went and raped the dictionary instead. "Irony" was ruined decades ago. Soon there will be no language to talk about language, which I don't think even Orwell foresaw.
  49. @NJ Transit Commuter
    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically."

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    Seems to me pretty obvious that certain ethnic groups and races have different abilities. I have no idea about the reasons for this and won't speculate here. Needless to say, this is not the officially accepted opinion in polite US society these days.

    So we run into all kinds of interesting things, like the sentence above, or all of the elaborate explanations for what we see in society: White privilege, stereotype threat, etc, etc... More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.

    More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.

    Not this again. If you do not realize how head-up-the-ass stupid this claim is, there is no chance that your assessment of anything else will be at all accurate. If you have not managed to expel 400 year-old pieces of silly misinformation, how can you possibly understand the present moment?

  50. @Clifford Brown
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    About the same time “alliance” was replaced by “allyship”, I think.

  51. Thou shalt not criticize the Chosen Ones in any way, ever, lest thy life be destroyed.

  52. This makes me wonder, why now?

    Are the Jews feeling so confident in their power that they are comfortable being open about this? Or is this information so widely available at this point that they know it can’t be concealed so they’re trying to get ahead of it?

  53. @Tyrion 2
    Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, over the anti-Semitism accusations. That is, he said he was disgusted and quit. His opponents said thay he was cynically motivated by political concerns, but he's been a man of conscience his entire career.

    Here's why the Guardian says you're supposed to hate him;

    Immigration he views solely through the prism of its perceived effects on “the white working class”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/frank-field-labour-mp-brexit-birkenhead

    Recently, also, there was the attempt to push out Luciana Berger, a Jewish MP, by her own constituency head. That idiot also posts on social media about David Icke, the Rothschilds and other nuttiness. Considering that Mrs Berger is 8 months pregnant, and the facts above, it hasn't been difficult for the right wing to further tarnish the Labour brand.

    Or here is the Labour party's British "Barack Obama" calling said party "institutionally racist" against Jews. Again, not a headline that has helped their popularity.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ9a604LrgAhWC3OAKHZdLBzUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F09%2Fchuka-umunna-labour-is-institutionally-racist&psig=AOvVaw012upeDZyc6Wq1uGl8hlmL&ust=1550217516368183

    The Conservative party have now won three elections in a row and the Labour party are still behind in the polls. This is unique in British history, where the opposition generally is higher during non-election years, and the election may see the government catch up. It also comes at a time when the government is pursuing a compromise on the issue of the day that satisfies no one, while the Labour party gets the luxury of being all things to all people. Also, Theresa May is hardly a leader of great charisma, though the country does mostly now feel sorry for her...

    In all, it isn't just that the anti-Semitism accusations have totally stuck. It is that Labour can barely talk about anything else. It is an effective political tool, especially when excited loons crawl out of the woodwork to make it true.

    This lady (a very low rent Ilhan Omar) is not a vote winner:

    Labour councillor suspended over claims she called Hitler 'the greatest man in history'

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj3qM6s4rrgAhXb6OAKHRunA0kQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F04%2F10%2Flabour-councillor-suspended-over-claims-she-called-hitler-the-gr%2F&psig=AOvVaw1Ckhfaw6j6V-ZzH8az46qS&ust=1550218036980191

    Frank Field always stuck me as Labour’s Enoch Powell (he even looks and talks like him). He is working class ethic English. It is only a few years ago that the British Labour Party leadership contest for came down to the Milibrands In September 2010, Miliband narrowly lost the Labour leadership election to his brother Ed.. Jeremy Corbyn had very little Jewish ancestry, even less than Blair, but really you cannot pretend Labour is Anti-Semitic.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3413292,00.html

    LONDON – Many of the key players in the escalating British campaign to boycott Israel are Jewish or Israeli, the Jewish Chronicle revealed in an investigation published Thursday.

    According to the investigation, the Jewish academics justify their stance as part of the struggle for Palestinian rights and ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

    The report stated that a high proportion of the academics were deeply involved in UCU, the University and College Union, which last month sparked an international outcry by voting to facilitate a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

    Anti-boycott figures suggest that the campaign has been fuelled by a well-organized mix of far-left activists and Islamic organizations, the JC reported. In reality, the main proponents are a loosely knit collection of academics and trade unionists linked to groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for the Boycotting of Israeli Goods, and Bricup, the British Committee for Universities of Palestine

    Working class British do not have their own intellectuals, and so need Jews to do our thinking for us, doing what they say is a habit we don’t spend much time questioning. I know that the brilliant public relations and political experts working for Israel must always lead with their Sunday punch and go nuclear with a moralising onslaught on white gentiles to get them to altruistically punish anyone Israel does not like, but could you stop getting us to blame ourselves for your own self hating intelligentsia please?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Labour's anti-Semitism is merely an ancillary
    to its institutional oikophobia.
  54. @Paul
    A friend of mine told me his Jewish girlfriend did get the two of them a price break on a couple of bowling balls. She asked the man who sold and drilled the balls at the bowling alley if a discount could be had for buying two balls. He cut the price a little. My friend was embarrassed when she did that sort of thing.

    In the Middle East everyone haggles. Even among Westerners, haggling still holds a purchase (heh) among Southern Europeans and Levantines. A Tunisian friend of mine was badly cheated by an Italian merchant in a way that would have made me genocidally enraged, yet he could only express admiration for the cut-throated way the Italian had outdone him. Similarly, a Greek Consular officer there liked to express how the Middle Eastern culture was similar to Greece, in terms of bargaining and family-work intermingling. Translated into my WEIRD framework, he was saying that he too engaged in market anarchy, nepotism and insider-dealing.

    I myself probably caused some consternation by WEIRDing when I should have When-In-Rome-ed. For instance a customer of my employer invited me to partake some of his residential privileges, which did sound enticing, but I offhandedly replied that I couldn’t accept because I had to maintain “clean hands” with respect to my employer’s interest. I think this really offended him. Probably he found other employees who were more amenable.

    But this culture can change, though it takes a lifetime. I was amused there by a local friend who was very good at haggling but who had married co-ethnic/co-religionist girl who had grown up in the West whom he then brought back to the Middle East (in effect importing a wife back to her “native” country—sort of the reverse of what we see Muslim immigrant men do here nowadays). His Westernized wife always quailed with embarrassment whenever her husband started squeezing the haggle-vise on a vendor, which was whenever they bought something, so all the time in other words. The irony was that I, a native Westerner, had theretofore always watched these haggle sessions with keen interest since I knew I needed to learn to haggle better so as not to get taken in every deal, but whenever his wife was around, I found it impossible not to feel her embarrassment.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    I offhandedly replied that I couldn’t accept because I had to maintain “clean hands” with respect to my employer’s interest.
     
    Long-term you probably did the right thing. HR loves to make examples for the next ethics training, and this is exactly the sort of episode they love to convert into an example!
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    For most old-fashioned Americans, the only haggling they do is at the car dealer's, new or pre-owned (haha, "pre-owned", that one always gets me!). However, to screw over our Feral Gov't as much as possible, it is always worth pushing for a cash discount for any non-computer-accounted-for service job.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Modern westerners fail to realize that fixed prices for items is a relatively recent western invention dating only from the period when standardization and large retail firms became common, i.e. the mid 19th century, and even then initially used in a limited manner and only in major European and US metropolises. The custom of fixed prices only gradually spread out from these loci.

    In many cultures haggling is still a valued form of social interaction. I've learned to enjoy haggling in cultures where it is expected. In such cultures refusing to haggle and paying the initial offer is often regarded as an insult. "What! You don't want to haggle with me? Do you think you're so much better than I am that haggling with me would demean you and waste your time?"
    , @Jim Don Bob
    I despise haggling. I have many many many other worthwhile things to do other than spend my time trying to save $7.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Haggling lesson from Life of Brian:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2iZjxSGca8
  55. @RobinG
    The term "Jewish wealth" is a misrepresentation. Lots of people have money. It is Jews using their wealth in concert to undermine US government and Constitution that is the problem.

    All you say is true, but that is not the whole story. Pure WASP Quakers and Unitarian-Universalists and Congregationalists also have used their wealth ‘to undermine US government and Constitution.’ In fact, almost as many Quakers and Unitarian-Unitarians as Jews per capita have used their wealth, education, and privilege to wage culture war against the vast majority of white Gentile Americans.

  56. @Counterinsurgency
    Suggest you give proper references, of form:
    author
    title
    publisher, date

    If you don't want the whole reference, you can give search terms that locate the source in Amazon.com. If the source is trivial (e.g. Wikipedia), just use a URL.

    If it's not worth your time to specify a refrence, it's not worth mine to dig it out, which defeats your purpose.

    Counterinsurgency

    Suggest you give proper references, of form:
    author
    title
    publisher, date

    Nah, that’s too much.

  57. Medieval Jews outside of urban Italians were among the few lay literates. If course they were mechants.

    Today the regress to the outside mean via intermarriage and prove Devo right.

  58. @PapayaSF
    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there's a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there’s a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    If you are going the selective pressure route, I would think the periodic ethnic cleansings would have an even bigger effect. Every couple of generations, their population goes through a bottleneck. Probably due for another soon. Just imagine how much smarter they will be when only a few million of the smartest and wealthiest of today have a surviving line.

  59. @anonymous
    'So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?'

    Negative without a doubt.

    Forget it. They are not leaving unless we make them. Israel and its supporters in congress had to pass special laws in the 1970s and 1990s to make sure that Russian Jews went to Israel instead of America (Israel would have been minority Ashkenazi without them).Virtually no Jews from Russia wanted to make aliyah.

    Israel is like one of those utopic ideas like Communism (imagine how fair it would be if doctors just busted their a** for a worker’s wage! I bet a lot of people study medicine in such a system!). Wouldn’t it be great if we Jews had our own country? How about you make Aliyah. No you go. No really, I think it’s a good idea for you to go. Take one for the team. You first.

  60. @Clifford Brown
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    Probably around the same time that social justice replaced actual justice, refugee replaced migrant carpetbagger, and single mother became a term of sanctification rather than abuse.

  61. @anonymous
    'Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.'

    Israel has massive poverty. Jews who were engineers in other countries sweep the streets. It also has one of the highest living costs in the developed world and a massive housing crisis. The aliyah benefits are not that great and are more than matched for when you take into the account the poor jobs market. The services there are run as monopolies and everything is expensive.

    They are much better off here (among a White host) and they know it.

    Don’t forget that Israel extracts huge amounts of free cash from USA, Germany, France, etc. This gives it a massive head start over other nations, despite this it still is not such a great place to live.

  62. @Reg Cæsar
    Speaking of stereotypes:

    https://cf.geekdo-images.com/itemrep/img/8jf_GLL-wQeGTdSpr1s-ksMtiSs=/fit-in/246x300/pic4504954.png


    The creator got five times what he asked for on Kickstarter, so it has legs.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I'd read that the line "no one's gettin' fat 'cept Mama Cass" in "Creeque Alley" has nothing to do with her physique, but rather to the fact that, by moonlighting at bar mitzvahs and weddings, she was making money from music when her bandmates were not.
  63. @william munny
    This stuff embarrasses me too, but can be fun to watch if you are not involved. I live near an area that is overwhelmingly orthodox Jewish. It is funny watching them try to negotiate with 18-year-old cashiers at Lowe's and Staples. Every time they pay.

    Eh, there are lots of fools from the Middle East and the developing world who seem to think that Lowe’s, Staples, and WalMart work exactly like the soukback home where the marked prices are merely a suggestion.

  64. Gentiles have never really cared much about the fact that Jews are rich, but it is that Jew’s behavior has been guided by the Talmud.

    Ron wrote an interesting article, “American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion.”

  65. @Almost Missouri
    In the Middle East everyone haggles. Even among Westerners, haggling still holds a purchase (heh) among Southern Europeans and Levantines. A Tunisian friend of mine was badly cheated by an Italian merchant in a way that would have made me genocidally enraged, yet he could only express admiration for the cut-throated way the Italian had outdone him. Similarly, a Greek Consular officer there liked to express how the Middle Eastern culture was similar to Greece, in terms of bargaining and family-work intermingling. Translated into my WEIRD framework, he was saying that he too engaged in market anarchy, nepotism and insider-dealing.

    I myself probably caused some consternation by WEIRDing when I should have When-In-Rome-ed. For instance a customer of my employer invited me to partake some of his residential privileges, which did sound enticing, but I offhandedly replied that I couldn't accept because I had to maintain "clean hands" with respect to my employer's interest. I think this really offended him. Probably he found other employees who were more amenable.

    But this culture can change, though it takes a lifetime. I was amused there by a local friend who was very good at haggling but who had married co-ethnic/co-religionist girl who had grown up in the West whom he then brought back to the Middle East (in effect importing a wife back to her "native" country—sort of the reverse of what we see Muslim immigrant men do here nowadays). His Westernized wife always quailed with embarrassment whenever her husband started squeezing the haggle-vise on a vendor, which was whenever they bought something, so all the time in other words. The irony was that I, a native Westerner, had theretofore always watched these haggle sessions with keen interest since I knew I needed to learn to haggle better so as not to get taken in every deal, but whenever his wife was around, I found it impossible not to feel her embarrassment.

    I offhandedly replied that I couldn’t accept because I had to maintain “clean hands” with respect to my employer’s interest.

    Long-term you probably did the right thing. HR loves to make examples for the next ethics training, and this is exactly the sort of episode they love to convert into an example!

  66. @Clifford Brown
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    When did canards get old and get replaced back with stabilizers and elevators back on the tail, is what I wanna know?

    You get a benefit in efficiency by putting the stabilizing surface ahead of the center of mass so it’s lift component can ADD to the total lift, rather than SUBTRACT from it … or is that just some old canard?

    • LOL: Dtbb
  67. “I didn’t have to be here, y’know. I didn’t have to show up here. With my vast financial holdings, I coulda been baskin’ in the sun in Florida. This is just a hobby for me. Nothin’, ya hear? A hobby!”

    —Handsome Dick Manitoba

    • Replies: @duncsbaby
    The Dictators were my favorite Jewish White-Supremacists. Poor Handsome Dick has run into legal trouble as of late.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/punk-legend-handsome-dick-manitoba-pleads-guilty-violation-article-1.3969816
  68. @Almost Missouri
    In the Middle East everyone haggles. Even among Westerners, haggling still holds a purchase (heh) among Southern Europeans and Levantines. A Tunisian friend of mine was badly cheated by an Italian merchant in a way that would have made me genocidally enraged, yet he could only express admiration for the cut-throated way the Italian had outdone him. Similarly, a Greek Consular officer there liked to express how the Middle Eastern culture was similar to Greece, in terms of bargaining and family-work intermingling. Translated into my WEIRD framework, he was saying that he too engaged in market anarchy, nepotism and insider-dealing.

    I myself probably caused some consternation by WEIRDing when I should have When-In-Rome-ed. For instance a customer of my employer invited me to partake some of his residential privileges, which did sound enticing, but I offhandedly replied that I couldn't accept because I had to maintain "clean hands" with respect to my employer's interest. I think this really offended him. Probably he found other employees who were more amenable.

    But this culture can change, though it takes a lifetime. I was amused there by a local friend who was very good at haggling but who had married co-ethnic/co-religionist girl who had grown up in the West whom he then brought back to the Middle East (in effect importing a wife back to her "native" country—sort of the reverse of what we see Muslim immigrant men do here nowadays). His Westernized wife always quailed with embarrassment whenever her husband started squeezing the haggle-vise on a vendor, which was whenever they bought something, so all the time in other words. The irony was that I, a native Westerner, had theretofore always watched these haggle sessions with keen interest since I knew I needed to learn to haggle better so as not to get taken in every deal, but whenever his wife was around, I found it impossible not to feel her embarrassment.

    For most old-fashioned Americans, the only haggling they do is at the car dealer’s, new or pre-owned (haha, “pre-owned”, that one always gets me!). However, to screw over our Feral Gov’t as much as possible, it is always worth pushing for a cash discount for any non-computer-accounted-for service job.

  69. @Tyrion 2
    I don't think the stereotype of white people being particularly bigoted is (only) top down. It seems more of a case of social scapegoating. Do black Americans really need the New York Times to give them permission to think of white people as anti-black haters? Are the black Americans who don't read not actually often more reflexively disliking of white people?

    As for the black inventors, I think black Americans may be not be genius inventors by bottom up stereotype but they are sort of "numinous" to many, sanctified by slavery. Meanwhile, Latinas probably get allocated wisdom on the old-fashioned basis that people who don't make a lot of noise don't out themselves as fools.

    Anyway, you may disagree with the above but hand-waving away what you don't like as "top down" and welcoming what you do as "bottom up" is too easy. I'm tempted to just agree with you,but it seems to me like too much of a way to avoid doing some real thinking.

    Do black Americans really need the New York Times to give them permission to think of white people as anti-black haters? Are the black Americans who don’t read not actually often more reflexively disliking of white people?

    You know there are other forms of media that engage in anti-white propaganda. You don’t have to read the New York Times. You could, say, watch television, go to a movie, turn on the radio, see a play, listen to a sermon in church, sit in a classroom from Pre-K to PhD. In every one of these cases, a significant portion of the message you receive will be “white people are racist.”

    • Agree: Trevor H.
  70. @Tyrion 2
    I'm ambivalent on that observation.

    Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor? Or the omnipresent perverted evil white racist? Or the wise Latina?

    These seem close to being inversions of the truth.

    I was about to write something similar to what Anon-#243 wrote. I’ll add this – to determine whether some aphorism is a stereotype or not, just think to yourself if you would use it as a useful piece of information, like this:

    “Oh, I have an idea for this invention – let me check with the nearest historically black college to see if I can get some help fleshing it out.”

    “My black friend is not the type who knows how to defend himself. I’d better warn him about walking around when all those people will be leaving the antique road show .”

    “I really want to know if I’ve been heading in the right direction in life lately. What is the meaning of it all? Let me go ask that roofer.”

    See what I mean? It works!

  71. @Tyrion 2
    I'm ambivalent on that observation.

    Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor? Or the omnipresent perverted evil white racist? Or the wise Latina?

    These seem close to being inversions of the truth.

    Those 3 ideas are not stereotypes. They are high-visibility hard-core propaganda. If you never watch TV, view the mainstream (Yahoo, etc.) websites, talk with dipshits on the street about politics and attend a university, you will never know of this stupidity.

  72. @Mr McKenna
    See? We can all just get along.

    Just before a vote on the Yemen war powers resolution, House GOP forced a vote to add an amendment condemning anti-Semitism "in the interest of national security."

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted 'present'.

    “In a defining moment for the U.S. House of Representatives and the country as a whole, Republicans and Democrats voted as one today to condemn anti-Semitism around the world, to denounce all attempts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, and to oppose efforts to impose boycotts on Israel,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division. This overwhelmingly positive and cohesive vote shows there is no place for anti-Semitism in any form, anytime, anywhere.”

    https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IO-e1548248014934.jpg
     

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted ‘present’.

    But see, it wasn’t really zero, it was 424-0-2. There is much work to be done here in the US to stamp out the terrible virus of anti-Semitism.

    Cue up more holocaust movies!

  73. @anonymous
    'he is also a patriot'

    Im sure he sings the hatikvah very well

    “… the hatikvah …”

    FYI: The “the” is superfluous. “Ha” is a prefix in Hebrew that functions somewhat like a definite article. “Tikvah” can be translated as “hope”, “hatikvah” as “the hope”. You’re making the same type of error as people who write about “the hoi polloi”.

  74. @Almost Missouri
    In the Middle East everyone haggles. Even among Westerners, haggling still holds a purchase (heh) among Southern Europeans and Levantines. A Tunisian friend of mine was badly cheated by an Italian merchant in a way that would have made me genocidally enraged, yet he could only express admiration for the cut-throated way the Italian had outdone him. Similarly, a Greek Consular officer there liked to express how the Middle Eastern culture was similar to Greece, in terms of bargaining and family-work intermingling. Translated into my WEIRD framework, he was saying that he too engaged in market anarchy, nepotism and insider-dealing.

    I myself probably caused some consternation by WEIRDing when I should have When-In-Rome-ed. For instance a customer of my employer invited me to partake some of his residential privileges, which did sound enticing, but I offhandedly replied that I couldn't accept because I had to maintain "clean hands" with respect to my employer's interest. I think this really offended him. Probably he found other employees who were more amenable.

    But this culture can change, though it takes a lifetime. I was amused there by a local friend who was very good at haggling but who had married co-ethnic/co-religionist girl who had grown up in the West whom he then brought back to the Middle East (in effect importing a wife back to her "native" country—sort of the reverse of what we see Muslim immigrant men do here nowadays). His Westernized wife always quailed with embarrassment whenever her husband started squeezing the haggle-vise on a vendor, which was whenever they bought something, so all the time in other words. The irony was that I, a native Westerner, had theretofore always watched these haggle sessions with keen interest since I knew I needed to learn to haggle better so as not to get taken in every deal, but whenever his wife was around, I found it impossible not to feel her embarrassment.

    Modern westerners fail to realize that fixed prices for items is a relatively recent western invention dating only from the period when standardization and large retail firms became common, i.e. the mid 19th century, and even then initially used in a limited manner and only in major European and US metropolises. The custom of fixed prices only gradually spread out from these loci.

    In many cultures haggling is still a valued form of social interaction. I’ve learned to enjoy haggling in cultures where it is expected. In such cultures refusing to haggle and paying the initial offer is often regarded as an insult. “What! You don’t want to haggle with me? Do you think you’re so much better than I am that haggling with me would demean you and waste your time?”

    • Replies: @peterike

    “What! You don’t want to haggle with me? Do you think you’re so much better than I am that haggling with me would demean you and waste your time?”

     

    Ok, somebody has to do it:

    https://youtu.be/-2iZjxSGca8
    , @Almost Missouri
    Agreed. I did't learn to haggle so much out of social obligation nor even for the money, but more because I didn't like the feeling that the other party knew they were taking advantage of me, even if the amount was relatively paltry. Thinking back on it, I now think there was a sort of "ethnic honor" involved, but I wouldn't have put it that way then.

    As I improved I noticed that there were definite styles of haggling. My above mentioned friend tended to use a style of emotional near-extortion, making personal references both to himself and to the seller. (No wonder his wife found this off-putting. I think we call it "ball busting" here.) I myself developed a more cerebral style, based on accumulating market and vendor information, misdirecting about my actual interests and then randomly fading as a deal neared closure. One local vendor remarked (in frustration?) to my wife that none of his other Western customers would haggle as hard as I did. I was secretly pleased of course. Nevertheless, no matter how hard I bargained, I was never quite able to match the prices that my above described friend got.
  75. I really don’t care that Jews do well financially, but at less than 2% of the population, I do care about their outsized representation in the Senate and Supreme Court. We are a profoundly Protestant Country and at the moment our Supreme Court is dominated by Catholics and Jews. I think we have one Protestant at the moment. This stuff matters.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I think we have one Protestant at the moment. This stuff matters.
     
    Yes. With Protestants instead of Catholics on the court, we'd have had same-sex marriage years earlier.


    https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2221313.1432232800!/image/image.jpg

    (NB: Socialists serve as the Protestants of Latin Countries.)

  76. @Mr McKenna
    See? We can all just get along.

    Just before a vote on the Yemen war powers resolution, House GOP forced a vote to add an amendment condemning anti-Semitism "in the interest of national security."

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted 'present'.

    “In a defining moment for the U.S. House of Representatives and the country as a whole, Republicans and Democrats voted as one today to condemn anti-Semitism around the world, to denounce all attempts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, and to oppose efforts to impose boycotts on Israel,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division. This overwhelmingly positive and cohesive vote shows there is no place for anti-Semitism in any form, anytime, anywhere.”

    https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IO-e1548248014934.jpg
     

    Have to say, huge respect to these two guys Massie and Amash for standing up to–or at least sitting out–this Jewish Stalinism.

    Amash is a Christian Arab–looked it up, father Palestinian–more straightforward for him, but still politically dangerous. Massie is just a sharp–EE MIT, successful business founder–good old boy.

    Don’t know whether they tried, but offer an amendment to add condemnation of all racism in all forms including anti-white racism, anti-gentilism, anti-Arabism, anti-redneckism and anti-flyover-country-white racism.

    And add to the “denounce all attempts to deligitimize Israel’s right to exist”, “or Europeans peoples’ nations right to exist as distinct nations or the right of the native people of any nation to maintain themselves as a distinct people and nation for theirselves and their posterity.”

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    These resolutions have an air of swearing a loyalty oath. Or sacrificing an animal in pledging loyalty to the Roman Emperor?
  77. @RobinG
    The term "Jewish wealth" is a misrepresentation. Lots of people have money. It is Jews using their wealth in concert to undermine US government and Constitution that is the problem.

    “using their wealth in concert” is a very important sociological concept.

    This is my understanding of the works of Kevin MacDonald and E. Michael Jones. The Jewish people worldwide are a unified ‘Nation’ bound together by a common ideological goal of what is best for Jews. I read recently that a Mossad agent said that he could knock on any door of any Jew in the world and he would be welcomed and helped. I’m Italian-American. If an someone from an Italian agency knocks on my door, I tell him ‘forget-about-it’.

    Further, the many local Jewish organizations integrate into national and international groups. This unified ideological perspective and behavior is the basis of Jewish power and influence. Their wealth is of secondary importance. If total Jewish wealth were halved they would still be a National force to be reckoned with.

    In short, it is sociologically meaningless to think of Jews as an ethnic or religious group akin to Italians, Catholics, etc. Rather they are a Nation akin to France, England, etc.

    Jews don’t work “in concert to undermine US government and Constitution.” They work in concert to promote their best interest as do all Nations of the world. What passes as anti-Semitism is rather contra-Semitism. Just as conflicts between say Germany and France were not anti-Germans of Frenchmen having to do with personal characteristics of the people of the respective nations. Rather, it was a conflict of perceived national interest.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    Good post, but what you effectively said is that Jews [who live] in the US are effectively citizens of the Jewish Nation. Their current push for anti-BDS legislation is a direct assault on US 1st Amendment. This undermines our values, as well as our Constitution.
    , @Hibernian
    I think some Jews would tell the Mossad agent"Fuhgedaboutit." If only because they'd rather play golf.
  78. @Reg Cæsar

    That is, until now. The Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is hosting “Loaded: Jews & Money,”
     
    And according to a story on Drudge, there should be piles of human feces outside in the streets.

    Why didn't they hold it in a clean city?

    The article was from 2013. It was only a turd or 2 at the time.

  79. @Clifford Brown
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    Around the same cliché became trope.

  80. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:

    Gimme a break!!! Juz are a Capitalist Cult Masquerading as a Religion. Nothing more. Its not in their DNA except that its organized criminal activity by and for the family. They are Satan’s children. Too bad but often the truth is very painful to recognize and deal with. Ok, there are some exceptions of decent humans but very very very few if any are Juz..

  81. anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @NJ Transit Commuter
    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically."

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    Seems to me pretty obvious that certain ethnic groups and races have different abilities. I have no idea about the reasons for this and won't speculate here. Needless to say, this is not the officially accepted opinion in polite US society these days.

    So we run into all kinds of interesting things, like the sentence above, or all of the elaborate explanations for what we see in society: White privilege, stereotype threat, etc, etc... More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.

    1. The Church didn’t come up with geocentric models.
    2. Until Keppler it was the heliocentric circles that required more epicycles.
    3. Heliocentric models couldn’t explain the seeming lack of stellar parallax without making additional assumptions such that the visible stars are extremely far away (turned out to be true) and given there apparent size in the sky must be many, many times larger than our entire solar system (not true, apparent diameter of stars is caused by a diffraction pattern).
    4. Observation couldn’t distinguish between several different heliocentric and geocentric models that predicted where you would find dots in the sky on any given night and the geocentric models were in some ways much simpler (fewer epicycles, not requiring assumptions about size and distance of stars.

  82. As a people, Jews traditionally have been extraordinarily generous, civic-minded and philanthropic.

    Oh, I dunno. TiA to the Jews for any “shoe the children of Appalachia” or “help Africa ramp up its food supply and keep down its population” and suchlike efforts, but I’m guessing most of Jewish philanthropy is either Judeocentric, non-White-centric in a bad way, or leftist scheisse that harms my people.

    ***

    Wow, all the kvetching over Jews’ sensitivity over privacy, being made uncomfortable, etc – Where was all this propriety when it came to )))Whites'((( sensitivities and the Culture of Critique?

    P.S., Madoff may be the least of Jews’ embarrassments; for once, a Jew famously preyed on his own.

    They were richer and certainly a lot more literate. It’s true they didn’t have many rights, but then the vast majority didn’t have many rights.

    QFT.

  83. @Anon
    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically.”

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    No need for 'but'.

    Stereotypes are generally true of the group as a whole. It is wrong only if we assume that it applies to every individual in the group.

    Anybody have stats on Jews below the Federal Poverty Line?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    Tons of them. Orthodox, principally around the NYC metro, and living on welfare and off the books.

    Some are multi-millionaires, which really is the way to go if you have to be poor.
  84. @PapayaSF
    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there's a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there’s a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    In the old days, nobility was key to landowning. It had fuck-all to do with discrimination. Not that there’s anything wrong with native Europeans discriminating in their homelands against the foreign Jews, a people for whom discrimination has long been both a way of life, and a religion.

    Also, this “Jews had to survive by their wits” thing is way past its sell-by date. Like everyone else was farming because it was a great gig, but the poor Jews were locked out. Gimme a break already.

    P.S., thieves and con men have to live by their wits…

  85. There is an excess of Jewish billionaires, yet making money is not the only thing Jews excel in. When requiring a mediating political campaign manager, top notch PR person, first class attorney or a perceptive psychotherapist you go for a Jewish person. Jews have social and political hyper-abilities, but often disagree with one another. This makes it difficult for dazed white gentiles to know which Jewish viewpoint they should adopt.

    Due to the fact that making lots of money places demands on general– mechanistic rather than mentalistic cognition, super rich Jews tend to have rather weak persuasive capabilities, and that makes them less able to dupe gentiles in the way that innovative Jewish ethicists such are found at Mondoweiss can. So take the money, and know in that way you are avoiding being fooled by pilpul (unsound moral reasoning) by the descendants of those Talmudic scholars the richest Jewish businessmen once supported and made sons in law.

  86. @RobinG
    The term "Jewish wealth" is a misrepresentation. Lots of people have money. It is Jews using their wealth in concert to undermine US government and Constitution that is the problem.

    Absolutely right – us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert (we play a little klezmer music in the background) how we can use our wealth to undermine the Constitution today. No goys are allowed in these meetings. We get fined if we haven’t used our wealth during the previous week to weaken the Constitution in some way. Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it’s all fake.

    No other religion has Elders of Baptists or Elders of Presbyterians or Elders of Mormons.. oh, wait they do have those.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    *Brushes the cobwebs and dust off Jack's joke, hands him his shopworn Jewish Conspiracy Membership Card*

    Carry on.

    , @BenKenobi
    "Now that's a 40-foot wall of mendacity, so I want to see goggles, people!

    "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFZh92MUOY
    , @zombie ant
    Why leave out the elder Lutherans??? racist!!

    We also have a long history (hundreds & hundreds, nay even thousands of years of cross-cultural historical evidence) of conniving, backstabbing parasitism, or whatever the Small Catechism is....

    My memory is failing, though, Jack; can you help me out with some examples of these wily Baptists, Presbys, Mormons, other than the obvious ones like manipulating world events/wars from within host countries (not treason, mind you, definitely not treason!) for the sole benefit of establishing a supposed historical homeland like Lutheranasia?
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Absolutely right – us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert
     
    Wack D with his stereotypical duplicity. RobinG wrote nothing about “secretly.”

    Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it’s all fake.
     
    Here we agree! “Joo organizations like the ACLU” are anti-Second Amendment. That’s anti-Constitutional and that’s treason. See also: Everytown For Gun Safety.
  87. @Tyrion 2
    I'm ambivalent on that observation.

    Alternatively, what about the stereotype of the black American inventor? Or the omnipresent perverted evil white racist? Or the wise Latina?

    These seem close to being inversions of the truth.

    Insofar as those are actual stereotypes, they are, as you say, reverse stereotypes: endlessly propagated by the (((Big Media))), but generally the butt of jokes among the populace. Only extremely caved-in-head NPCs take them seriously, and they’re generally too dumb to even know what a stereotype is.

    • Disagree: Tyrion 2
  88. @Bardon Kaldian
    Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades. They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,... in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate...

    See more comprehensive histories by Simon Dubnov, or a more accessible & shorter authored by German historian Werner Keller.

    They’re not particularly successful in Iran, either, where they are essentially walled off and ignored, and prevented from “assimilating” into Iranian society.

    Maybe there’s a connection? Something tells me the Romans, Parthians, and caliphates weren’t content to sit back and let Jews crowd the plum jobs and play the nepotism game, either.

    In other words, I suspect you have it backwards; prevented from taking over native societies, Jews were forced to work for a living.

  89. @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    Short term it would be a negative no doubt. This in fact happened to a lot of the Soviet Jews who went to Israel. The USSR had a very large system of state subsidized orchestras and half the Jews emigrating got off the plane carrying their violin cases. When they got to Israel it was explained to them that Israel had exactly 1 symphony orchestra and that they were going to have find something else to do.

    However, long term, Israel has gone from being extremely poor to approaching European levels of income, despite having large groups of ultra-religious, Arabs, Ethiopian “Jews”, etc. who are never going to carry their weight. Tel Aviv real estate prices are among the highest in the world. They have all kinds of high tech industries. A larger Israel (especially one filled with high IQ diaspora Ashkenazis) would, long term, be a richer place.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    From your lips to God's ears.
    , @res
    Unless you are expecting Israel to become much richer than the West I think your second paragraph misses the point. A market dominant minority disproportionately occupying desirable positions would probably do worse if returned as a group to a smaller native country even if it is of equivalent wealth. And would probably have a negative effect on the less competitive portion of the original Israelis.

    The question becomes more interesting when the home countries are both larger and poorer than the host countries. As is the case for both China and India.
  90. @Tyrion 2

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?
     
    If it were a net positive, they probably would have already moved there. Conversely, for the many who did move there, I assume it was a net positive.

    Naturally people make mistakes but revealed preferences are superior to wild speculation.

    I'd also add though, that while you make room for Jews moving to Israel for non-materialist reasons, you don't make room for them staying in their countries (of birth) for non-materialist reasons. Yet there's plenty of poor Jews who don't move to Israel despite the fact that the "returning" diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.

    Indeed, many Jews have moved to Israel for materialistic reasons, foregoing immaterial preferences for their country of departure. Though they'd be loathe to admit it.

    As always, these things are complicated and people make decisions based on innumerable and changing factors.

    The reason I’m not moving to Israel is that I am an American

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Yes, of course.
  91. @Jack D
    Absolutely right - us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert (we play a little klezmer music in the background) how we can use our wealth to undermine the Constitution today. No goys are allowed in these meetings. We get fined if we haven't used our wealth during the previous week to weaken the Constitution in some way. Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it's all fake.

    No other religion has Elders of Baptists or Elders of Presbyterians or Elders of Mormons.. oh, wait they do have those.

    *Brushes the cobwebs and dust off Jack’s joke, hands him his shopworn Jewish Conspiracy Membership Card*

    Carry on.

  92. @Jack D
    Short term it would be a negative no doubt. This in fact happened to a lot of the Soviet Jews who went to Israel. The USSR had a very large system of state subsidized orchestras and half the Jews emigrating got off the plane carrying their violin cases. When they got to Israel it was explained to them that Israel had exactly 1 symphony orchestra and that they were going to have find something else to do.

    However, long term, Israel has gone from being extremely poor to approaching European levels of income, despite having large groups of ultra-religious, Arabs, Ethiopian "Jews", etc. who are never going to carry their weight. Tel Aviv real estate prices are among the highest in the world. They have all kinds of high tech industries. A larger Israel (especially one filled with high IQ diaspora Ashkenazis) would, long term, be a richer place.

    From your lips to God’s ears.

  93. @Jack D
    Absolutely right - us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert (we play a little klezmer music in the background) how we can use our wealth to undermine the Constitution today. No goys are allowed in these meetings. We get fined if we haven't used our wealth during the previous week to weaken the Constitution in some way. Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it's all fake.

    No other religion has Elders of Baptists or Elders of Presbyterians or Elders of Mormons.. oh, wait they do have those.

    “Now that’s a 40-foot wall of mendacity, so I want to see goggles, people!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFZh92MUOY

  94. @Tyrion 2
    Obviously. Just as you are obviously some sort of deluded acolyte of Allah.

    Just as you are obviously some sort of deluded acolyte of Allah.

    Well that’s the first time I’ve seen that stock response implemented so elegantly.

  95. @Tyrion 2

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?
     
    If it were a net positive, they probably would have already moved there. Conversely, for the many who did move there, I assume it was a net positive.

    Naturally people make mistakes but revealed preferences are superior to wild speculation.

    I'd also add though, that while you make room for Jews moving to Israel for non-materialist reasons, you don't make room for them staying in their countries (of birth) for non-materialist reasons. Yet there's plenty of poor Jews who don't move to Israel despite the fact that the "returning" diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.

    Indeed, many Jews have moved to Israel for materialistic reasons, foregoing immaterial preferences for their country of departure. Though they'd be loathe to admit it.

    As always, these things are complicated and people make decisions based on innumerable and changing factors.

    Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.

    One thing about subsidies like that. In a competitive larger environment (e.g. with access to the US available) the subsidies are more attractive to those of lesser ability (less able to succeed competitively). Does Israel screen the people it subsidizes at all? If not, that seems like the kind of “mistake” SJWs tend to make, not the hard headed behavior I think of as characteristic of Israel.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Israel does give some transitional aid to immigrants, but in the long run welfare benefits are more generous in the US and Europe so if your goal to be a welfare leech you are better off staying in the US. And moving to Israel is a big deal, especially for someone of low intelligence - they speak Hebrew and use a non-Western alphabet. It's REALLY hard to switch languages like that. Israel got a whole bunch of Russians when the Soviet Union fell apart because economic conditions in Russia were relatively worse (by a significant margin) but most immigrants from the West come for ideological or religious reasons, not because of the subsidies, because standards of living are still higher in the West. And buying an apartment in Tel Aviv is as about as affordable as real estate in San Francisco. In fact that subsidies exist in order to make immigration more tempting than it would otherwise be, which is not very for someone coming from the West.
  96. @Paul
    A friend of mine told me his Jewish girlfriend did get the two of them a price break on a couple of bowling balls. She asked the man who sold and drilled the balls at the bowling alley if a discount could be had for buying two balls. He cut the price a little. My friend was embarrassed when she did that sort of thing.

    I think of all the “bad” things that Jews do, that one is among the least bad (at least compared to Bernie Madoff). And it’s not unique to Jews – in most non-Western cultures, haggling is the norm.

    Remember that “price fixing” is a bad thing and is anti-consumer. I think haggling got bred out of Western culture due to the monopoly power of the guilds and then later the monopoly power of the trusts. Bargaining was a waste of time because it wasn’t going to get you anywhere. In colonial Philadelphia, the Carpenter’s Guild had a little secret book of prices for every job and which every member had to adhere to. When a member died, someone from the guild came around and took the book back. If you got several estimates from different carpenters, surprise surprise they were exactly the same.

    https://cstorb.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/the-carpenters-company-of-the-city-and-county-of-philadelphia/

    Later on, it was no use bargaining with Rockefeller over the price of kerosene – either you paid his price or you weren’t going to get any.

    When I was a kid, they still had “Fair Trade” laws where merchants were not allowed to sell under MSRP, airline ticket prices were fixed, trucking rates were fixed, etc. because big business was able to get these kind of laws passed in their favor.

    Only dumb goyim would think that the right to be screwed by vendors is a FEATURE and not a BUG in the American system. It’s so CONVENIENT when you don’t have to haggle over the price. Doesn’t it occur to you that if the merchant is setting the price that he is going to set it in a way that it advantageous to him?

    • Replies: @res
    Interesting points, but I think there is a case to be made that (if the time of both the merchant and consumer have value) haggling nets out as negative overall and there is a game theory style optimal equilibrium where a set price is better for everyone. But "equilibria" like that (it's really not) are susceptible to defectors on both sides hence the social pressure.

    But your points on haggling as a way of increasing competitiveness on price may trump that.

    My sense is in an environment with functional macro competitiveness (e.g. multiple companies truly competing) haggling is not necessary. One could argue that corporate competitiveness is lessening (e.g. formation of functional monopolies). Would that make haggling more necessary/useful? This might be seen as yet another example of the Third Worldization of the US.

    What do you think?
  97. @Tyrion 2
    I don't think the stereotype of white people being particularly bigoted is (only) top down. It seems more of a case of social scapegoating. Do black Americans really need the New York Times to give them permission to think of white people as anti-black haters? Are the black Americans who don't read not actually often more reflexively disliking of white people?

    As for the black inventors, I think black Americans may be not be genius inventors by bottom up stereotype but they are sort of "numinous" to many, sanctified by slavery. Meanwhile, Latinas probably get allocated wisdom on the old-fashioned basis that people who don't make a lot of noise don't out themselves as fools.

    Anyway, you may disagree with the above but hand-waving away what you don't like as "top down" and welcoming what you do as "bottom up" is too easy. I'm tempted to just agree with you,but it seems to me like too much of a way to avoid doing some real thinking.

    You make a good point about the risk of that type of thinking, but I think in this case Anon has the right of it. A good way to think about this might be as the balance of “stereotype prevalence in society” and “quantity (and sign) of top down messaging on that topic.” I think that metric Occam Razors right through your objection for the specific examples discussed.

    P.S. Should probably add “prevalence of the stereotypical trait/behavior in reality” to the above.

  98. @res

    Yet there’s plenty of poor Jews who don’t move to Israel despite the fact that the “returning” diaspora are given massive financial support to make the transition by the Israeli government.
     
    One thing about subsidies like that. In a competitive larger environment (e.g. with access to the US available) the subsidies are more attractive to those of lesser ability (less able to succeed competitively). Does Israel screen the people it subsidizes at all? If not, that seems like the kind of "mistake" SJWs tend to make, not the hard headed behavior I think of as characteristic of Israel.

    Israel does give some transitional aid to immigrants, but in the long run welfare benefits are more generous in the US and Europe so if your goal to be a welfare leech you are better off staying in the US. And moving to Israel is a big deal, especially for someone of low intelligence – they speak Hebrew and use a non-Western alphabet. It’s REALLY hard to switch languages like that. Israel got a whole bunch of Russians when the Soviet Union fell apart because economic conditions in Russia were relatively worse (by a significant margin) but most immigrants from the West come for ideological or religious reasons, not because of the subsidies, because standards of living are still higher in the West. And buying an apartment in Tel Aviv is as about as affordable as real estate in San Francisco. In fact that subsidies exist in order to make immigration more tempting than it would otherwise be, which is not very for someone coming from the West.

    • Replies: @res
    Good perspective. Thanks. Any thoughts on why those Russians chose Israel over the US given the issues you raise?
    , @Johann Ricke

    Israel got a whole bunch of Russians when the Soviet Union fell apart because economic conditions in Russia were relatively worse (by a significant margin) but most immigrants from the West come for ideological or religious reasons, not because of the subsidies, because standards of living are still higher in the West.
     
    An acquaintance from the NY metro area made aliyah decades ago to the land of milk and honey. Did a U-turn after churning out a bunch of kids. Sabras stick around because it's all they've known. But living in Israel is a rough transition for anyone who grew up stateside. And even sabras end up heading to the US. Because, home sickness aside, it's really much more pleasant than living in Israel.
  99. @Mr McKenna
    See? We can all just get along.

    Just before a vote on the Yemen war powers resolution, House GOP forced a vote to add an amendment condemning anti-Semitism "in the interest of national security."

    The House voted 424-0 according to a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Justin Amash of Michigan voted 'present'.

    “In a defining moment for the U.S. House of Representatives and the country as a whole, Republicans and Democrats voted as one today to condemn anti-Semitism around the world, to denounce all attempts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, and to oppose efforts to impose boycotts on Israel,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division. This overwhelmingly positive and cohesive vote shows there is no place for anti-Semitism in any form, anytime, anywhere.”

    https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IO-e1548248014934.jpg
     

    At least there is SOMETHING that all Americans agree about!

    Isn’t this like voting for motherhood and apple pie? Except for around here and maybe a few Muslima congresswomen, aren’t most Americans against anti-Semitism, or at least not actively in favor of it?

  100. Anonymous[223] • Disclaimer says:

    “Ok, guys. The NAZIS have spilled the beans on Jewish wealth. Our attempts to silence these facts have failed. It’s time to stop denying and start excusing. We are going to get a real mental workout going while we explain why White Privilege is bad but Jewish Privilege is good. Join us for a pilpulling good time.”

  101. Anon[694] • Disclaimer says:

    The book Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America’s 50 Year Fall does a good job discussing the source of Jewish wealth in the US. The bulk of it began in the 80’s, when Jews started the junk bond, leveraged buyout and hostile takeover craze that took down some of America’s most profitable companies, out of resentment that they were often excluded from top management positions and country clubs occupied by clubby WASPs.

    The Fed has also played a major role in steering money towards Jew run Wall Street by keeping interest rates artificially low for a long time to enable all the LBOs and M&As. Starting from Alan Greenspan in 1987 to Janet Yellen in 2017, Jews basically ran the Fed for 30 years. Before then the first and only Jewish Fed Chairman was Eugene Meyer in 1933, who was forced to resign after he was accused of financing Leon Trotsky’s activities in Soviet Russia.

    Wherever the Jews go, money, power, dishonesty, debauchery and corruption follow. It’s a sickness that plagues God’s chosen. They can’t seem to extricate themselves from greed, lust and revenge, these 3 traits have come to define the Jewish character.

    • Replies: @Flip
    Arthur Burns was Jewish also.
    , @Anon
    They went after those companies in the 80s more to steal the pension funds and assets than resentment at top management just my opinion
  102. @Jack D
    Short term it would be a negative no doubt. This in fact happened to a lot of the Soviet Jews who went to Israel. The USSR had a very large system of state subsidized orchestras and half the Jews emigrating got off the plane carrying their violin cases. When they got to Israel it was explained to them that Israel had exactly 1 symphony orchestra and that they were going to have find something else to do.

    However, long term, Israel has gone from being extremely poor to approaching European levels of income, despite having large groups of ultra-religious, Arabs, Ethiopian "Jews", etc. who are never going to carry their weight. Tel Aviv real estate prices are among the highest in the world. They have all kinds of high tech industries. A larger Israel (especially one filled with high IQ diaspora Ashkenazis) would, long term, be a richer place.

    Unless you are expecting Israel to become much richer than the West I think your second paragraph misses the point. A market dominant minority disproportionately occupying desirable positions would probably do worse if returned as a group to a smaller native country even if it is of equivalent wealth. And would probably have a negative effect on the less competitive portion of the original Israelis.

    The question becomes more interesting when the home countries are both larger and poorer than the host countries. As is the case for both China and India.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    That's exactly what I am expecting. In some hypothetical situation where all the Jewish billionaires, inventors, scientists, etc. were all concentrated in Israel (and assuming that trade was still free), Israel's economic growth would continue and it would become a high tech capital (as it already is to some extent) and a very high income country.
    , @istevefan

    The question becomes more interesting when the home countries are both larger and poorer than the host countries. As is the case for both China and India.
     
    You would think that the huge and growing economies of those nations would lure their diaspora back to cash in. But then you see that in 2019 the rich of those two nations still emigrate as fast as they can to the five eye nations. My guess is India and China are so overcrowded that even a gigantic market with the potential to make unheard of wealth is not going to be enough to entice a material amount of the diaspora to return. At some point you have enough money and would rather live in a nicer environment even if it means not maxing out your earnings potential.
  103. @Bardon Kaldian
    Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades. They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,... in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate...

    See more comprehensive histories by Simon Dubnov, or a more accessible & shorter authored by German historian Werner Keller.

    Even in Poland right up to the eve of the Holocaust, those were the exact occupations that most Jews were involved in, not banking. If you ask American Jews what great grandpa did when he got off the boat at Ellis Island, it was that kind of thing.

    (BTW, most people don’t associate Jews with blacksmithing but it was in fact a Jewish trade). Samuel Yellin was perhaps the greatest metal worker in American history:

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

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So, why aren't there many Jews with the surname 'Smith' or the Slavic or German equivalent?

    'Taylor' and the like are represented, but curiously 'Smith' isn't.
  104. Ramz makes a good point. It used to be immigrants assimilated to Anglo-Americanism.

    Now, the deal is to assimilate to Zionist-Centrism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb8KP6Y8Bvg&feature=youtu.be

    • Replies: @anon
    Omar correctly named the enemy. In that regard, her statement was a success, even if clumsy. While she walked her statement back, her supporters do not mentally walk it back.

    With the internet, a continued naming the enemy with praise is probably the best approach. Point out in a positive light, how "Jews are a proud and honorable group, who donate handsome sums of money to politicians. More so than any other group, in fact!" Anyone with a 90+ IQ begins to see the contradictions. From there, the Internet can do its thing.
  105. @Jack D
    I think of all the "bad" things that Jews do, that one is among the least bad (at least compared to Bernie Madoff). And it's not unique to Jews - in most non-Western cultures, haggling is the norm.

    Remember that "price fixing" is a bad thing and is anti-consumer. I think haggling got bred out of Western culture due to the monopoly power of the guilds and then later the monopoly power of the trusts. Bargaining was a waste of time because it wasn't going to get you anywhere. In colonial Philadelphia, the Carpenter's Guild had a little secret book of prices for every job and which every member had to adhere to. When a member died, someone from the guild came around and took the book back. If you got several estimates from different carpenters, surprise surprise they were exactly the same.

    https://cstorb.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/the-carpenters-company-of-the-city-and-county-of-philadelphia/

    Later on, it was no use bargaining with Rockefeller over the price of kerosene - either you paid his price or you weren't going to get any.

    When I was a kid, they still had "Fair Trade" laws where merchants were not allowed to sell under MSRP, airline ticket prices were fixed, trucking rates were fixed, etc. because big business was able to get these kind of laws passed in their favor.

    Only dumb goyim would think that the right to be screwed by vendors is a FEATURE and not a BUG in the American system. It's so CONVENIENT when you don't have to haggle over the price. Doesn't it occur to you that if the merchant is setting the price that he is going to set it in a way that it advantageous to him?

    Interesting points, but I think there is a case to be made that (if the time of both the merchant and consumer have value) haggling nets out as negative overall and there is a game theory style optimal equilibrium where a set price is better for everyone. But “equilibria” like that (it’s really not) are susceptible to defectors on both sides hence the social pressure.

    But your points on haggling as a way of increasing competitiveness on price may trump that.

    My sense is in an environment with functional macro competitiveness (e.g. multiple companies truly competing) haggling is not necessary. One could argue that corporate competitiveness is lessening (e.g. formation of functional monopolies). Would that make haggling more necessary/useful? This might be seen as yet another example of the Third Worldization of the US.

    What do you think?

    • Replies: @Jack D

    My sense is in an environment with functional macro competitiveness (e.g. multiple companies truly competing) haggling is not necessary.
     
    Vendors (even if there are many) always try to rig prices. This is why we have anti-price fixing laws. Even if there are many producers or merchants, there is only 1 Model XYZ GE refrigerator. Try the Google shopping tool and you'll see for many items, EVERY vendor charges the exact same price for a certain item (and not just one item but thousands), down to the penny, especially all the national chains - Lowes, Home Depot, Best Buy, etc. And I'm pretty sure this isn't because the market has bargained the profit down to zero. This doesn't sound like a competitive market to me.
  106. I was at lunch recently with some friends, and as we complained about the NY Times I recommended Steve Sailer as an antidote. One of my friends said that he remembered my having mentioned Sailer before and that he’d looked him up and discovered he was antisemitic. I didn’t argue the point, but I believe that it is simply not legitimate to label everyone as antisemitic who dares to point out certain things about Jews. All I want is a freedom to speak about Jews, favorably or not, equivalent to that with which so many Jews and Jewish organizations and largely Jewish media operations speak about “white people”. As Sailer has often said, there are certain truths about Jews that one is punished for merely noticing and remarking on in a public forum. The case that stands out in my mind is that of the Irish pundit Kevin Myers who lost his gig with the Irish Times for making a perfectly innocuous remark about Jews’ not being known for selling their talents short. It is instructive to listen to him being admonished by a Jewish BBC interviewer, Emma Barrett; the interview is on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo6QIAASZw). At one point she tells him that the notion that Jews have a lot of money is a despicable old “trope” and that there are lots of desperately poor Jews. To sum up: Lots of what some strong critics of Jews say seems to me extravagant, but I’ll be damned if anybody is going to tell me that my honest pursuit of the truth about them (or anyone else) is unacceptable.

  107. One thing I’m curious about that I wouldn’t mind seeing some numbers on…

    In interwar Poland, how did the economic condition of Jews compare to that of the gentile population?

  108. @Jack D
    Israel does give some transitional aid to immigrants, but in the long run welfare benefits are more generous in the US and Europe so if your goal to be a welfare leech you are better off staying in the US. And moving to Israel is a big deal, especially for someone of low intelligence - they speak Hebrew and use a non-Western alphabet. It's REALLY hard to switch languages like that. Israel got a whole bunch of Russians when the Soviet Union fell apart because economic conditions in Russia were relatively worse (by a significant margin) but most immigrants from the West come for ideological or religious reasons, not because of the subsidies, because standards of living are still higher in the West. And buying an apartment in Tel Aviv is as about as affordable as real estate in San Francisco. In fact that subsidies exist in order to make immigration more tempting than it would otherwise be, which is not very for someone coming from the West.

    Good perspective. Thanks. Any thoughts on why those Russians chose Israel over the US given the issues you raise?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian Jews were no longer " religiously oppressed" refugees eligible for US visas and Israel put pressure on the US to make it less easy for Russian Jews to come here in order to funnel that immigration to Israel instead.

    Even during the Soviet period, the ostensible reason under Soviet law that Russian Jews were allowed to leave was for "family reunification". Almost every Soviet Jew that left (aside from those who had actual relatives in the US) received a letter from a (real or imaginary) "cousin" in Israel inviting him to go to Israel. Exit from the Soviet Union was not direct to Israel. Rather they would get off the plane or train in Vienna or Rome and once they got off they would "change their minds" and seek refuge in the US. It was all a kind of elaborate charade but Israel and the US played along because they wanted to help get the Jews out of the Soviet Union. But once the Communists were gone, the same impetus was not there.
    , @Maximus Imperator
    Yes, so they could get a visa to US, final target. They used Israel as a stepping stone.
  109. @anonymous
    'Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation'

    They had a nasty habit of leaving menial/dangerous work to cheap Arab labour before the intafada

    Why is that “nasty”? Throughout history, it has been very common for certain jobs to be done by imported labor or certain groups – the American railroads were built by Irish and Chinese, the mines of the West were filled with Poles and Finns, etc. The dangerous job of walking the high steel on skyscraper construction was a speciality of certain American Indian tribes. In countries where immigration was not possible, they developed castes of local to do the menial jobs. The dominant class is never going to send their sons and daughters to dig ditches. This is considered mutually beneficial in that (absent slavery) the people doing this work consider it to pay better than whatever they could be doing absent such employment and do it voluntarily.

    The idea (posited at the beginning of this thread) that other societies are more egalitarian than the Jews because in say ( pre-WWII) Britain, EVERY job, from latrine digger to prince, was held by a Brit, is stupid. The Brits who were digging latrines were not from the same social class as the princes. Maybe they all had the same religion but they were just as distinct as Jews vs non-Jews. In many cases they were even genetically distinct, with upper class Brits having Norman French surnames because they were the conquerors of 1066.

    • Replies: @Anon
    It wasn’t so much Norman names as size that distinguished the English classes. By 1900 the average lowest class Englishmen were 5 inches shorter than the average upper class English man due to centuries of malnutrition and hard physical work beginning in childhood. Despite all their complaining and periodic famines, the oppressed Irish and Scots never were as malnourished and over worked as the average Englishman
  110. @res
    Good perspective. Thanks. Any thoughts on why those Russians chose Israel over the US given the issues you raise?

    After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian Jews were no longer ” religiously oppressed” refugees eligible for US visas and Israel put pressure on the US to make it less easy for Russian Jews to come here in order to funnel that immigration to Israel instead.

    Even during the Soviet period, the ostensible reason under Soviet law that Russian Jews were allowed to leave was for “family reunification”. Almost every Soviet Jew that left (aside from those who had actual relatives in the US) received a letter from a (real or imaginary) “cousin” in Israel inviting him to go to Israel. Exit from the Soviet Union was not direct to Israel. Rather they would get off the plane or train in Vienna or Rome and once they got off they would “change their minds” and seek refuge in the US. It was all a kind of elaborate charade but Israel and the US played along because they wanted to help get the Jews out of the Soviet Union. But once the Communists were gone, the same impetus was not there.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian Jews were no longer ” religiously oppressed” refugees eligible for US visas and Israel put pressure on the US to make it less easy for Russian Jews to come here in order to funnel that immigration to Israel instead.
     
    In my honest opinion, I consider this to have been a huge shame. Soviet Jews could have significantly contributed to the U.S. and thus more of them should have been allowed to come here after 1989.

    My own parents wanted to come to the U.S. in 1991 but the door to the U.S. was closed to them during this time. Thus, they ended up moving to Israel and only got the chance to move to the U.S. 10 years later--specifically in 2001. We then got lucky in winning the Diversity Green Card Lottery in 2004, though they were unable to process my dad's paperwork in time and thus he had to get a Green Card from his work/job several years later (in 2011, I think). The rest of us got Green Cards back in 2004, though. As for U.S. citizenship, we got it later--everyone but my dad got it in 2010.

    Ultimately, the Diversity Green Card Lottery was not decisive for us (as I wrote above, my dad's work/job did his Green Card for him and it would have very likely done the same for the rest of us had we not won the Diversity Green Card Lottery), but it was still nice for us to win it. I do wonder what effect the Diversity Green Card Lottery (Diversity Visa Lottery) has on our nation's average IQ, though. Trump is full of BS when he says that this lottery brings the worst people from various countries into the U.S., but he nevertheless does raise the question of what kind of immigrants this lottery actually does bring to the U.S.
  111. @Bardon Kaldian
    Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades. They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,... in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate...

    See more comprehensive histories by Simon Dubnov, or a more accessible & shorter authored by German historian Werner Keller.

    ‘Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades…’

    If so, they’ve changed.

    Witness Israel. On the one hand, she has to import agricultural workers, while on the other hand, she’s a major center of international financial fraud.

    Perhaps in the societies you mention Jews weren’t involved in monetary professions simply because there wasn’t much money in circulation? People don’t realize to what extent finance, banks, etc are a relatively recent innovation. Only so many people can be tax farmers…

  112. @res
    Interesting points, but I think there is a case to be made that (if the time of both the merchant and consumer have value) haggling nets out as negative overall and there is a game theory style optimal equilibrium where a set price is better for everyone. But "equilibria" like that (it's really not) are susceptible to defectors on both sides hence the social pressure.

    But your points on haggling as a way of increasing competitiveness on price may trump that.

    My sense is in an environment with functional macro competitiveness (e.g. multiple companies truly competing) haggling is not necessary. One could argue that corporate competitiveness is lessening (e.g. formation of functional monopolies). Would that make haggling more necessary/useful? This might be seen as yet another example of the Third Worldization of the US.

    What do you think?

    My sense is in an environment with functional macro competitiveness (e.g. multiple companies truly competing) haggling is not necessary.

    Vendors (even if there are many) always try to rig prices. This is why we have anti-price fixing laws. Even if there are many producers or merchants, there is only 1 Model XYZ GE refrigerator. Try the Google shopping tool and you’ll see for many items, EVERY vendor charges the exact same price for a certain item (and not just one item but thousands), down to the penny, especially all the national chains – Lowes, Home Depot, Best Buy, etc. And I’m pretty sure this isn’t because the market has bargained the profit down to zero. This doesn’t sound like a competitive market to me.

    • Replies: @res

    This doesn’t sound like a competitive market to me.
     
    That was pretty much the point of the sentence following the one you quoted ; )

    One form of competition comes in when there is a model ABC LG (Chinese because so many American brands have the same underlying manufacturer these days) refrigerator. Though LG is likely to do the same thing, the inter-producer competition places limits on how aggressively the producers can enforce a given pricing level. And the differences in products generally requires some competition on price between producers. The merchant case is more interesting because there is little difference in product (modulo merchant exclusive models). The MSRP enforcement becomes challenging when merchants have vastly different costs (e.g. volume, high value customer service).

    I shop sales pretty aggressively, which some people look down on in a similar fashion to haggling. That also imposes a cost of my time, but I think overall works better for everyone given it allows producers and merchants to make micro adjustments (e.g. the red one is not selling) in a time efficient fashion. And I get to see which merchants/producers are willing to bargain with relatively little effort on my part.

    I realize I am not contradicting what you said, more just exploring it.

    It gets interesting when the MSRP is fairly rigorously enforced, but there are still games with individual haggling or "we can't show the real low price until it is added to your cart." Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?

    Maybe it is just that I am a stupid goy, but I do think there is a societal benefit to less haggling over every single thing. How that trades off against the benefit of more competition is difficult to evaluate IMHO. But it does seem clear that the more haggling there is for any given item the higher the MSRP goes (as a negotiation anchor, and to compensate for lower prices to hagglers) and the more I am required to haggle myself. That is a vicious cycle.
  113. Where the Hell is the candidate talking about the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire?

    I’ll do it if you mugs ain’t got the guts!

    The Jews have been part of the ruling class in the USA for over a century and some of these bastards are acting like they are still in the shtetl.

    Shelly Adelson owns Trumpy!

    Tweet from 2015:

  114. @Almost Missouri
    In the Middle East everyone haggles. Even among Westerners, haggling still holds a purchase (heh) among Southern Europeans and Levantines. A Tunisian friend of mine was badly cheated by an Italian merchant in a way that would have made me genocidally enraged, yet he could only express admiration for the cut-throated way the Italian had outdone him. Similarly, a Greek Consular officer there liked to express how the Middle Eastern culture was similar to Greece, in terms of bargaining and family-work intermingling. Translated into my WEIRD framework, he was saying that he too engaged in market anarchy, nepotism and insider-dealing.

    I myself probably caused some consternation by WEIRDing when I should have When-In-Rome-ed. For instance a customer of my employer invited me to partake some of his residential privileges, which did sound enticing, but I offhandedly replied that I couldn't accept because I had to maintain "clean hands" with respect to my employer's interest. I think this really offended him. Probably he found other employees who were more amenable.

    But this culture can change, though it takes a lifetime. I was amused there by a local friend who was very good at haggling but who had married co-ethnic/co-religionist girl who had grown up in the West whom he then brought back to the Middle East (in effect importing a wife back to her "native" country—sort of the reverse of what we see Muslim immigrant men do here nowadays). His Westernized wife always quailed with embarrassment whenever her husband started squeezing the haggle-vise on a vendor, which was whenever they bought something, so all the time in other words. The irony was that I, a native Westerner, had theretofore always watched these haggle sessions with keen interest since I knew I needed to learn to haggle better so as not to get taken in every deal, but whenever his wife was around, I found it impossible not to feel her embarrassment.

    I despise haggling. I have many many many other worthwhile things to do other than spend my time trying to save $7.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    Do you pay sticker price for cars? Asking price for real estate? Never mind, they're rhetorical questions.

    The haggling vs paying sticker debate is interesting. Americans do "haggle" in quite a few situations (as mentioned cars and homes, but prior to taking most salaried employment) and not in others.

    Maybe the divide is around the uniformity of the product: homes and a salaried employee are fairly unique, whereas a BLT sandwich is pretty much the same for the next 10 people to walk into a deli. Though I would argue that outside easily computed differences in options, most car make/models are pretty much the same thing. Perhaps the issue with cars is the externally imposed middle man (the dealers). If we were allowed to buy direct from Detroit/Tokyo/Munich/Seoul maybe prices would converge.

    Btw, I know my writing/grammar is awful in this post. I'm half-listening to a conference call.
  115. @Clifford Brown
    When exactly was the term canard replaced with trope?

    I remember when the term trope was only used by post-modernist movie reviews in edgier higher end publications.

    It is now apparently ubiquitous.

    And when spouse became partner and when victim became survivor and when non-victims also became survivors.

  116. @Paul
    A friend of mine told me his Jewish girlfriend did get the two of them a price break on a couple of bowling balls. She asked the man who sold and drilled the balls at the bowling alley if a discount could be had for buying two balls. He cut the price a little. My friend was embarrassed when she did that sort of thing.

    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is “embarrassing”? Is it because the sum is “trivial”? Say that the merchant cut the price by $5 and that it took you 1 minute to ask and get the merchant’s answer. That comes out to $300 per hour – it seems like a pretty good use of your time.

    • Replies: @peterike

    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is “embarrassing”? Is it because the sum is “trivial”?

     

    No, it's because it's crass and vulgar. It's a white thing. You wouldn't understand.
    , @res

    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is “embarrassing”?
     
    Societal norms. The interesting question is: why do those norms exist?

    I would propose two reasons:
    - Successful groups using those norms as a form of conspicuous consumption.
    - Society semi-consciously trying to regulate the arms race of haggling.

    Any thoughts on those, or other ideas?

    This article is a decent look at not haggling as a social norm. I think it's fair to say it focuses on my second reason. (with a much more detailed take on it)
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/06/haggling-social-norms-and-economic-efficiency

    P.S. How those norms are enforced is another interesting question. Still another interesting question is how groups living in close proximity maintain different norms. Say for example: "not haggling is for suckers." I don't think different societal norms are a recipe for tranquility. Though they do allow for specialization.
    , @Dtbb
    Yep. Bought two used tires the other day. He wanted $100 and I said $95 cash. Deal. Took all of 2 seconds.
  117. @res
    Unless you are expecting Israel to become much richer than the West I think your second paragraph misses the point. A market dominant minority disproportionately occupying desirable positions would probably do worse if returned as a group to a smaller native country even if it is of equivalent wealth. And would probably have a negative effect on the less competitive portion of the original Israelis.

    The question becomes more interesting when the home countries are both larger and poorer than the host countries. As is the case for both China and India.

    That’s exactly what I am expecting. In some hypothetical situation where all the Jewish billionaires, inventors, scientists, etc. were all concentrated in Israel (and assuming that trade was still free), Israel’s economic growth would continue and it would become a high tech capital (as it already is to some extent) and a very high income country.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    Free trade would be key. Without unfettered access to the major markets and the ability for foreigners to continue to own media, banks and other important segments of the economy, hypothetical Israel would be hampered in her growth prospects.
    , @res
    I probably should have bolded "much" in "expecting Israel to become much richer than the West" as I considered. What multiple of GDP per capita would you expect that hypothetical Israel to have compared to the US? What multiple would be enough to make up for losing the benefit of cherry picking the best jobs in a much larger country? Remember that hypothetical Israel still has to keep the toilets cleaned.
  118. @Jack D
    Even in Poland right up to the eve of the Holocaust, those were the exact occupations that most Jews were involved in, not banking. If you ask American Jews what great grandpa did when he got off the boat at Ellis Island, it was that kind of thing.

    (BTW, most people don't associate Jews with blacksmithing but it was in fact a Jewish trade). Samuel Yellin was perhaps the greatest metal worker in American history:

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

    So, why aren’t there many Jews with the surname ‘Smith’ or the Slavic or German equivalent?

    ‘Taylor’ and the like are represented, but curiously ‘Smith’ isn’t.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jonathan_Goldsmith_2009.jpg
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    The Falasha are smiths to the last man. They do not do anything else.
    , @Kaganovitch
    Schmitt, Schmitz ,Shmidman etc are not uncommon Jewish names, though not nearly as common as Schneider, Snyder etc
    , @Anonymous

    ‘Taylor’ and the like are represented, but curiously ‘Smith’ isn’t.
     
    Are there actually many Jewish "Taylors"? Isn't that more of an Anglo name?
  119. @Jack D
    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is "embarrassing"? Is it because the sum is "trivial"? Say that the merchant cut the price by $5 and that it took you 1 minute to ask and get the merchant's answer. That comes out to $300 per hour - it seems like a pretty good use of your time.

    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is “embarrassing”? Is it because the sum is “trivial”?

    No, it’s because it’s crass and vulgar. It’s a white thing. You wouldn’t understand.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Jack D
    You're missing the point - crass and vulgar are just words for "bad" - why is it bad? Saying it's a white thang is not helpful - if you can't articulate why it's bad you have no insight into your own culture. If I asked you why killing people for the slightest offense is bad you wouldn't say it's a white thang, you'd have lots of reasons that you'd be able to articulate. You can't have a functioning society where people kill each other whenever they are offended but cultures where bargaining is common is ubiquitous. Even in the West we didn't alway have department stores with little tags on every item.

    In China or Lebanon, it would be "presumptuous" or "haughty" (again just words for "bad") for a merchant to give you a price and refuse to negotiate. Just who the hell does he think he is that he is above negotiating?
  120. COTF(Coalition of the Fringes) is really a Judeo-Centrism. It’s not about equality among minority groups but about non-Jewish minority planets revolving around the sun of Jewish Power. Notice that neither Charles Blow nor Sarah Jeong says anything much about Jewish Power or Zionist Occupation of West Bank. They are colored planets around the Jewish sun. And Omar was meant to be a planet too. Jewish solaristics say, “White Sun bad, so color planets should revolve around Jewish Sun to fight evil white sun.” Omar’s sin was she suggested at Islamo-centrism. Instead of being a dutiful planet revolving around the Jewish sun, her truth sees Islamism as the core truth, the real sun. This messes up the gravitational laws of Jewish solaristics. For most blacks, Asians, Hindus, and Mexicans, what Jews are doing to Palestinians and Arabs doesn’t really matter. They have no personal or tribal dog in the fight. So, they figure on playing the game and moving up the ladder by revolving around the Jewish sun that hogs the light and power. But Muslims do have a dog in the fight because so much of Muslim Consciousness has been about ‘Evil Zionists crush Palestinians and attack Arab/Muslim nations’. Indeed, Muslim media and propaganda in Africa and Middle East are as anti-Zionist as Jewish-dominated Media in the US are anti-white. Muslims grow up inhaling this stuff as The Truth, just like PC-addled people in the US inhale anti-white-ism.

    Another problem with Jewish solaristics is that the Evil White Sun also revolves around it now. Jews vilify whites the most, but whites make the biggest stink about how much they love Jews and Israel. Jews need this white support for Israel but also find it troublesome because it associates Jewish power with ‘white racism’. If white sun is so evil and must be opposed by Jewish sun and its loyal color planets, why is it revolving around the Jewish sun and praising it?

    [MORE]

    It used to be Anglo-American Sun was at the center of America. And initially, Jews were an ethnic planet that revolved around the Anglo-American Sun… as did other ethnic-planets. But then, Jewish planet got radioactive and began to generate its own heat and became another sun. So, America became the ever-expanding Jewish sun revolving around the ever-dimming Anglo-American sun. But it’s unstable for a solar system to have two suns. Should Jewish sun keep revolving around Anglo-American sun, or should Anglo-American sun begin to revolve around the Jewish sun? Anglo-centrism or Judeo-centrism? Around the time Cold War ended, the White sun began to revolve around the Jewish sun. US went from sentimentalizing the UK as special motherland to regarding Israel as its ‘greatest ally’. US dropped the ‘racism’ of favoritism for Northern Europe and took up the ‘progressivism’ of favoritism for Israel. Why is favoring Jews over Palestinians a form of ‘progressivism’ than ‘racism’? You got me. I guess control of the Word trumps the way of the World.

    But Jewish Power was still not content with the White Sun revolving around the Jewish sun. As long as the White sun remains a sun, it challenges the mono-supremacy of the Jewish sun. It is typical Jewish mentality rooted in ancient habits: Jewish God is the only god, all other gods are false. So, Jewish sun is the only sun, and there shall be no other sun. Jewish sun power came from elite control of institutions and industry. As whites lost those areas to Jews, white solar power resided mainly in numbers. Whites were still the majority. Jews had quality sun power, whites had quantity sun power. So, Jews figured even THAT must be destroyed. If whites were to lose majority power, they will no longer constitute a sun and become just a planet wholly dependent on Jewish sun for light and sustenance. It will have no auto-generative power. Donald Trump won in 2016 purely due to quantity power. As virtually all the elite institutions and industries(even on the establishment ‘right’) were against Trump, he had only white populism to rely on. If white quantity power goes, white power got nothing. Whites will lose sun status and be just another planet.

    Anyway, in the Jewish attack on white power, it needed Janissary and mercenaries. Jews may have elite power, but that is never enough. Just like generals need soldiers, Jews need the numbers. As they don’t have it themselves, they gain numbers by the Janissary way and mercenary way. Janissary are white people brainwashed by PC to hate their own kind. Turks did this with Greek and Slavic boys. Ottoman empire scoured Christian areas under its control and conscripted the healthiest, strongest, and most intelligent boys. These Christian boys were trained in Islamic military academies and converted and trained to be rabid and virulent enemies of Christendom. Jewish power has done this to so many white kids via academia(for elite white kids) and idolatry(for white masses who become addicted to rap music, jungle fever, and Hollywood movies where white heroes are those who happily fight Wars for Israel or hate Russia). But Janissary whites weren’t enough for Jews. So, Jews used immigration to recruit mercenaries. These non-whites are essentially bribed by Jews with tickets to the US. With tickets not only for themselves but for their relatives and their relatives and etc. As these people realize that their continued passage to white wealth depends on Jewish power and suppression of White American nationalism, they work with Jews even though they feel no love for Jews(and may even resent them). In politics, the choice is often not between what-we-love and what-we-hate but between what-we-hate and what-we-hate-more. It’s like Jews side with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine because they hate Russia even more. It’s like Saudis side with Israel because they hate Iran even more. So, when whites try to convince Jews to oppose non-white immigration because POC immigrants hate Jews, Jews scoff at the notion because they know non-whites can be made to hate whites even more, thereby siding with Jews. If non-whites hate Jews but hate whites even more for being a bigger obstacle to non-white immigration-invasion of the West, they will side with Jews who are at least letting them in as the New Ellisians.

    Jews are bitter about Omar because she’s supposed to be a good mercenary but isn’t. Jews support the ‘Muslim refugees’ and make a big fuss about it for all the world to hear: “We Jews spend big money to bring you guys in to the West against the will of ‘racist’ white Nazi America.” Basically, it means “We pay you to side with us against white people.” Most non-whites, wink-wink, understand and play along. Take the Latin-American film-makers in Hollywood. They know who really controls the Film Industry. They know all about Jewish Power. But, because Jewish power is more welcoming of their kind while white America is more resistant, they play at being loyal mercenaries to the Tribe.

    But things may be different with Muslims. Islam, unlike Christianity, lacks a soft side. It is militant and proud, just like Jewishness. It has its own kind of chutzpah. Also, Muslims lack ‘white guilt’ and, as members of POC, have been characterized as ‘victims’. Indeed, Jews have been feeding this narrative, not least because ‘Muslims as victims of white supremacism’ is a convenient smokescreen for the reality of ‘Muslims as victims of Wars for Israel pushed by AIPAC’.
    In contrast, Jews count as whites, indeed so much so that Jews can conveniently repackage Jewish privilege as ‘white privilege’. Also, because of the Palestinian issue, both the ‘far left’ and ‘far right’ sometimes use Muslims as a proxy against Jewish power. If it’s taboo and ‘antisemitic’ for whites to criticize Jews, it’s more complicated when Palestinians and Arabs do it because it is a fact that Zionism oppresses Palestinians and pushes for more Wars for Israel.
    Also, white Janissary become awfully confused when it’s Jews vs Muslims. Jewish-controlled PC instilled white Janissary with the simple moral formula of “whites bad, non-whites good.” So, whom are white Janissary supposed to side with when it’s white Jews vs non-white Muslims? Their NPC programming starts to go haywire. No wonder Jews try to distract everyone from all this with ‘Gays are Holy’. Omar is either an idiot or savant — or idiot savant — when she invoked the tranny business to get some heat off her. She is learning.

    So, Muslims are troublesome mercenaries for Jews. Besides, Islam is powerful stuff. It has its own solar will to be the center of the world. Even if Muslims may never achieve political or economic mastery, they feel as the spiritual masters of the world. This is why Muslim nations have been more difficult to bend to the will of the West than, say, the East or Latin America. Japan and Latin American nations are awash with ‘gay’ stuff, but it’s almost non-existent in Muslim nations. Pagan Japan and post-Christian Latin America have no core conviction, no sense of eternal or perennial truth. It’s all about the fashion and what-is-hot, and that means mindless imitation of the biggest power in the world, the US. The Now is Wow.
    In contrast, Muslims always put Faith at the center, just like Jews always put the Covenant at the center. So between Jews and Muslims, it’s Core conviction vs Core conviction. Furthermore, Jews can’t manipulate Muslims because the latter doesn’t have a guilt complex the way Christians do. Muhammad was an unapologetic warrior, not a turn-the-other-cheek saint. So, while Jews could point to how Christians preached one thing but practiced another, they can’t pull this trick on Muslims who believe their violence was sanctioned by Allah.

    So, the current Jews vs Muslims battle resembles Romans vs Jews in the ancient world. Romans had the military might but they couldn’t crush the will of Jews. And Muslims have the kind of will that cannot be crushed, not even with the full might of US and its Pax Judeo-Americana. In the end, profits can’t beat the prophets, and Muslims have prophetic confidence.

  121. @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    Nobody would miss the lawyers

  122. 46 percent earning $100,000 or more a year

    This doesn’t seem at all plausible to me. I’ve lived in NY, DC and SF and have known a lot of Ashkenazis. Maybe this number is for religious Jews as opposed to people that are mostly or all Ashkenazi. One thing I’ve noticed is that Ashkenazis that are less successful and would struggle to break 100 on an IQ test nearly always have at least one relative at the first cousin level or closer that’s a successful professional. I don’t see this with Whites of comparable ability. For example, our old nanny is full Ashkenazi and her boyfriend is full Ashkenazi with a working class job. But her father was pretty high up at a large tech company in Silicone Valley with about 300 people under him before retiring wealthy. I could go on an on with pretty much every average, 100-IQ Jew I’ve met.

    Speaking of regression to the mean, my full Ashkenazi brother-in-law married a very nice and smart Black woman (as in 110 IQ and looks at least 90% SSA). She’s great, but her family…total disaster.

    Anyways, some numbers I’ve seen have the highly selected S. Asians outperforming Jews (in the US) and they’re at least as leftist. Be afraid.

    • Replies: @res

    Speaking of regression to the mean, my full Ashkenazi brother-in-law married a very nice and smart Black woman (as in 110 IQ and looks at least 90% SSA). She’s great, but her family…total disaster.
     
    Any children? It would be interesting to see how that would turn out.

    How much does her family succeed in dragging your brother-in-law down?
    , @Jack D
    I assume that they mean household income and not individuals. The number doesn't seem implausible to me, if you take average Ashkenazi IQ to be in the range of 108 to 115. Basically the right half of the Ashkenazi bell curve are mostly going to be college educated or in lucrative family businesses and in $100k plus households and the left half is going to be below. What the $100K plus cutoff doesn't make clear is that there are lots of Jews who are in SUPER high categories - when you get to $1M plus households (and/or 130+ IQs), Jews are probably 10x overrepresented in relation to their % of the general population.

    And in terms of regression to the mean, aside from the mentally retarded, there are a lot of 100 IQ Jews but very few 85 IQ Jews. And because the kids of 100 IQ Jews are regressing to the Jewish mean, it's not unusual (at least if both parents are Jewish) for the kids to regress upwards. I have a cousin that no one would mistake for a rocket scientist, nor her spouse either. But their kids earned PhDs, one in Physics.
    , @Bill P
    Non-successful white gentiles don't tend to broadcast the fact that they have more successful family members. Often you'll only find this out after knowing them for a long time, and then usually from someone else.

    It's kind of the opposite of how Jews are that way.
  123. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Modern westerners fail to realize that fixed prices for items is a relatively recent western invention dating only from the period when standardization and large retail firms became common, i.e. the mid 19th century, and even then initially used in a limited manner and only in major European and US metropolises. The custom of fixed prices only gradually spread out from these loci.

    In many cultures haggling is still a valued form of social interaction. I've learned to enjoy haggling in cultures where it is expected. In such cultures refusing to haggle and paying the initial offer is often regarded as an insult. "What! You don't want to haggle with me? Do you think you're so much better than I am that haggling with me would demean you and waste your time?"

    “What! You don’t want to haggle with me? Do you think you’re so much better than I am that haggling with me would demean you and waste your time?”

    Ok, somebody has to do it:

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    LOL! What a great movie! My personal favorite bits are Bigguth Dickuth and the Centurions Latin lesson,
  124. @Jack D
    That's exactly what I am expecting. In some hypothetical situation where all the Jewish billionaires, inventors, scientists, etc. were all concentrated in Israel (and assuming that trade was still free), Israel's economic growth would continue and it would become a high tech capital (as it already is to some extent) and a very high income country.

    Free trade would be key. Without unfettered access to the major markets and the ability for foreigners to continue to own media, banks and other important segments of the economy, hypothetical Israel would be hampered in her growth prospects.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I don't know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy. Israel does well with high tech stuff like image recognition for self-driving cars, advanced weapons system, high value agricultural products, value added industries like diamond cutting, etc. They are alway shooting for the high value end of business and not for commodities.
  125. @Jack D

    My sense is in an environment with functional macro competitiveness (e.g. multiple companies truly competing) haggling is not necessary.
     
    Vendors (even if there are many) always try to rig prices. This is why we have anti-price fixing laws. Even if there are many producers or merchants, there is only 1 Model XYZ GE refrigerator. Try the Google shopping tool and you'll see for many items, EVERY vendor charges the exact same price for a certain item (and not just one item but thousands), down to the penny, especially all the national chains - Lowes, Home Depot, Best Buy, etc. And I'm pretty sure this isn't because the market has bargained the profit down to zero. This doesn't sound like a competitive market to me.

    This doesn’t sound like a competitive market to me.

    That was pretty much the point of the sentence following the one you quoted ; )

    One form of competition comes in when there is a model ABC LG (Chinese because so many American brands have the same underlying manufacturer these days) refrigerator. Though LG is likely to do the same thing, the inter-producer competition places limits on how aggressively the producers can enforce a given pricing level. And the differences in products generally requires some competition on price between producers. The merchant case is more interesting because there is little difference in product (modulo merchant exclusive models). The MSRP enforcement becomes challenging when merchants have vastly different costs (e.g. volume, high value customer service).

    I shop sales pretty aggressively, which some people look down on in a similar fashion to haggling. That also imposes a cost of my time, but I think overall works better for everyone given it allows producers and merchants to make micro adjustments (e.g. the red one is not selling) in a time efficient fashion. And I get to see which merchants/producers are willing to bargain with relatively little effort on my part.

    I realize I am not contradicting what you said, more just exploring it.

    It gets interesting when the MSRP is fairly rigorously enforced, but there are still games with individual haggling or “we can’t show the real low price until it is added to your cart.” Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?

    Maybe it is just that I am a stupid goy, but I do think there is a societal benefit to less haggling over every single thing. How that trades off against the benefit of more competition is difficult to evaluate IMHO. But it does seem clear that the more haggling there is for any given item the higher the MSRP goes (as a negotiation anchor, and to compensate for lower prices to hagglers) and the more I am required to haggle myself. That is a vicious cycle.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?
     
    The courts have held that agreements not to "advertise" below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of "advertising"). But legally they can't stop you from SELLING below a set price - that's illegal. And the customer can't buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get "call for price" or "put it in the cart" or "email for price". This way the merchant is not "advertising" below the required minimum price.

    Now most Americans are still willing to haggle when it comes to really high ticket items - houses and cars especially. For lower priced items, I guess if you are making $3/day (either as a merchant or a buyer) then it pays (it may be a matter of necessity or survival) to haggle extensively over the price of each tomato but for most Americans they don't think it is worth their time. The question is where you draw the line between those extremes and how much time you are willing to invest in the negotiation. Because Americans have been socially conditioned not to haggle, they tend to draw the line very high. It might take them 20 minutes to earn $5 but spending 1 minute asking for $5 off the price of a bowling ball is somehow not worth their time or is seen as being "cheap" or begging (even though people who are much richer than they are do it all the time).
  126. @res
    Unless you are expecting Israel to become much richer than the West I think your second paragraph misses the point. A market dominant minority disproportionately occupying desirable positions would probably do worse if returned as a group to a smaller native country even if it is of equivalent wealth. And would probably have a negative effect on the less competitive portion of the original Israelis.

    The question becomes more interesting when the home countries are both larger and poorer than the host countries. As is the case for both China and India.

    The question becomes more interesting when the home countries are both larger and poorer than the host countries. As is the case for both China and India.

    You would think that the huge and growing economies of those nations would lure their diaspora back to cash in. But then you see that in 2019 the rich of those two nations still emigrate as fast as they can to the five eye nations. My guess is India and China are so overcrowded that even a gigantic market with the potential to make unheard of wealth is not going to be enough to entice a material amount of the diaspora to return. At some point you have enough money and would rather live in a nicer environment even if it means not maxing out your earnings potential.

    • Replies: @res
    Agreed in general despite some examples of Indians returning to live like Maharajahs and Chinese returning because they actually can get better opportunity to succeed (e.g. head a university department rather than be an associate professor) and help their "home country" as well.

    Nicer environment matters a lot, but I think corruption plays a big part of this. My sense is China is diverging from India and we are seeing that in the actions of the respective diasporas now--and will see it more in the future. I would very much like to hear the opinions of others with more direct knowledge of this though.
  127. @Anon1
    In my local area, you always see hordes of Indian immigrants returning items at stores. They're also infamous for bringing books of coupons wherever they go.

    At one of the largest local stores, there's food for sale outside. Inside, there are tiny free food samples available. I rarely see Indians buying any food outside, but they're always swarming the free sample booths inside.

    Indians are Jews times ten. In comparison to Indians, Jews seem like New England WASPs.

    True, and there are now more Indians in American than Jews.

  128. @peterike

    “What! You don’t want to haggle with me? Do you think you’re so much better than I am that haggling with me would demean you and waste your time?”

     

    Ok, somebody has to do it:

    https://youtu.be/-2iZjxSGca8

    LOL! What a great movie! My personal favorite bits are Bigguth Dickuth and the Centurions Latin lesson,

  129. @Jack D
    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is "embarrassing"? Is it because the sum is "trivial"? Say that the merchant cut the price by $5 and that it took you 1 minute to ask and get the merchant's answer. That comes out to $300 per hour - it seems like a pretty good use of your time.

    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is “embarrassing”?

    Societal norms. The interesting question is: why do those norms exist?

    I would propose two reasons:
    – Successful groups using those norms as a form of conspicuous consumption.
    – Society semi-consciously trying to regulate the arms race of haggling.

    Any thoughts on those, or other ideas?

    This article is a decent look at not haggling as a social norm. I think it’s fair to say it focuses on my second reason. (with a much more detailed take on it)
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/06/haggling-social-norms-and-economic-efficiency

    P.S. How those norms are enforced is another interesting question. Still another interesting question is how groups living in close proximity maintain different norms. Say for example: “not haggling is for suckers.” I don’t think different societal norms are a recipe for tranquility. Though they do allow for specialization.

  130. @Jack D
    That's exactly what I am expecting. In some hypothetical situation where all the Jewish billionaires, inventors, scientists, etc. were all concentrated in Israel (and assuming that trade was still free), Israel's economic growth would continue and it would become a high tech capital (as it already is to some extent) and a very high income country.

    I probably should have bolded “much” in “expecting Israel to become much richer than the West” as I considered. What multiple of GDP per capita would you expect that hypothetical Israel to have compared to the US? What multiple would be enough to make up for losing the benefit of cherry picking the best jobs in a much larger country? Remember that hypothetical Israel still has to keep the toilets cleaned.

  131. @Anonymous Jew

    46 percent earning $100,000 or more a year
     
    This doesn't seem at all plausible to me. I've lived in NY, DC and SF and have known a lot of Ashkenazis. Maybe this number is for religious Jews as opposed to people that are mostly or all Ashkenazi. One thing I've noticed is that Ashkenazis that are less successful and would struggle to break 100 on an IQ test nearly always have at least one relative at the first cousin level or closer that's a successful professional. I don't see this with Whites of comparable ability. For example, our old nanny is full Ashkenazi and her boyfriend is full Ashkenazi with a working class job. But her father was pretty high up at a large tech company in Silicone Valley with about 300 people under him before retiring wealthy. I could go on an on with pretty much every average, 100-IQ Jew I've met.

    Speaking of regression to the mean, my full Ashkenazi brother-in-law married a very nice and smart Black woman (as in 110 IQ and looks at least 90% SSA). She's great, but her family...total disaster.

    Anyways, some numbers I've seen have the highly selected S. Asians outperforming Jews (in the US) and they're at least as leftist. Be afraid.

    Speaking of regression to the mean, my full Ashkenazi brother-in-law married a very nice and smart Black woman (as in 110 IQ and looks at least 90% SSA). She’s great, but her family…total disaster.

    Any children? It would be interesting to see how that would turn out.

    How much does her family succeed in dragging your brother-in-law down?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    I'll get back to you on the children in 15 years or so. He's a very average Jew, but his sister (my wife) is very smart (Ivy league grad degree) and their father is even smarter (at least 130).

    The wedding ceremony was 'postponed,' so I've never met her family, but the stories that trickle out are - in the words of my 4-year-old - "not good." She doesn't seem close to her family and I get the feeling that she's a little embarrassed about them. They sound like a typical Black family to me (I grew up across from a Black neighborhood so I can speak with some authority).

  132. @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    Financially it would certainly be worse for the diaspora Jews, unless the neighbors of Israel opened up their markets to Israel. But that is never, ever, going to happen. However considering that Israeli Jews have a lot of kids and American Jews don’t, from a purely biological imperative point of view, it would be much better for them to move to Israel. Would it be better for America ? I think it would be an even trade. Yes, we would lose a lot of talented doctors and scientists and business people. But we would also lose Sarah Silverman and Chelsea Handler. So definitely even for America.

  133. @Tyrion 2
    I don't think the stereotype of white people being particularly bigoted is (only) top down. It seems more of a case of social scapegoating. Do black Americans really need the New York Times to give them permission to think of white people as anti-black haters? Are the black Americans who don't read not actually often more reflexively disliking of white people?

    As for the black inventors, I think black Americans may be not be genius inventors by bottom up stereotype but they are sort of "numinous" to many, sanctified by slavery. Meanwhile, Latinas probably get allocated wisdom on the old-fashioned basis that people who don't make a lot of noise don't out themselves as fools.

    Anyway, you may disagree with the above but hand-waving away what you don't like as "top down" and welcoming what you do as "bottom up" is too easy. I'm tempted to just agree with you,but it seems to me like too much of a way to avoid doing some real thinking.

    Tyrion, res took a pretty good stab at it. But i’ll throw in here as well.

    I’m sympathetic to Anon’s point about “bottom up” vs. “top down”, but i’m not unsympathic to your critique.

    So i’d say that at minimum a stereotype must be something that people actually believe–that has some actual mind share. Phony nonsense pushed from top down, that doesn’t take root, aren’t sterotypes, they are just tropes. Two of your three examples clearly arne’t stereotypes.

    The “wise Latina” thing is just a joke. No one thinks of Latinas as “wise”. And no one says “wise Latina” but as a mocking joke.

    The “black inventor” thing is more complicated. Basically every American school kid has to learn about some black inventor. And so there is some sort of “black inventor” thing. But it isn’t a stereotype. Just some kool-aid everyone has to drink. A trope. It’s like Hollywood’s black rocket scientist thing. Everyone–ok, most everyone–understands that’s PC nonsense. Even good-whites, as respectible opinion is always whining about how blacks and Hispanics and women are underrepresented in tech.

    Your other example the “perverted white racist” does at least have some mind share. There were–and are some tiny few–“perverted white racists” performing bad acts out of “racist” hate. And those past acts have been propagandized enough that this is a “stereotype” particularly in the minds of blacks, Jews and good whites, for whom it is psychically and politically positive.

    ~

    I think an easy way to clarify these sort of distinction is just go in from one side, and see if the sterotype pops to mind.

    If you think about the characteristics of “Latinas” does anyone actually think “wise”. Not the verbal juxaposition or the trope, but actually think Latinas are “wise”. No. “Booty”, “chubby”, “three kids and pregnant” … sure. But “wise”–no.

    Likewise if you think about the characteristics of blacks you might get “athlete”, “criminal”, “poor student”, “got rhythm” “noisy at 2 a.m.”–actual stereotypes–but never get to inventor, other than the trope–“oh yeah, we had to study George Washington Carver in february. Likewise think about “inventor” the mental image of blacks will not pop into people’s minds.

    Thinking about whites, then again for a bunch of people–mostly blacks, Jews and good-whites–“racist” would come to mind. For them it is a real stereotype.

    Bottom line: istevefan is basically right here. Stereotypes–at least the “bottom up” ones–are things that are statistically true–at least more true of the group in the stereotype than people in general.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I basically agree with your comment. At the same time, the idea that there is some sort of pristine state of bottom-up social wisdom which is perverted by top down propaganda strikes me as reductionist.

    It seems like one is trying to make social perception do the work when actually the truth, clearly explained, will do - but perhaps that is my own naiveté.

    “three kids and pregnant”
     
    Lol, seems wise to me!

    ...anyway, I don't know... I'll be turning this over in my head for a while, I suspect.
  134. @istevefan

    The question becomes more interesting when the home countries are both larger and poorer than the host countries. As is the case for both China and India.
     
    You would think that the huge and growing economies of those nations would lure their diaspora back to cash in. But then you see that in 2019 the rich of those two nations still emigrate as fast as they can to the five eye nations. My guess is India and China are so overcrowded that even a gigantic market with the potential to make unheard of wealth is not going to be enough to entice a material amount of the diaspora to return. At some point you have enough money and would rather live in a nicer environment even if it means not maxing out your earnings potential.

    Agreed in general despite some examples of Indians returning to live like Maharajahs and Chinese returning because they actually can get better opportunity to succeed (e.g. head a university department rather than be an associate professor) and help their “home country” as well.

    Nicer environment matters a lot, but I think corruption plays a big part of this. My sense is China is diverging from India and we are seeing that in the actions of the respective diasporas now–and will see it more in the future. I would very much like to hear the opinions of others with more direct knowledge of this though.

  135. @Erik L
    The reason I'm not moving to Israel is that I am an American

    Yes, of course.

  136. That Omarosa II of Somalia just can’t keep that hijab tight enough from sipping all that meshuga tropes and canards !

    (Although, this time she was smart enough to use her nom de-plume-de-guerre )

    The Top Fievel of them – literally – are more than good enough for a Brother Luvin Conquestwoman to be permanently send back to her ice fishing cabin in Mogadishueapolis :

    https://forward.com/culture/417763/where-did-the-myth-of-jewish-success-come-from-anyway/

    1.)

    “American Jews earn more per year, on average, than any other religious group, and they are wildly overrepresented in government, media and all the other places in which one would like to be wildly overrepresented.”

    2.)

    “And yet, in comparison with their peers, the masses of American Jewry who emigrated from Eastern Europe in the early 20th century actually underachieved. Zionists who went to Palestine, after all, made not their fortunes but a state, with all its trappings: a language, nuclear missile-carrying submarines, their own oppressed minorities.”

    3.)

    “Meanwhile, many of those who stayed in Russia helped overthrow the czar (the Communist Party was bizarrely, disproportionately Jewish) in the largest revolution in the history of the world.”

    4.)

    “Palestine, America and Russia were very different.
    Yet, Eastern European Jews transformed each of them, and not just through ideas but also in concrete, tangible ways: factories and tanks, blood and iron.”

    5.)

    “Since the Church Fathers, Judaism has been called a worldly religion whose adherents possess a unique facility for finance and commerce and opportunistically wander the globe, unfettered by national loyalties.”

  137. Anonymous[132] • Disclaimer says:

    Please be so kind and don’t forget to notify all social media, free -press, your local, state, and house representatives about this latest example of pimping and pandering for all degrees of vicious taste, and gorging with coined lies the most voracious maw; imputing to every Jewish person in public life the coarsest and the vilest motives; scaring away from the stabbed and prostrate body-politic, every Samaritan of clear conscience and good deeds; and setting on, with yell and whistle and the clapping of foul hands, the vilest vermin and worst birds of prey.

    – No amusements! :

    https://forward.com/culture/417763/where-did-the-myth-of-jewish-success-come-from-anyway/

  138. @res

    This doesn’t sound like a competitive market to me.
     
    That was pretty much the point of the sentence following the one you quoted ; )

    One form of competition comes in when there is a model ABC LG (Chinese because so many American brands have the same underlying manufacturer these days) refrigerator. Though LG is likely to do the same thing, the inter-producer competition places limits on how aggressively the producers can enforce a given pricing level. And the differences in products generally requires some competition on price between producers. The merchant case is more interesting because there is little difference in product (modulo merchant exclusive models). The MSRP enforcement becomes challenging when merchants have vastly different costs (e.g. volume, high value customer service).

    I shop sales pretty aggressively, which some people look down on in a similar fashion to haggling. That also imposes a cost of my time, but I think overall works better for everyone given it allows producers and merchants to make micro adjustments (e.g. the red one is not selling) in a time efficient fashion. And I get to see which merchants/producers are willing to bargain with relatively little effort on my part.

    I realize I am not contradicting what you said, more just exploring it.

    It gets interesting when the MSRP is fairly rigorously enforced, but there are still games with individual haggling or "we can't show the real low price until it is added to your cart." Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?

    Maybe it is just that I am a stupid goy, but I do think there is a societal benefit to less haggling over every single thing. How that trades off against the benefit of more competition is difficult to evaluate IMHO. But it does seem clear that the more haggling there is for any given item the higher the MSRP goes (as a negotiation anchor, and to compensate for lower prices to hagglers) and the more I am required to haggle myself. That is a vicious cycle.

    Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?

    The courts have held that agreements not to “advertise” below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of “advertising”). But legally they can’t stop you from SELLING below a set price – that’s illegal. And the customer can’t buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get “call for price” or “put it in the cart” or “email for price”. This way the merchant is not “advertising” below the required minimum price.

    Now most Americans are still willing to haggle when it comes to really high ticket items – houses and cars especially. For lower priced items, I guess if you are making $3/day (either as a merchant or a buyer) then it pays (it may be a matter of necessity or survival) to haggle extensively over the price of each tomato but for most Americans they don’t think it is worth their time. The question is where you draw the line between those extremes and how much time you are willing to invest in the negotiation. Because Americans have been socially conditioned not to haggle, they tend to draw the line very high. It might take them 20 minutes to earn $5 but spending 1 minute asking for $5 off the price of a bowling ball is somehow not worth their time or is seen as being “cheap” or begging (even though people who are much richer than they are do it all the time).

    • Replies: @zombie ant
    Haggling in the marketplace is not the reason for Jewish/Zionist suspicion. It's arguing in bad faith to reduce it to that, which is merely a symptom of an underlying character, and an unsavory, anti-social one at that, which is so detrimental to those races/cultures who have high inter-culture trust.

    The fact that this high-trust is considered hilarious & pathetic, and an open invitation for abuse by the more stereotypical jews, would be better worth your consideration.
    , @res
    Thanks.

    Bringing cars and houses into the conversation is helpful because it shows how the no haggling norm is not absolute. I suspect when the stakes are large enough (like that) the norm becomes impossible to enforce. Another thing that plays into this is when goods start becoming less fungible. Which is very much the case for houses and a bit less so for cars. With less fungibilitity I think it is more necessary to engage in price discovery.

    Did you read that article I linked by any chance? I think it did a better job of describing the no haggling norm and its rationale than anything in this thread.

    Does anyone here know of any good long form treatments of haggling norms across time and cultures?
    , @Dmitry
    In Israel, you can still haggle in some tourist shops and in the outdoor markets (for example, in tourist areas of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv). So that is where the tourists can go to haggle.

    But in normal shops, you cannot "haggle". This is the same as Russia - for example, in Ekaterinburg you can haggle in the outdoors market (but if you try to haggle in a normal shop people will think you are strange and call security).

    The sad thing for Israel, is the complete dominance of the shopping malls (where they build new ones every time you visit), which is reducing any interesting thing about shopping there.

    Most of shopping of the Jews is in the shopping malls, and Israel seems to have a higher concentration of shopping malls than even America.

    So in the same town, there can be three different shopping malls next to each other, with the same shops inside.

    Almost all the shopping malls appear the same to me. But you can see that Israelis imagine when they are inside these shopping malls, that they are living like wealthy Americans in glamorous California, and not in the Middle East.

    The only distinction I can make between the shopping malls - just some are more new and shiny, and others are older and more from the 1990s.

    , @Anonymous

    The courts have held that agreements not to “advertise” below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of “advertising”). But legally they can’t stop you from SELLING below a set price – that’s illegal. And the customer can’t buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get “call for price” or “put it in the cart” or “email for price”. This way the merchant is not “advertising” below the required minimum price.
     
    For the longest time (i.e., at least until ten years or so ago) McIntosh Laboratory would revoke dealerships for "substantial discounting" on its new products. New products with McIntosh warranty were to be sold for the list price-period.

    However, trade-ins were allowed, which means dealers might give $500 for a junk Dynaco amp or Pioneer receiver if you were buying, say, a MC7270.

    None challenged its legality. Basically if you wanted a new Mcintosh product you paid list.

    Of course, dealers could sell the product as "used" for any price they liked but, there was no factory warranty, and that was no small thing. Dealers, at least up until ten or fifteen years ago, had to have a repair department fully equipped with the latest and best technology to repair and certify Mcintosh's products. If you bought the equipment Mc recommended that was a $25K investment if not more.



    If McIntosh is remembered for anything, it's the famous amplifier clinics headed by Dave O'Brien. An amazing number of people still remember these clinics and Dave at the test bench. Not surprising--he did this for 29 years.

    Dave has had an interest in audio for many years. He joined the Audio Engineering Society in 1949 and is now a lifetime member. He wrote an article titled "A Simple Preamplifier and Tone-Control Unit" that was published in Audio Engineering in November of 1951. He started the first exclusively Hi Fi component store in Columbus, Ohio with a partner, Ed Anderson. It opened in February 1954 and was called Anderson Hi Fi Center. The store was later sold and renamed Stereo Lab. He stayed in that business for 3 1/2 years before joining Bell Sound in Columbus. At his new job with Bell, Dave worked in the sales department, wrote manuals and was a consultant to the advertising manager. He also made some design improvements at his home lab. He left Bell in 1962 to join McIntosh.

    Meanwhile, the first McIntosh Audio Clinic began at the New York High Fidelity Show in 1961. The first production run of the C20 preamp was having diode failure in the DC filament supply. As the first units were sold only in the New York city area, management decided to invite all McIntosh owners to bring in not only their preamplifiers but also their power amplifiers for a free evaluation. These units were restored to normal performance at no charge, including parts and tubes. This free audio clinic was a big success and was talked about by customers and dealers for many months.

    I remember standing in line with a friend out on the sidewalk waiting to get into the show. The man in front of us was holding an MC30 under his arm. An MC30 weighs 30-1/2 lb. We wondered why he would be taking it into the show with him. It wasn't until later that we learned about a clinic at the McIntosh room.

    After Dave was hired, management decided to hold a second Audio Clinic at the October 1962 Boston High Fidelity Show. This time McIntosh offered a free test for all brands of amplifiers and preamps. This was the beginning of the truth about the performance of other brands. It was not unusual to find the actual power output of an amplifier to be one half of what the advertising claimed. Distortion levels were often well off the graph paper which stopped at 7%. Graphs were actually extended into the area on the form where the names and addresses were located. Again, free tubes and parts were used to restore any McIntosh unit. Dave and Gordon Gow both performed the tests.
     
    http://www.roger-russell.com/clinics.htm
  139. Eliminate the word Semite and replacing it with JEW goes a long way in identifying the target. Discovery of what makes Jews proportionately wealthy might never be solved but the subject is worth tackling. My wild guess is that many Jews have an innate money making talent. But there are other reasons for Jewish financial leadership.

  140. @Jack D
    Absolutely right - us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert (we play a little klezmer music in the background) how we can use our wealth to undermine the Constitution today. No goys are allowed in these meetings. We get fined if we haven't used our wealth during the previous week to weaken the Constitution in some way. Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it's all fake.

    No other religion has Elders of Baptists or Elders of Presbyterians or Elders of Mormons.. oh, wait they do have those.

    Why leave out the elder Lutherans??? racist!!

    We also have a long history (hundreds & hundreds, nay even thousands of years of cross-cultural historical evidence) of conniving, backstabbing parasitism, or whatever the Small Catechism is….

    My memory is failing, though, Jack; can you help me out with some examples of these wily Baptists, Presbys, Mormons, other than the obvious ones like manipulating world events/wars from within host countries (not treason, mind you, definitely not treason!) for the sole benefit of establishing a supposed historical homeland like Lutheranasia?

  141. @PapayaSF
    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there's a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    A dumb farmer is a hungry farmer. Food doesn’t just leap out of the ground and into your cart.

    Farmers have to live by the calendar, knowing when to plant and when to harvest. They have to have the discipline to get up every day and toil in the field, for a reward that is months away. They have to store food, firewood, and supplies for the winter or they will starve.

    The ant and the grasshopper, anyone?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A farmer needs to have future time orientation, but he does not necessarily have to be particularly highly cognitive. Some farmers are, but most are of average or slightly higher intelligence, but with a very developed sense of consequences of present behavior to their future. Farming is inevitably hard physical work even with all of the mechanized technology now in use.If you didn't grow up doing it you probably will not succeed at it.
  142. @Jack D

    Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?
     
    The courts have held that agreements not to "advertise" below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of "advertising"). But legally they can't stop you from SELLING below a set price - that's illegal. And the customer can't buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get "call for price" or "put it in the cart" or "email for price". This way the merchant is not "advertising" below the required minimum price.

    Now most Americans are still willing to haggle when it comes to really high ticket items - houses and cars especially. For lower priced items, I guess if you are making $3/day (either as a merchant or a buyer) then it pays (it may be a matter of necessity or survival) to haggle extensively over the price of each tomato but for most Americans they don't think it is worth their time. The question is where you draw the line between those extremes and how much time you are willing to invest in the negotiation. Because Americans have been socially conditioned not to haggle, they tend to draw the line very high. It might take them 20 minutes to earn $5 but spending 1 minute asking for $5 off the price of a bowling ball is somehow not worth their time or is seen as being "cheap" or begging (even though people who are much richer than they are do it all the time).

    Haggling in the marketplace is not the reason for Jewish/Zionist suspicion. It’s arguing in bad faith to reduce it to that, which is merely a symptom of an underlying character, and an unsavory, anti-social one at that, which is so detrimental to those races/cultures who have high inter-culture trust.

    The fact that this high-trust is considered hilarious & pathetic, and an open invitation for abuse by the more stereotypical jews, would be better worth your consideration.

  143. @AnotherDad
    Tyrion, res took a pretty good stab at it. But i'll throw in here as well.


    I'm sympathetic to Anon's point about "bottom up" vs. "top down", but i'm not unsympathic to your critique.

    So i'd say that at minimum a stereotype must be something that people actually believe--that has some actual mind share. Phony nonsense pushed from top down, that doesn't take root, aren't sterotypes, they are just tropes. Two of your three examples clearly arne't stereotypes.

    The "wise Latina" thing is just a joke. No one thinks of Latinas as "wise". And no one says "wise Latina" but as a mocking joke.

    The "black inventor" thing is more complicated. Basically every American school kid has to learn about some black inventor. And so there is some sort of "black inventor" thing. But it isn't a stereotype. Just some kool-aid everyone has to drink. A trope. It's like Hollywood's black rocket scientist thing. Everyone--ok, most everyone--understands that's PC nonsense. Even good-whites, as respectible opinion is always whining about how blacks and Hispanics and women are underrepresented in tech.

    Your other example the "perverted white racist" does at least have some mind share. There were--and are some tiny few--"perverted white racists" performing bad acts out of "racist" hate. And those past acts have been propagandized enough that this is a "stereotype" particularly in the minds of blacks, Jews and good whites, for whom it is psychically and politically positive.

    ~

    I think an easy way to clarify these sort of distinction is just go in from one side, and see if the sterotype pops to mind.

    If you think about the characteristics of "Latinas" does anyone actually think "wise". Not the verbal juxaposition or the trope, but actually think Latinas are "wise". No. "Booty", "chubby", "three kids and pregnant" ... sure. But "wise"--no.

    Likewise if you think about the characteristics of blacks you might get "athlete", "criminal", "poor student", "got rhythm" "noisy at 2 a.m."--actual stereotypes--but never get to inventor, other than the trope--"oh yeah, we had to study George Washington Carver in february. Likewise think about "inventor" the mental image of blacks will not pop into people's minds.

    Thinking about whites, then again for a bunch of people--mostly blacks, Jews and good-whites--"racist" would come to mind. For them it is a real stereotype.


    Bottom line: istevefan is basically right here. Stereotypes--at least the "bottom up" ones--are things that are statistically true--at least more true of the group in the stereotype than people in general.

    I basically agree with your comment. At the same time, the idea that there is some sort of pristine state of bottom-up social wisdom which is perverted by top down propaganda strikes me as reductionist.

    It seems like one is trying to make social perception do the work when actually the truth, clearly explained, will do – but perhaps that is my own naiveté.

    “three kids and pregnant”

    Lol, seems wise to me!

    …anyway, I don’t know… I’ll be turning this over in my head for a while, I suspect.

    • Replies: @res

    At the same time, the idea that there is some sort of pristine state of bottom-up social wisdom which is perverted by top down propaganda strikes me as reductionist.
     
    Sometimes calling something "reductionist" is just a way of explaining away the 90% correct simple explanation by spending 100% of the time talking about that last 10%. We see a great deal of that type of "reasoning" in the Current Year.

    It seems like one is trying to make social perception do the work when actually the truth, clearly explained, will do – but perhaps that is my own naiveté.
     
    Could you elaborate on this? I don't feel like I understand the point you are trying to make. It seems to me stereotypes (when basically true) are just the reduction of complex truth to simple rules of thumb.
  144. The English verb to haggle apparently dates from Elizabethan times, and it comes from a Norse root. Having a native verb for the practice in our language shows that it goes way back as an English tradition, so you can’t blame the behavior on the Jews.

    And I know from my own experience that haggling still goes on in the hospitality industry, only a lot of it happens now out of sight through online booking services for hotel rooms.

  145. Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically. In central and western Europe, and eventually the United States, Jews were the wealthiest group on average by a wide margin.”

    He also busts the myth that the ghettoized Jews of medieval Europe languished in poverty.

    It’s not true that for most of European history the Jews were poorer than the surrounding population,” Muller noted. “They were richer and certainly a lot more literate. It’s true they didn’t have many rights, but then the vast majority didn’t have many rights.” …

    This sentence reminds me of all the times Cavalli-Sforza would write ‘race, of course, doesn’t exist’ and then proceed to use a tiny number of markers to differentiate Italian hill village ancestry and advocate for the use of ‘Caucasian’ to represent the whole Indo-European racial category.

    Indeed I think the stereotypes of oligarchical Jews is quite distinct from the other stereotype of the greater bulk of the population being upper-middle class, which has a distinct sociological effect.

  146. @anonymous
    Jewish wealth is built by cooperation against the host society in which they live. They also specialise as middlemen instead of having a full occupational profile. In White countries they are particularly sucessful because Whites are atomised and believe in individualism so therefore Jewish tribalism wins. This is also the case with thier dominance in society. Jewish dominance owes more to ethnic networking and nepotism than it does to free and fair competition between individuals.

    A Jewish surgeon just operated on my wife. He was considered the best in our area for the type of sensitive surgery she had. I am fully aware of the problems which Jewish liberalism brings. However, I don’t begrudge our surgeon his skill or his wealth and I think this kind of comment is utter nonsense.

  147. @Jim Don Bob
    I despise haggling. I have many many many other worthwhile things to do other than spend my time trying to save $7.

    Do you pay sticker price for cars? Asking price for real estate? Never mind, they’re rhetorical questions.

    The haggling vs paying sticker debate is interesting. Americans do “haggle” in quite a few situations (as mentioned cars and homes, but prior to taking most salaried employment) and not in others.

    Maybe the divide is around the uniformity of the product: homes and a salaried employee are fairly unique, whereas a BLT sandwich is pretty much the same for the next 10 people to walk into a deli. Though I would argue that outside easily computed differences in options, most car make/models are pretty much the same thing. Perhaps the issue with cars is the externally imposed middle man (the dealers). If we were allowed to buy direct from Detroit/Tokyo/Munich/Seoul maybe prices would converge.

    Btw, I know my writing/grammar is awful in this post. I’m half-listening to a conference call.

  148. @IHTG
    Merchant > peasant, but landowning noble > merchant

    In the United States, the value of owning productive land or real estate has been vastly diminshed. In states where property taxes are at a confiscatory level, it is very difficult to stay afloat unless your holdings are enormous, or you allow yourself to be coopted by government Section 8 income, TIF tax incentives or government arranged financing, which typically specifies a percentage of low income units in a development. You then have to rent to whom they tell you, and build what and where they specify.

    Farmers have to grow certain types of crops such as corn or beans based on Ag policies or ethanol subsidies to make adequate income. Profit from Agribusiness goes to mega farms, firms like ADM, Bunge and Cargill.

    By eschewing the entire rigged system, the Amish seem to manage some level of independence. It seems they knew instinctively to avoid the Swift network.

  149. @Tyrion 2
    I basically agree with your comment. At the same time, the idea that there is some sort of pristine state of bottom-up social wisdom which is perverted by top down propaganda strikes me as reductionist.

    It seems like one is trying to make social perception do the work when actually the truth, clearly explained, will do - but perhaps that is my own naiveté.

    “three kids and pregnant”
     
    Lol, seems wise to me!

    ...anyway, I don't know... I'll be turning this over in my head for a while, I suspect.

    At the same time, the idea that there is some sort of pristine state of bottom-up social wisdom which is perverted by top down propaganda strikes me as reductionist.

    Sometimes calling something “reductionist” is just a way of explaining away the 90% correct simple explanation by spending 100% of the time talking about that last 10%. We see a great deal of that type of “reasoning” in the Current Year.

    It seems like one is trying to make social perception do the work when actually the truth, clearly explained, will do – but perhaps that is my own naiveté.

    Could you elaborate on this? I don’t feel like I understand the point you are trying to make. It seems to me stereotypes (when basically true) are just the reduction of complex truth to simple rules of thumb.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Could you elaborate on this? I don’t feel like I understand the point you are trying to make. It seems to me stereotypes (when basically true) are just the reduction of complex truth to simple rules of thumb.
     
    It is doubtless that men commit violent crime far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. It is easy to prove it through actual evidence. This is then all but undeniable.

    Alternatively, one might simply say that because it is a bottom-up stereotype it is true - no smoke without fire. But this is an unsatisfying argument.

    For one, there is no clear definition of "bottom-up" as opposed to "top down" that one might, with total accuracy, apply to real world phenomena.

    Also, as stereotypes can be complicated and words have layers of meanings, popular conception can be plain wrong. For example, the popular conception that women are weaker emotionally leads to the general assumption that someone like Christine Ford could not be lying. After all, she is frail and weak and therefore not a Machiavellian woman. In reality, Ms Ford's type of lie is something that women tend to find a lot easier than men. In other words, in the muddled popular mind "weakness" ends up defining even areas where women are actually incredibly strong. So "no smoke without fire" often ends up with the thinker imagining the wrong type of fire.

    Finally, this type of argument avoids doing the hard work of actually trying to discern the truth through proof. Instead, it simply rests on folk wisdom. Folk wisdom is better than making things up because they sound good - like the progressives do - but this is still an intellectually lazy approach which will result in predictably half-arsed results.
  150. US Senator Charles Schumer puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

    Charles Schumer is an ISRAEL FIRST interloper of the worst sort.

    Charles Schumer:

    “Barack Obama has been a supporter and a believer in Israel…and you know who got him started in politics?…it was the two leading Jewish families of Chicago.”

  151. @peterike

    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is “embarrassing”? Is it because the sum is “trivial”?

     

    No, it's because it's crass and vulgar. It's a white thing. You wouldn't understand.

    You’re missing the point – crass and vulgar are just words for “bad” – why is it bad? Saying it’s a white thang is not helpful – if you can’t articulate why it’s bad you have no insight into your own culture. If I asked you why killing people for the slightest offense is bad you wouldn’t say it’s a white thang, you’d have lots of reasons that you’d be able to articulate. You can’t have a functioning society where people kill each other whenever they are offended but cultures where bargaining is common is ubiquitous. Even in the West we didn’t alway have department stores with little tags on every item.

    In China or Lebanon, it would be “presumptuous” or “haughty” (again just words for “bad”) for a merchant to give you a price and refuse to negotiate. Just who the hell does he think he is that he is above negotiating?

    • Replies: @res

    why is it bad?
     
    If you are really trying to understand and not just win arguments please read that article I linked: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/06/haggling-social-norms-and-economic-efficiency
    then come back here and discuss it.

    We live in the US (or other European countries, for the most part) not China or Lebanon. Is the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do--except when it is profitable to do otherwise"?

    I think this is important to understand because IMHO it exemplifies a reason some people hate Jews. Not only do so many act like this, many positively glory in it and outspokenly consider others stupid for not behaving the same way. Whether or not you feel that way, I doubt you appreciate how offensive that is to people who adhere to the norm.
    , @peterike

    You’re missing the point – crass and vulgar are just words for “bad” – why is it bad? Saying it’s a white thang is not helpful – if you can’t articulate why it’s bad you have no insight into your own culture.

     

    Res has already replied well. But let's add some more.

    First, crass and vulgar are not simple synonyms for "bad." They have specific meanings.

    Crass: without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid

    Vulgar: characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste

    So for starters, it is, as res says, a cultural thing. And that ought to be the end of the argument. It's white culture. This is (was) a white nation. Abide by our social mores or get out. Well, it should be as simple as that.

    Now why is it crass? Haggling is arguing. It's emotional, it's heated, it pits one side against the other, it's competitive. Now, from a men-with-chains perspective, that's all good sport. But from a white culture perspective, entering into such a fray for the sake of saving a few dollars is using a harpoon to spear a minnow. Why on earth would you bother? Only a lout would behave in this way.

    Arguing between strangers is a thing to be avoided whenever possible. It lowers the social tone. It creates friction where there need not be any friction. It can set up one social group against the other. It's bad for society. It has no upside whatsoever. And all that for the sake of grubbing a few extra dollars.

    That's why bargaining over a car or house is NOT considered déclassé. The stakes are high enough that it's worth it. But even then, you don't haggle over the house price. You make an offer. Car buying is more mercenary, at least in New York where it's all men-with-chains unless you're buying high end. See, even there, the buying experience is hugely different between Mercedes and, say, Toyota. If I try to buy a Toyota odds are 95% that I'm getting a first generation immigrant from somewhere-not-white trying to sell me a car using every scheme he can come up with to fleece me ("I can only give you this offer if you sign today"). It's repulsive. Haggling is, at the end of the day, simply in bad taste.

    Ultimately, it comes down to people who are naturally crass and vulgar -- and among a certain sort of Jew this has long actually been a point of pride -- being almost genetically incapable of even understanding the concepts of crass and vulgar and why they are negatives. Just like men-with-chains will never understand the concept of "honor" and "self-sacrifice" and would see a heroic act as someone being a dumb chump. Some things can't be taught.
    , @Anonymous
    Fixed prices from merchants are generally attributed to the Quakers in the 19th century, so it's relatively recent. Bargaining was the norm in the Classical world, medieval trade fairs, Renaissance markets, among colonial merchants, etc.

    You're approaching this wrongly. People don't examine particular practices and work out why they're "bad." They look around at what their in-group or people they identify with do, what out-groups and people they don't identify with do, and then judge practices good and bad accordingly.
    , @AnotherDad

    You’re missing the point – crass and vulgar are just words for “bad” – why is it bad? Saying it’s a white thang is not helpful – if you can’t articulate why it’s bad you have no insight into your own culture.
     
    Jack you're an American and can't figure this out?

    Haggling is extremely economically inefficient.

    The society--at large--wins when goods\services are priced transparently. This is a big win for people in two ways:
    1) They don't waste time haggling. All that time is recaptured for productive or leisure activity. Plus all the emotional drama is eliminated.

    2) They don't have to spend time accumulating knowledge of what the real market price is--which you sort of need to learn to haggle very effectively.

    So a nation moving to fixed-posted-prices model gains tremendously.

    ~~
    But like so many nice things that come from having a cooperative high-trust population ... it can be destroyed by low-trust interlopers who don't cooperate.

    Simple model:
    Merchant/craftsman/service-provider is selling something. His costs, fixed and variable average to $40. But he needs a 25% profit--$10 a pop--to make his living feed his family. Other vendors are in pretty much the same boat. Market equilibrium price is $50. Posted prices, everyone we'll call them "natives" is paying $50, life is fine. (Innovation down the road might improve things, but for where we're at with technology, all is well.)

    But then some other people arrive, the hagglers. They haggle, whine, waste the vendors time and to just get their ass taken care of and out of his hair the vendor cuts them a break. Ok, fine $45. But the vendor isn't really going to live on $45 bucks for everyone. He can't pay his bills, feeds his kids. He'd have to do something else.

    One of "the hagglers", the vendor can just deal with it. But now say more of "the hagglers" show up. Now they are 10% of the populace. Their haggling is wasting more of his time--preventing him from doing useful labor and generally making his work day less pleasant--and if he gives them $45 it will really bite into his family's lifestyle.

    He could post a sign in the window: "Haggler people not welcome". (That's no doubt how he feels.) And maybe the best most-efficient vendor could get away with that. But the marginal guys--no. So what can he do? Well he can ... raise prices! Charge $52. Sure the hagglers will haggle it down to maybe $46, but some of the non-haggling natives will make up for this by paying full price.

    Take a moment to reflect:

    Net loss in economic efficiency. Net loss in pleasantness of life. And wealth transfer from cooperative high-trust people to ... the assholes.

  152. @Anonymous
    So, why aren't there many Jews with the surname 'Smith' or the Slavic or German equivalent?

    'Taylor' and the like are represented, but curiously 'Smith' isn't.

  153. @Jack D

    Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?
     
    The courts have held that agreements not to "advertise" below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of "advertising"). But legally they can't stop you from SELLING below a set price - that's illegal. And the customer can't buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get "call for price" or "put it in the cart" or "email for price". This way the merchant is not "advertising" below the required minimum price.

    Now most Americans are still willing to haggle when it comes to really high ticket items - houses and cars especially. For lower priced items, I guess if you are making $3/day (either as a merchant or a buyer) then it pays (it may be a matter of necessity or survival) to haggle extensively over the price of each tomato but for most Americans they don't think it is worth their time. The question is where you draw the line between those extremes and how much time you are willing to invest in the negotiation. Because Americans have been socially conditioned not to haggle, they tend to draw the line very high. It might take them 20 minutes to earn $5 but spending 1 minute asking for $5 off the price of a bowling ball is somehow not worth their time or is seen as being "cheap" or begging (even though people who are much richer than they are do it all the time).

    Thanks.

    Bringing cars and houses into the conversation is helpful because it shows how the no haggling norm is not absolute. I suspect when the stakes are large enough (like that) the norm becomes impossible to enforce. Another thing that plays into this is when goods start becoming less fungible. Which is very much the case for houses and a bit less so for cars. With less fungibilitity I think it is more necessary to engage in price discovery.

    Did you read that article I linked by any chance? I think it did a better job of describing the no haggling norm and its rationale than anything in this thread.

    Does anyone here know of any good long form treatments of haggling norms across time and cultures?

  154. @Jack D
    You're missing the point - crass and vulgar are just words for "bad" - why is it bad? Saying it's a white thang is not helpful - if you can't articulate why it's bad you have no insight into your own culture. If I asked you why killing people for the slightest offense is bad you wouldn't say it's a white thang, you'd have lots of reasons that you'd be able to articulate. You can't have a functioning society where people kill each other whenever they are offended but cultures where bargaining is common is ubiquitous. Even in the West we didn't alway have department stores with little tags on every item.

    In China or Lebanon, it would be "presumptuous" or "haughty" (again just words for "bad") for a merchant to give you a price and refuse to negotiate. Just who the hell does he think he is that he is above negotiating?

    why is it bad?

    If you are really trying to understand and not just win arguments please read that article I linked: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/06/haggling-social-norms-and-economic-efficiency
    then come back here and discuss it.

    We live in the US (or other European countries, for the most part) not China or Lebanon. Is the rule “When in Rome do as the Romans do–except when it is profitable to do otherwise”?

    I think this is important to understand because IMHO it exemplifies a reason some people hate Jews. Not only do so many act like this, many positively glory in it and outspokenly consider others stupid for not behaving the same way. Whether or not you feel that way, I doubt you appreciate how offensive that is to people who adhere to the norm.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people's time is a big factor. When people here don't find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don't think that's a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies - again it seems like it is beneath people's "dignity" but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike "Jewing down" a merchant, it doesn't hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is " we are so rich that we don't bother with trivial sums" (where the value of "trivial" set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts - I can't really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn't.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms - the merchant sets a "fair" price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you'd settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

  155. @J.Ross
    So people want to murder Jews because Jews are meritocratically successful, wealthy, and generous? Okay, sounds like he has a fine grasp of the issue. Couldn't anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism, which would clearly create problems irrespective of individual wealth level.
    Seriously though, who are the goofs showing up to the "Let Us Cure Your Virulent Anri-Semitism" hectures? I picture the guy on Catch A Predator who didn't want the cookie.

    “Couldn’t [have] anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism…”

    I think it has more to do with how much of that Jewish money was earned through usury (which both Christians and Jews regarded as sinful exploitation, but as long as Jews were exploiting Christians, well, no biggie), tax-farming, the European slave-trade, and later on, other jobs (e.g. the liquor industry) that were regarded as exploitative, especially of the poor.

    True, it was the nobles who set up these policies (and no doubt replaced any kindly and easygoing Jewish tax collectors with those who were willing to be more ruthless and exploitative), but we typically don’t absolve a hitman just because the one who hired him bears the ultimate responsibility for the murder. The Jews in the camps who hated the Jewish kapo even more than the Nazis who hired him knew he was only a hired gun, but they still despised him for using those brutal policies to take advantage of others, and that’s understandable.

    But when people (e.g. Jack D) resentfully complain about how the Jews of the Holocaust were in some cases handed over by their neighbors, they forget to mention that the neighbors were likewise acting at the behest of other “nobles”, and those who did NOT turn over Jews or who sheltered them would have been shot along with their families, and in the vast majority of cases Jew-hunting did not turn into a generational vocation as was the case with usury and tax-farming. So there’s a fair amount of inconsistency there.

    I know what some will say, and I get it — this all happened a long time ago, and has to be weighed against the pogroms and the Holocaust. Moreover, even though leftists hated big-capital Jews, while right-wingers hated Commie pinko Jews, the Jew that disproportionately died in such bloodbaths was more likely to be some down-on-his-luck schlemiel from the shtetls (along with wife and kids). But do keep that inconsistency in mind the next time hucksters like Jack D want you to believe that the only reason people resent Jews is because they think they must have horns on their head. There’s a whole lot that people like that want you to forget about.

    What’s more, you’re definitely not allowed to forget any history when it comes to, say, white privilege, or male privilege, and it doesn’t matter if your parents came here from Romania or Russia 20 years ago and were poor and subjugated for centuries beforehand. You, little white man, will still have to answer for what King Leopold and rich Southern plantation owners did — and Hitler, too, while we’re at it — down to the seventh generation and beyond.

  156. @Tom Verso
    “using their wealth in concert” is a very important sociological concept.

    This is my understanding of the works of Kevin MacDonald and E. Michael Jones. The Jewish people worldwide are a unified 'Nation' bound together by a common ideological goal of what is best for Jews. I read recently that a Mossad agent said that he could knock on any door of any Jew in the world and he would be welcomed and helped. I'm Italian-American. If an someone from an Italian agency knocks on my door, I tell him 'forget-about-it'.

    Further, the many local Jewish organizations integrate into national and international groups. This unified ideological perspective and behavior is the basis of Jewish power and influence. Their wealth is of secondary importance. If total Jewish wealth were halved they would still be a National force to be reckoned with.

    In short, it is sociologically meaningless to think of Jews as an ethnic or religious group akin to Italians, Catholics, etc. Rather they are a Nation akin to France, England, etc.

    Jews don’t work “in concert to undermine US government and Constitution.” They work in concert to promote their best interest as do all Nations of the world. What passes as anti-Semitism is rather contra-Semitism. Just as conflicts between say Germany and France were not anti-Germans of Frenchmen having to do with personal characteristics of the people of the respective nations. Rather, it was a conflict of perceived national interest.

    Good post, but what you effectively said is that Jews [who live] in the US are effectively citizens of the Jewish Nation. Their current push for anti-BDS legislation is a direct assault on US 1st Amendment. This undermines our values, as well as our Constitution.

  157. @Anonymous Jew

    46 percent earning $100,000 or more a year
     
    This doesn't seem at all plausible to me. I've lived in NY, DC and SF and have known a lot of Ashkenazis. Maybe this number is for religious Jews as opposed to people that are mostly or all Ashkenazi. One thing I've noticed is that Ashkenazis that are less successful and would struggle to break 100 on an IQ test nearly always have at least one relative at the first cousin level or closer that's a successful professional. I don't see this with Whites of comparable ability. For example, our old nanny is full Ashkenazi and her boyfriend is full Ashkenazi with a working class job. But her father was pretty high up at a large tech company in Silicone Valley with about 300 people under him before retiring wealthy. I could go on an on with pretty much every average, 100-IQ Jew I've met.

    Speaking of regression to the mean, my full Ashkenazi brother-in-law married a very nice and smart Black woman (as in 110 IQ and looks at least 90% SSA). She's great, but her family...total disaster.

    Anyways, some numbers I've seen have the highly selected S. Asians outperforming Jews (in the US) and they're at least as leftist. Be afraid.

    I assume that they mean household income and not individuals. The number doesn’t seem implausible to me, if you take average Ashkenazi IQ to be in the range of 108 to 115. Basically the right half of the Ashkenazi bell curve are mostly going to be college educated or in lucrative family businesses and in $100k plus households and the left half is going to be below. What the $100K plus cutoff doesn’t make clear is that there are lots of Jews who are in SUPER high categories – when you get to $1M plus households (and/or 130+ IQs), Jews are probably 10x overrepresented in relation to their % of the general population.

    And in terms of regression to the mean, aside from the mentally retarded, there are a lot of 100 IQ Jews but very few 85 IQ Jews. And because the kids of 100 IQ Jews are regressing to the Jewish mean, it’s not unusual (at least if both parents are Jewish) for the kids to regress upwards. I have a cousin that no one would mistake for a rocket scientist, nor her spouse either. But their kids earned PhDs, one in Physics.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    Good point. It's not hard to clear $50K in a large city, even if you're a grievance studies major from Brown.

    I haven't read the literature in detail, but I don't buy the high estimates of Jewish IQ. The estimates in the 107-range (half a SD) seem about right. I can't remember meeting many, if any, dumb Jews, but then again if you went to college the vast majority of your social circle also went to college.
  158. @Jack D

    Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?
     
    The courts have held that agreements not to "advertise" below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of "advertising"). But legally they can't stop you from SELLING below a set price - that's illegal. And the customer can't buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get "call for price" or "put it in the cart" or "email for price". This way the merchant is not "advertising" below the required minimum price.

    Now most Americans are still willing to haggle when it comes to really high ticket items - houses and cars especially. For lower priced items, I guess if you are making $3/day (either as a merchant or a buyer) then it pays (it may be a matter of necessity or survival) to haggle extensively over the price of each tomato but for most Americans they don't think it is worth their time. The question is where you draw the line between those extremes and how much time you are willing to invest in the negotiation. Because Americans have been socially conditioned not to haggle, they tend to draw the line very high. It might take them 20 minutes to earn $5 but spending 1 minute asking for $5 off the price of a bowling ball is somehow not worth their time or is seen as being "cheap" or begging (even though people who are much richer than they are do it all the time).

    In Israel, you can still haggle in some tourist shops and in the outdoor markets (for example, in tourist areas of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv). So that is where the tourists can go to haggle.

    But in normal shops, you cannot “haggle”. This is the same as Russia – for example, in Ekaterinburg you can haggle in the outdoors market (but if you try to haggle in a normal shop people will think you are strange and call security).

    The sad thing for Israel, is the complete dominance of the shopping malls (where they build new ones every time you visit), which is reducing any interesting thing about shopping there.

    Most of shopping of the Jews is in the shopping malls, and Israel seems to have a higher concentration of shopping malls than even America.

    So in the same town, there can be three different shopping malls next to each other, with the same shops inside.

    Almost all the shopping malls appear the same to me. But you can see that Israelis imagine when they are inside these shopping malls, that they are living like wealthy Americans in glamorous California, and not in the Middle East.

    The only distinction I can make between the shopping malls – just some are more new and shiny, and others are older and more from the 1990s.

  159. @Anonymous
    So, why aren't there many Jews with the surname 'Smith' or the Slavic or German equivalent?

    'Taylor' and the like are represented, but curiously 'Smith' isn't.

    The Falasha are smiths to the last man. They do not do anything else.

  160. National Emergency,boys! It’s on!

  161. @PapayaSF
    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there's a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    “Jews were often forbidden to own land”

    You mean they were forbidden to own estates. I.e., cry me a river. I’m sure the ghosts of the serfs — who were literally slaves, i.e., property, of the estates on which they were born, and thereby stuck where they were for centuries — are rattling their chains in agony to this day over the fact that Jews who had gotten rich via usury were not allowed to parlay their winnings into shipping and estate-ownership. Just like they’re crying over the injustice of some princess not being allowed to rule just because she was a woman. The horror of it!

    And as Steve Sailer has noted, for those who really had a craving to work the land — say, by choosing to becoming serfs and peasants, they would have found those to be easy-entry occupations.

  162. @istevefan
    Free trade would be key. Without unfettered access to the major markets and the ability for foreigners to continue to own media, banks and other important segments of the economy, hypothetical Israel would be hampered in her growth prospects.

    I don’t know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy. Israel does well with high tech stuff like image recognition for self-driving cars, advanced weapons system, high value agricultural products, value added industries like diamond cutting, etc. They are alway shooting for the high value end of business and not for commodities.

    • Replies: @zombie ant

    I don’t know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy.
     
    Massive brass chutzballs there. I will say it's correct, only because they are not just important to Israel's economy, but to their entire way of life and their mythology.

    Perhaps you're just a very good larper, but I doubt it.

    , @istevefan

    I don’t know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy.
     
    But those sectors would be important to members of the diaspora who might have to relinquish their ownership interests if they decided to leave for Israel. We used to have rules in certain industries that prohibited foreign ownership. If those rules were not reestablished then the folks in the diaspora heading to Israel could still continue to benefit from owning firms in large markets. If not, it would be a financial hit.

    Even in the industries you cite, and I agree Israel is pretty sharp in those areas, Israel could still be pinched by the larger markets requiring foreign firms to set up local production, or to enter into a partnership with domestic firms. Sort of like what China does now.

    Our hypothetical Israel would no doubt have high human capital. But if current trade rules were not maintained it would not be large enough to avoid being pushed around by the giant trade blocs or nations.

    In hashing through this example it seems to me that the current state of affairs is best for Israel and the world's Jews. They get a high-functioning ethnic state while maintaining crucial links in some of the most important nations, thus giving Israel benefits that she otherwise would not be able to get if all the world's Jews lived there.
  163. @Jack D
    I don't know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy. Israel does well with high tech stuff like image recognition for self-driving cars, advanced weapons system, high value agricultural products, value added industries like diamond cutting, etc. They are alway shooting for the high value end of business and not for commodities.

    I don’t know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy.

    Massive brass chutzballs there. I will say it’s correct, only because they are not just important to Israel’s economy, but to their entire way of life and their mythology.

    Perhaps you’re just a very good larper, but I doubt it.

  164. @Jack D
    You're missing the point - crass and vulgar are just words for "bad" - why is it bad? Saying it's a white thang is not helpful - if you can't articulate why it's bad you have no insight into your own culture. If I asked you why killing people for the slightest offense is bad you wouldn't say it's a white thang, you'd have lots of reasons that you'd be able to articulate. You can't have a functioning society where people kill each other whenever they are offended but cultures where bargaining is common is ubiquitous. Even in the West we didn't alway have department stores with little tags on every item.

    In China or Lebanon, it would be "presumptuous" or "haughty" (again just words for "bad") for a merchant to give you a price and refuse to negotiate. Just who the hell does he think he is that he is above negotiating?

    You’re missing the point – crass and vulgar are just words for “bad” – why is it bad? Saying it’s a white thang is not helpful – if you can’t articulate why it’s bad you have no insight into your own culture.

    Res has already replied well. But let’s add some more.

    First, crass and vulgar are not simple synonyms for “bad.” They have specific meanings.

    Crass: without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid

    Vulgar: characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste

    So for starters, it is, as res says, a cultural thing. And that ought to be the end of the argument. It’s white culture. This is (was) a white nation. Abide by our social mores or get out. Well, it should be as simple as that.

    Now why is it crass? Haggling is arguing. It’s emotional, it’s heated, it pits one side against the other, it’s competitive. Now, from a men-with-chains perspective, that’s all good sport. But from a white culture perspective, entering into such a fray for the sake of saving a few dollars is using a harpoon to spear a minnow. Why on earth would you bother? Only a lout would behave in this way.

    Arguing between strangers is a thing to be avoided whenever possible. It lowers the social tone. It creates friction where there need not be any friction. It can set up one social group against the other. It’s bad for society. It has no upside whatsoever. And all that for the sake of grubbing a few extra dollars.

    That’s why bargaining over a car or house is NOT considered déclassé. The stakes are high enough that it’s worth it. But even then, you don’t haggle over the house price. You make an offer. Car buying is more mercenary, at least in New York where it’s all men-with-chains unless you’re buying high end. See, even there, the buying experience is hugely different between Mercedes and, say, Toyota. If I try to buy a Toyota odds are 95% that I’m getting a first generation immigrant from somewhere-not-white trying to sell me a car using every scheme he can come up with to fleece me (“I can only give you this offer if you sign today”). It’s repulsive. Haggling is, at the end of the day, simply in bad taste.

    Ultimately, it comes down to people who are naturally crass and vulgar — and among a certain sort of Jew this has long actually been a point of pride — being almost genetically incapable of even understanding the concepts of crass and vulgar and why they are negatives. Just like men-with-chains will never understand the concept of “honor” and “self-sacrifice” and would see a heroic act as someone being a dumb chump. Some things can’t be taught.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Men in chains might argue that it's dishonorable to let your daughter dress like a whore and sleep with half the football team. Some things can't be taught.

    I realize that "emotional" and "arguing" is supposed to be a bad word in WASPdom - you are supposed to keep it to yourself and either drink it off or kill yourself or both. Other cultures view lack of emotion as being "dead inside". Americans waste a huge amount of time watching sports but most don't actually participate in any. In some cultures, bargaining is considered a participation sport and one that is open to all and you don't have to pay for a country club membership to play. It's a form of play fighting - to you it looks like people are screaming at each other and questioning each other morals, character, paternity, etc. but really there are no hard feelings when the deal is struck.

  165. @res

    why is it bad?
     
    If you are really trying to understand and not just win arguments please read that article I linked: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/06/haggling-social-norms-and-economic-efficiency
    then come back here and discuss it.

    We live in the US (or other European countries, for the most part) not China or Lebanon. Is the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do--except when it is profitable to do otherwise"?

    I think this is important to understand because IMHO it exemplifies a reason some people hate Jews. Not only do so many act like this, many positively glory in it and outspokenly consider others stupid for not behaving the same way. Whether or not you feel that way, I doubt you appreciate how offensive that is to people who adhere to the norm.

    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people’s time is a big factor. When people here don’t find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don’t think that’s a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies – again it seems like it is beneath people’s “dignity” but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike “Jewing down” a merchant, it doesn’t hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is ” we are so rich that we don’t bother with trivial sums” (where the value of “trivial” set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts – I can’t really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn’t.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms – the merchant sets a “fair” price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you’d settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    A guy I used to work with had a cubicle next to mine. He was always on the phone talking about his outside business. He had rental properties and would do the maintenance himself. He was not Jewish. He would haggle at Home Depot all the time and he was quite proud if it.

    The key was that he always went to the same Home Depot and always looked for the manager first and then got the OK for the price change. Since they knew him and he bought a lot he got the discount, not unlike some contractors get. If you did it, it would not be the same. The manager doesn't know you, the checker is not authorized to reduce the price, and you would at the checkout waiting for the manager to arrive, pissing everybody else in line off.
    , @res
    Did you read the article? (by your later comment it appears so, but I think you may be trying too hard to shoehorn it into your own narrative and as a result missing much of the message) The point is that in the aggregate haggling is negative sum by "virtue" of wasting everyone's time. However, when a small number of free riders do it they profit. Do you not realize how much this resembles the Prisoner's Dilemma in game theory with a societal norm encouraging the desirable "nobody defects" outcome?

    You make a key point yourself:


    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms – the merchant sets a “fair” price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village.
     
    But don't seem to get the point that rather than being from the village (nice bit of rhetoric that, and quite telling, ironic too given that norm adherents would call Group A primitive with you invoking Libya and China earlier giving them support) Group B has created an arguably better society by doing things like creating those norms. And the asymmetric warfare is undermining important lynchpins of that society. Rather than "asymmetric warfare" think of it as "taking advantage of" and see if that changes the emotional content of the message.

    Regarding this:


    The cultural norm is ” we are so rich that we don’t bother with trivial sums” (where the value of “trivial” set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts – I can’t really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn’t.
     
    I also see the irony, but I think it is best to think of that reasoning as a rationalization for the norm (and perhaps a trickle down artifact from the richer who established the norm, with the poorer trying to emulate them).

    Regarding this:


    where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.
     
    That "supposedly" is the key issue. And I agree there is reason to be cynical here. But I think if you think of it as the merchant is giving the "reasonable profit" price but is willing to take a smaller profit sometimes (for a variety of reasons) you will be pretty close to reality. In any case, I think it is clear that the more people haggle the more the rack price increases.

    Again from a game theory point of view, I think there is only one truly stable outcome. The bazaar-where everyone haggles all of the time. There is a somewhat stable outcome where nobody haggles due to a societal norm, but any significant number of hagglers is likely to make that unstable and tip over to the bazaar. Does this help you understand why the norm is considered so important? And why you (both individually and as a group) encounter such strong reactions to proudly violating it?

    Jack, as smart as you are I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. I just can't tell why. Perhaps we are just coming from places which are too culturally different? I find that hard to fathom though given how much similar background we have. I thought the article did a good job of making the same points which is why I keep referencing it.

    P.S. On rereading I realized my take on your Group A and B is confused but no time to correct within edit window. Will decide whether that is worth doing after seeing where the rest of the conversation goes.

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    In a typical American retail transaction, haggling is often literally impossible. The price points at big-box retailers are set by corporate headquarters and the lowly cashier has little to no ability to alter them. If you wanted to haggle over a price, you would have to call over the much overworked head clerk or assistant manager and explain your case to him while a line of annoyed customers built up behind you. This really just isn't feasible most of the time. If any more than the tiniest fraction of customers tried to do this, the whole enterprise would grind to a halt. It isn't set up to operate that way.

    Modern retail is heavily computerized and local autonomy is reduced to a minimum. The logic behind this is to standardize the workflow, reduce theft and loss, and to facilitate customers getting in and out as quickly as possible. I have separate feelings about whether any of this is actually achieved in practice, but that's another post. The present point is that American retail does not support haggling as part of the transaction process.

    And this is ultimately the reason why most Whites feel immoral about it. It isn't because they'd like to believe that they are rich enough not to have to do it; it's because they know that if they do it they would be importuning upon powerless employees who do not really have that as part of their job in the first place and they would also be wasting everybody else's time. The cashier at Kroger does not "own" the store's wares the way that a salt merchant in the souk owns his salt. The Kroger corporation owns the wares and the employee really has no authority to change the price. If you try to haggle with the cashier, you are putting the poor guy or gal in an impossible situation where they have to try to give good customer service but they have no ability to carry out your request.

    Willfully subjecting anther human being to that sort of mental distress is definitely malicious. Jews have no compunction about causing such pains but normal White people do.
    , @Bill P
    I used to do some small-scale trading when I lived in China. Pretty good return at the time, although customs was a pain in the rear.

    I'd do most of my purchasing at a market in Beijing called Hongqiao (Red Bridge), where there were vendors from all over the country. The vendors from Dongbei (NE China) required haggling. Their products were inferior and they always asked for way more than they were worth, so you had to "Jew them down" (to use the vernacular relevant to the thread).

    The merchants from Zhejiang, on the other hand, had excellent products of uniform quality and only went through the motions of haggling. Basically, the second price they'd quote was the final price. And it was a good price.

    So, naturally, I ditched the Dongbei merchants and only dealt with the people from Zhejiang. No haggling, profit all around, everyone's happy.

    I think haggling is necessary when dishonesty is the norm in business. You have to take time and negotiate because if you don't you'll get cheated. It's worth it in those conditions. But when you're dealing with honest merchants, it's simply a waste of time.

    So in my view haggling is more of a symptom of a low-trust society than anything else. If most merchants are above board, it's an extra expense in time and effort. If not, it's a necessary precaution.
    , @istevefan

    Another example is bending down to pick up pennies – again it seems like it is beneath people’s “dignity” but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis
     
    I'm guilty of that. I never leave a penny, let alone a nickel or dime on the sidewalk. I probably have $200 worth of loose change I've accumulated over the past few years. It's incredible what people just toss. And as you wrote, it is little effort to retrieve. In fact it is probably good exercise bending over to collect them.
    , @nebulafox
    >When people here don’t find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum.

    Especially since extremely similar stereotypes surrounding ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia elicit at least grudging acknowledgement of brains and work ethic 'round these parts.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Another example is bending down to pick up pennies – again it seems like it is beneath people’s “dignity” but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis
     
    There is a story, a true one I think, of a small-town millionaire bending over for every penny he saw on the sidewalk. No one could figure out why he bothered, unless he was inordinately greedy or cheap.

    Then some kid got up the gumption to ask him directly. He obviously didn't need the money, so why did he do it?

    Because the coins bore the words "In God we trust". It was thus a matter of respect.
  166. @william munny
    This stuff embarrasses me too, but can be fun to watch if you are not involved. I live near an area that is overwhelmingly orthodox Jewish. It is funny watching them try to negotiate with 18-year-old cashiers at Lowe's and Staples. Every time they pay.

    I live near an area that is overwhelmingly orthodox Jewish. It is funny watching them try to negotiate with 18-year-old cashiers at Lowe’s and Staples. Every time they pay.

    Perhaps the cashiers should put it on their CVs when applying for enterprise sales positions. “STAPLES – Customer-facing sales position with daily Jewish purchasers.”

    I was somewhat recently roped into a consumer sales interaction by a levantine Jewess during a vacation in the Med. When, after a long argument, I managed to convince her I had no use for her products, I was then subjected to what amounts to a lengthy probing (but respectful) interview regarding my purchasing habits.

    The whole situation felt extra odd because, though not directly unattractive, she also reminded me of a lemur or some huge-eyed nightdwelling mammal. Anyway, I have been through B2B purchases that were less rigorous, and the time I was somehow drawn into a carpet store in Turkey was child’s play to escape in comparison.

  167. @Jack D
    I assume that they mean household income and not individuals. The number doesn't seem implausible to me, if you take average Ashkenazi IQ to be in the range of 108 to 115. Basically the right half of the Ashkenazi bell curve are mostly going to be college educated or in lucrative family businesses and in $100k plus households and the left half is going to be below. What the $100K plus cutoff doesn't make clear is that there are lots of Jews who are in SUPER high categories - when you get to $1M plus households (and/or 130+ IQs), Jews are probably 10x overrepresented in relation to their % of the general population.

    And in terms of regression to the mean, aside from the mentally retarded, there are a lot of 100 IQ Jews but very few 85 IQ Jews. And because the kids of 100 IQ Jews are regressing to the Jewish mean, it's not unusual (at least if both parents are Jewish) for the kids to regress upwards. I have a cousin that no one would mistake for a rocket scientist, nor her spouse either. But their kids earned PhDs, one in Physics.

    Good point. It’s not hard to clear $50K in a large city, even if you’re a grievance studies major from Brown.

    I haven’t read the literature in detail, but I don’t buy the high estimates of Jewish IQ. The estimates in the 107-range (half a SD) seem about right. I can’t remember meeting many, if any, dumb Jews, but then again if you went to college the vast majority of your social circle also went to college.

  168. @Anonym
    tvtropes.org

    Most everyone who stumbles on the site and exits, after a time, learns what tropes are. It is the same font bubbling forth Mary Sue, McGuffin, etc into the lexicon.

    Good point.

  169. @AnotherDad
    Have to say, huge respect to these two guys Massie and Amash for standing up to--or at least sitting out--this Jewish Stalinism.

    Amash is a Christian Arab--looked it up, father Palestinian--more straightforward for him, but still politically dangerous. Massie is just a sharp--EE MIT, successful business founder--good old boy.

    Don't know whether they tried, but offer an amendment to add condemnation of all racism in all forms including anti-white racism, anti-gentilism, anti-Arabism, anti-redneckism and anti-flyover-country-white racism.

    And add to the "denounce all attempts to deligitimize Israel's right to exist", "or Europeans peoples' nations right to exist as distinct nations or the right of the native people of any nation to maintain themselves as a distinct people and nation for theirselves and their posterity."

    These resolutions have an air of swearing a loyalty oath. Or sacrificing an animal in pledging loyalty to the Roman Emperor?

  170. @res

    Speaking of regression to the mean, my full Ashkenazi brother-in-law married a very nice and smart Black woman (as in 110 IQ and looks at least 90% SSA). She’s great, but her family…total disaster.
     
    Any children? It would be interesting to see how that would turn out.

    How much does her family succeed in dragging your brother-in-law down?

    I’ll get back to you on the children in 15 years or so. He’s a very average Jew, but his sister (my wife) is very smart (Ivy league grad degree) and their father is even smarter (at least 130).

    The wedding ceremony was ‘postponed,’ so I’ve never met her family, but the stories that trickle out are – in the words of my 4-year-old – “not good.” She doesn’t seem close to her family and I get the feeling that she’s a little embarrassed about them. They sound like a typical Black family to me (I grew up across from a Black neighborhood so I can speak with some authority).

  171. @Jack D
    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people's time is a big factor. When people here don't find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don't think that's a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies - again it seems like it is beneath people's "dignity" but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike "Jewing down" a merchant, it doesn't hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is " we are so rich that we don't bother with trivial sums" (where the value of "trivial" set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts - I can't really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn't.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms - the merchant sets a "fair" price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you'd settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    A guy I used to work with had a cubicle next to mine. He was always on the phone talking about his outside business. He had rental properties and would do the maintenance himself. He was not Jewish. He would haggle at Home Depot all the time and he was quite proud if it.

    The key was that he always went to the same Home Depot and always looked for the manager first and then got the OK for the price change. Since they knew him and he bought a lot he got the discount, not unlike some contractors get. If you did it, it would not be the same. The manager doesn’t know you, the checker is not authorized to reduce the price, and you would at the checkout waiting for the manager to arrive, pissing everybody else in line off.

  172. @Anon
    The book Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America's 50 Year Fall does a good job discussing the source of Jewish wealth in the US. The bulk of it began in the 80's, when Jews started the junk bond, leveraged buyout and hostile takeover craze that took down some of America's most profitable companies, out of resentment that they were often excluded from top management positions and country clubs occupied by clubby WASPs.

    The Fed has also played a major role in steering money towards Jew run Wall Street by keeping interest rates artificially low for a long time to enable all the LBOs and M&As. Starting from Alan Greenspan in 1987 to Janet Yellen in 2017, Jews basically ran the Fed for 30 years. Before then the first and only Jewish Fed Chairman was Eugene Meyer in 1933, who was forced to resign after he was accused of financing Leon Trotsky's activities in Soviet Russia.

    Wherever the Jews go, money, power, dishonesty, debauchery and corruption follow. It's a sickness that plagues God's chosen. They can't seem to extricate themselves from greed, lust and revenge, these 3 traits have come to define the Jewish character.

    Arthur Burns was Jewish also.

  173. @Jack D
    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people's time is a big factor. When people here don't find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don't think that's a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies - again it seems like it is beneath people's "dignity" but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike "Jewing down" a merchant, it doesn't hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is " we are so rich that we don't bother with trivial sums" (where the value of "trivial" set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts - I can't really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn't.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms - the merchant sets a "fair" price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you'd settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    Did you read the article? (by your later comment it appears so, but I think you may be trying too hard to shoehorn it into your own narrative and as a result missing much of the message) The point is that in the aggregate haggling is negative sum by “virtue” of wasting everyone’s time. However, when a small number of free riders do it they profit. Do you not realize how much this resembles the Prisoner’s Dilemma in game theory with a societal norm encouraging the desirable “nobody defects” outcome?

    You make a key point yourself:

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms – the merchant sets a “fair” price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village.

    But don’t seem to get the point that rather than being from the village (nice bit of rhetoric that, and quite telling, ironic too given that norm adherents would call Group A primitive with you invoking Libya and China earlier giving them support) Group B has created an arguably better society by doing things like creating those norms. And the asymmetric warfare is undermining important lynchpins of that society. Rather than “asymmetric warfare” think of it as “taking advantage of” and see if that changes the emotional content of the message.

    Regarding this:

    The cultural norm is ” we are so rich that we don’t bother with trivial sums” (where the value of “trivial” set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts – I can’t really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn’t.

    I also see the irony, but I think it is best to think of that reasoning as a rationalization for the norm (and perhaps a trickle down artifact from the richer who established the norm, with the poorer trying to emulate them).

    Regarding this:

    where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    That “supposedly” is the key issue. And I agree there is reason to be cynical here. But I think if you think of it as the merchant is giving the “reasonable profit” price but is willing to take a smaller profit sometimes (for a variety of reasons) you will be pretty close to reality. In any case, I think it is clear that the more people haggle the more the rack price increases.

    Again from a game theory point of view, I think there is only one truly stable outcome. The bazaar-where everyone haggles all of the time. There is a somewhat stable outcome where nobody haggles due to a societal norm, but any significant number of hagglers is likely to make that unstable and tip over to the bazaar. Does this help you understand why the norm is considered so important? And why you (both individually and as a group) encounter such strong reactions to proudly violating it?

    Jack, as smart as you are I don’t think you are understanding what I am saying. I just can’t tell why. Perhaps we are just coming from places which are too culturally different? I find that hard to fathom though given how much similar background we have. I thought the article did a good job of making the same points which is why I keep referencing it.

    P.S. On rereading I realized my take on your Group A and B is confused but no time to correct within edit window. Will decide whether that is worth doing after seeing where the rest of the conversation goes.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I read the article and I think I understand what you and the author are saying. At first, it seemed to me that whether you haggle is between you and the merchant so I didn't really get why other people were so resentful (unless you are holding up the line haggling with the Home Depot cashier) but I see your point that too many buyers who attempt to haggle eventually undermines the no haggling paradigm in that merchants begin to quote a high starting price to leave room for negotiation which adverse effects those who would prefer not to haggle. It's one of those high trust/low trust society differences - you trust the merchant to quote you a "fair" price and everyone saves having to spend half a day negotiating in order to buy the ingredients for dinner and can get some real productive work done instead.

    OTOH, customers are not averse to coupons and sales and other marketing tricks which involve high starting prices. When JC Penney attempted an "everyday low price" strategy it was a big flop - people want to perceive they are getting a bargain. But as the author of the article pointed out , this kind of price discrimination is egalitarian - everyone can buy when the item is "on sale". But haggling only advantages those who are willing/able to do it and do it well. Maybe there is an element of sour grapes by people who know that they are not good at it?
  174. @Jack D
    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people's time is a big factor. When people here don't find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don't think that's a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies - again it seems like it is beneath people's "dignity" but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike "Jewing down" a merchant, it doesn't hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is " we are so rich that we don't bother with trivial sums" (where the value of "trivial" set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts - I can't really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn't.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms - the merchant sets a "fair" price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you'd settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    In a typical American retail transaction, haggling is often literally impossible. The price points at big-box retailers are set by corporate headquarters and the lowly cashier has little to no ability to alter them. If you wanted to haggle over a price, you would have to call over the much overworked head clerk or assistant manager and explain your case to him while a line of annoyed customers built up behind you. This really just isn’t feasible most of the time. If any more than the tiniest fraction of customers tried to do this, the whole enterprise would grind to a halt. It isn’t set up to operate that way.

    Modern retail is heavily computerized and local autonomy is reduced to a minimum. The logic behind this is to standardize the workflow, reduce theft and loss, and to facilitate customers getting in and out as quickly as possible. I have separate feelings about whether any of this is actually achieved in practice, but that’s another post. The present point is that American retail does not support haggling as part of the transaction process.

    And this is ultimately the reason why most Whites feel immoral about it. It isn’t because they’d like to believe that they are rich enough not to have to do it; it’s because they know that if they do it they would be importuning upon powerless employees who do not really have that as part of their job in the first place and they would also be wasting everybody else’s time. The cashier at Kroger does not “own” the store’s wares the way that a salt merchant in the souk owns his salt. The Kroger corporation owns the wares and the employee really has no authority to change the price. If you try to haggle with the cashier, you are putting the poor guy or gal in an impossible situation where they have to try to give good customer service but they have no ability to carry out your request.

    Willfully subjecting anther human being to that sort of mental distress is definitely malicious. Jews have no compunction about causing such pains but normal White people do.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The price points at big-box retailers are set by corporate headquarters and the lowly cashier has little to no ability to alter them
     
    But someone local might. I bought a bunch of baskets at 99¢ at a Menards. A week later, I saw them at another Menards going for $1.99, more than double. Perhaps they were overstock at the first one.

    Not long before that, I found a good price on a piece of wood trim on clearance at Fleet Farm's Web site. I went to their nearest store, and cut my thumb in an exposed staple in a piece of bulk wood. Not only did the department manager show no concern for my injury, he had the nerve to tell me the piece I came for wasn't on clearance at his branch. So much for corporate consistency, at least at regional chains.

    To add insult to literal injury, the teen greeters across the highway at Wal-Mart were all over me with bandages and TLC.
  175. @Jack D
    Pretend that I am a Martian (or Chinese) and explain to me exactly why that is "embarrassing"? Is it because the sum is "trivial"? Say that the merchant cut the price by $5 and that it took you 1 minute to ask and get the merchant's answer. That comes out to $300 per hour - it seems like a pretty good use of your time.

    Yep. Bought two used tires the other day. He wanted $100 and I said $95 cash. Deal. Took all of 2 seconds.

  176. @Anonymous Jew

    46 percent earning $100,000 or more a year
     
    This doesn't seem at all plausible to me. I've lived in NY, DC and SF and have known a lot of Ashkenazis. Maybe this number is for religious Jews as opposed to people that are mostly or all Ashkenazi. One thing I've noticed is that Ashkenazis that are less successful and would struggle to break 100 on an IQ test nearly always have at least one relative at the first cousin level or closer that's a successful professional. I don't see this with Whites of comparable ability. For example, our old nanny is full Ashkenazi and her boyfriend is full Ashkenazi with a working class job. But her father was pretty high up at a large tech company in Silicone Valley with about 300 people under him before retiring wealthy. I could go on an on with pretty much every average, 100-IQ Jew I've met.

    Speaking of regression to the mean, my full Ashkenazi brother-in-law married a very nice and smart Black woman (as in 110 IQ and looks at least 90% SSA). She's great, but her family...total disaster.

    Anyways, some numbers I've seen have the highly selected S. Asians outperforming Jews (in the US) and they're at least as leftist. Be afraid.

    Non-successful white gentiles don’t tend to broadcast the fact that they have more successful family members. Often you’ll only find this out after knowing them for a long time, and then usually from someone else.

    It’s kind of the opposite of how Jews are that way.

  177. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    You're missing the point - crass and vulgar are just words for "bad" - why is it bad? Saying it's a white thang is not helpful - if you can't articulate why it's bad you have no insight into your own culture. If I asked you why killing people for the slightest offense is bad you wouldn't say it's a white thang, you'd have lots of reasons that you'd be able to articulate. You can't have a functioning society where people kill each other whenever they are offended but cultures where bargaining is common is ubiquitous. Even in the West we didn't alway have department stores with little tags on every item.

    In China or Lebanon, it would be "presumptuous" or "haughty" (again just words for "bad") for a merchant to give you a price and refuse to negotiate. Just who the hell does he think he is that he is above negotiating?

    Fixed prices from merchants are generally attributed to the Quakers in the 19th century, so it’s relatively recent. Bargaining was the norm in the Classical world, medieval trade fairs, Renaissance markets, among colonial merchants, etc.

    You’re approaching this wrongly. People don’t examine particular practices and work out why they’re “bad.” They look around at what their in-group or people they identify with do, what out-groups and people they don’t identify with do, and then judge practices good and bad accordingly.

  178. @res
    Did you read the article? (by your later comment it appears so, but I think you may be trying too hard to shoehorn it into your own narrative and as a result missing much of the message) The point is that in the aggregate haggling is negative sum by "virtue" of wasting everyone's time. However, when a small number of free riders do it they profit. Do you not realize how much this resembles the Prisoner's Dilemma in game theory with a societal norm encouraging the desirable "nobody defects" outcome?

    You make a key point yourself:


    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms – the merchant sets a “fair” price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village.
     
    But don't seem to get the point that rather than being from the village (nice bit of rhetoric that, and quite telling, ironic too given that norm adherents would call Group A primitive with you invoking Libya and China earlier giving them support) Group B has created an arguably better society by doing things like creating those norms. And the asymmetric warfare is undermining important lynchpins of that society. Rather than "asymmetric warfare" think of it as "taking advantage of" and see if that changes the emotional content of the message.

    Regarding this:


    The cultural norm is ” we are so rich that we don’t bother with trivial sums” (where the value of “trivial” set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts – I can’t really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn’t.
     
    I also see the irony, but I think it is best to think of that reasoning as a rationalization for the norm (and perhaps a trickle down artifact from the richer who established the norm, with the poorer trying to emulate them).

    Regarding this:


    where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.
     
    That "supposedly" is the key issue. And I agree there is reason to be cynical here. But I think if you think of it as the merchant is giving the "reasonable profit" price but is willing to take a smaller profit sometimes (for a variety of reasons) you will be pretty close to reality. In any case, I think it is clear that the more people haggle the more the rack price increases.

    Again from a game theory point of view, I think there is only one truly stable outcome. The bazaar-where everyone haggles all of the time. There is a somewhat stable outcome where nobody haggles due to a societal norm, but any significant number of hagglers is likely to make that unstable and tip over to the bazaar. Does this help you understand why the norm is considered so important? And why you (both individually and as a group) encounter such strong reactions to proudly violating it?

    Jack, as smart as you are I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. I just can't tell why. Perhaps we are just coming from places which are too culturally different? I find that hard to fathom though given how much similar background we have. I thought the article did a good job of making the same points which is why I keep referencing it.

    P.S. On rereading I realized my take on your Group A and B is confused but no time to correct within edit window. Will decide whether that is worth doing after seeing where the rest of the conversation goes.

    I read the article and I think I understand what you and the author are saying. At first, it seemed to me that whether you haggle is between you and the merchant so I didn’t really get why other people were so resentful (unless you are holding up the line haggling with the Home Depot cashier) but I see your point that too many buyers who attempt to haggle eventually undermines the no haggling paradigm in that merchants begin to quote a high starting price to leave room for negotiation which adverse effects those who would prefer not to haggle. It’s one of those high trust/low trust society differences – you trust the merchant to quote you a “fair” price and everyone saves having to spend half a day negotiating in order to buy the ingredients for dinner and can get some real productive work done instead.

    OTOH, customers are not averse to coupons and sales and other marketing tricks which involve high starting prices. When JC Penney attempted an “everyday low price” strategy it was a big flop – people want to perceive they are getting a bargain. But as the author of the article pointed out , this kind of price discrimination is egalitarian – everyone can buy when the item is “on sale”. But haggling only advantages those who are willing/able to do it and do it well. Maybe there is an element of sour grapes by people who know that they are not good at it?

    • Replies: @res
    That's it. Thanks for following up.

    I think this from you is a key point: "It’s one of those high trust/low trust society differences" and might help explain some of the visceral reactions.

    OTOH, customers are not averse to coupons and sales and other marketing tricks which involve high starting prices.
     
    Good point. No one ever said people are consistent ; ) But I think both your egalitarian point and the time saving point of "I can look at the ad and decide if that price works" rather than going to the store for an extended haggle session (which may lead nowhere in the end!) show there is an important difference.

    Maybe there is an element of sour grapes by people who know that they are not good at it?
     
    Perhaps. But I think it is more likely just annoyance from people who don't enjoy it and consider it a waste of time. Groups (and individuals) which consider haggling fun and even an art form obviously would see things differently.

    P.S. I hope my points about societal norms and their violation came across. I think that forms an important element of some of the negative feelings about Jews we see.
  179. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Modern westerners fail to realize that fixed prices for items is a relatively recent western invention dating only from the period when standardization and large retail firms became common, i.e. the mid 19th century, and even then initially used in a limited manner and only in major European and US metropolises. The custom of fixed prices only gradually spread out from these loci.

    In many cultures haggling is still a valued form of social interaction. I've learned to enjoy haggling in cultures where it is expected. In such cultures refusing to haggle and paying the initial offer is often regarded as an insult. "What! You don't want to haggle with me? Do you think you're so much better than I am that haggling with me would demean you and waste your time?"

    Agreed. I did’t learn to haggle so much out of social obligation nor even for the money, but more because I didn’t like the feeling that the other party knew they were taking advantage of me, even if the amount was relatively paltry. Thinking back on it, I now think there was a sort of “ethnic honor” involved, but I wouldn’t have put it that way then.

    As I improved I noticed that there were definite styles of haggling. My above mentioned friend tended to use a style of emotional near-extortion, making personal references both to himself and to the seller. (No wonder his wife found this off-putting. I think we call it “ball busting” here.) I myself developed a more cerebral style, based on accumulating market and vendor information, misdirecting about my actual interests and then randomly fading as a deal neared closure. One local vendor remarked (in frustration?) to my wife that none of his other Western customers would haggle as hard as I did. I was secretly pleased of course. Nevertheless, no matter how hard I bargained, I was never quite able to match the prices that my above described friend got.

  180. @Jack D
    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people's time is a big factor. When people here don't find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don't think that's a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies - again it seems like it is beneath people's "dignity" but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike "Jewing down" a merchant, it doesn't hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is " we are so rich that we don't bother with trivial sums" (where the value of "trivial" set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts - I can't really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn't.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms - the merchant sets a "fair" price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you'd settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    I used to do some small-scale trading when I lived in China. Pretty good return at the time, although customs was a pain in the rear.

    I’d do most of my purchasing at a market in Beijing called Hongqiao (Red Bridge), where there were vendors from all over the country. The vendors from Dongbei (NE China) required haggling. Their products were inferior and they always asked for way more than they were worth, so you had to “Jew them down” (to use the vernacular relevant to the thread).

    The merchants from Zhejiang, on the other hand, had excellent products of uniform quality and only went through the motions of haggling. Basically, the second price they’d quote was the final price. And it was a good price.

    So, naturally, I ditched the Dongbei merchants and only dealt with the people from Zhejiang. No haggling, profit all around, everyone’s happy.

    I think haggling is necessary when dishonesty is the norm in business. You have to take time and negotiate because if you don’t you’ll get cheated. It’s worth it in those conditions. But when you’re dealing with honest merchants, it’s simply a waste of time.

    So in my view haggling is more of a symptom of a low-trust society than anything else. If most merchants are above board, it’s an extra expense in time and effort. If not, it’s a necessary precaution.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Good comment. Thanks. One quibble. Hong is a very common Chinese word - there is lots of RED stuff in Communist China. But Hongqiao doesn't mean red bridge it means rainbow bridge (rainbow referring to the arch shape).

    Hong 红 red and Hong 虹 rainbow are both pronounced the same (lots of homonyms in Chinese) and even share a radical as you can see from the characters (although I don't know the reason why).
    , @Russ
    You should get and listen to some of the sales training tapes from the late David Sandler. "Negative Reverse Selling" I think he called it. Much more than sales training at work there.
  181. Both articles were very informative and pretty straight forward.

  182. @res
    Good perspective. Thanks. Any thoughts on why those Russians chose Israel over the US given the issues you raise?

    Yes, so they could get a visa to US, final target. They used Israel as a stepping stone.

  183. @Tyrion 2
    Obviously. Just as you are obviously some sort of deluded acolyte of Allah.

    Allah, Yahweh, Christ, Baal (Hillary Clinton’s god), Krishna, Buddah are all roads that lead to God. And God is an impersonal energy field in which we are all molecules.

  184. @Almost Missouri
    https://youtu.be/E0ijTPri5us

    I’d read that the line “no one’s gettin’ fat ‘cept Mama Cass” in “Creeque Alley” has nothing to do with her physique, but rather to the fact that, by moonlighting at bar mitzvahs and weddings, she was making money from music when her bandmates were not.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Anyone in an unsigned rock and roll band knew that "casuals" (weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, frat parties, CYO dances) paid better than rock gigs, which until you had a real record deal usually meant bar gigs. The better class of musicians, who could read well, would get society gigs or play in tribute big bands and they could actually make a decent living if willing to travel regionally.
  185. @Jack D
    I don't know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy. Israel does well with high tech stuff like image recognition for self-driving cars, advanced weapons system, high value agricultural products, value added industries like diamond cutting, etc. They are alway shooting for the high value end of business and not for commodities.

    I don’t know why you are pointing to media and banks, neither of which are particularly important sectors of the Israeli economy.

    But those sectors would be important to members of the diaspora who might have to relinquish their ownership interests if they decided to leave for Israel. We used to have rules in certain industries that prohibited foreign ownership. If those rules were not reestablished then the folks in the diaspora heading to Israel could still continue to benefit from owning firms in large markets. If not, it would be a financial hit.

    Even in the industries you cite, and I agree Israel is pretty sharp in those areas, Israel could still be pinched by the larger markets requiring foreign firms to set up local production, or to enter into a partnership with domestic firms. Sort of like what China does now.

    Our hypothetical Israel would no doubt have high human capital. But if current trade rules were not maintained it would not be large enough to avoid being pushed around by the giant trade blocs or nations.

    In hashing through this example it seems to me that the current state of affairs is best for Israel and the world’s Jews. They get a high-functioning ethnic state while maintaining crucial links in some of the most important nations, thus giving Israel benefits that she otherwise would not be able to get if all the world’s Jews lived there.

  186. @Stick
    I really don't care that Jews do well financially, but at less than 2% of the population, I do care about their outsized representation in the Senate and Supreme Court. We are a profoundly Protestant Country and at the moment our Supreme Court is dominated by Catholics and Jews. I think we have one Protestant at the moment. This stuff matters.

    I think we have one Protestant at the moment. This stuff matters.

    Yes. With Protestants instead of Catholics on the court, we’d have had same-sex marriage years earlier.


    (NB: Socialists serve as the Protestants of Latin Countries.)

  187. anon[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Ramz makes a good point. It used to be immigrants assimilated to Anglo-Americanism.

    Now, the deal is to assimilate to Zionist-Centrism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb8KP6Y8Bvg&feature=youtu.be

    Omar correctly named the enemy. In that regard, her statement was a success, even if clumsy. While she walked her statement back, her supporters do not mentally walk it back.

    With the internet, a continued naming the enemy with praise is probably the best approach. Point out in a positive light, how “Jews are a proud and honorable group, who donate handsome sums of money to politicians. More so than any other group, in fact!” Anyone with a 90+ IQ begins to see the contradictions. From there, the Internet can do its thing.

  188. @Bill P
    I used to do some small-scale trading when I lived in China. Pretty good return at the time, although customs was a pain in the rear.

    I'd do most of my purchasing at a market in Beijing called Hongqiao (Red Bridge), where there were vendors from all over the country. The vendors from Dongbei (NE China) required haggling. Their products were inferior and they always asked for way more than they were worth, so you had to "Jew them down" (to use the vernacular relevant to the thread).

    The merchants from Zhejiang, on the other hand, had excellent products of uniform quality and only went through the motions of haggling. Basically, the second price they'd quote was the final price. And it was a good price.

    So, naturally, I ditched the Dongbei merchants and only dealt with the people from Zhejiang. No haggling, profit all around, everyone's happy.

    I think haggling is necessary when dishonesty is the norm in business. You have to take time and negotiate because if you don't you'll get cheated. It's worth it in those conditions. But when you're dealing with honest merchants, it's simply a waste of time.

    So in my view haggling is more of a symptom of a low-trust society than anything else. If most merchants are above board, it's an extra expense in time and effort. If not, it's a necessary precaution.

    Good comment. Thanks. One quibble. Hong is a very common Chinese word – there is lots of RED stuff in Communist China. But Hongqiao doesn’t mean red bridge it means rainbow bridge (rainbow referring to the arch shape).

    Hong 红 red and Hong 虹 rainbow are both pronounced the same (lots of homonyms in Chinese) and even share a radical as you can see from the characters (although I don’t know the reason why).

    • Replies: @Bill P
    You had me doubting my memory, so I checked, and it actually is red bridge in this case.
    , @J.Ross
    I wish I could show you a mathematically precise explanation of hanzi radicals that worked like an elaborate alphabet and lent itself to a nice orderly chart, and there are attempts at this, some of which work part of the time (like the observation that descending tone words tend to be negative -- they tend to be, but it's not constant), but it's effectively usage. It could have been an original meaning that doesn't make a lot of sense now, or could have had to do with the pronunciation or category, or there might be no reason. One of the good things about the radicals is they allow organization into a dictionary without reference to pronunciation.
    , @keuril

    Hong 红 red and Hong 虹 rainbow are both pronounced the same (lots of homonyms in Chinese) and even share a radical as you can see from the characters (although I don’t know the reason why).
     
    They share the 工 radical because it is a clue to the pronunciation. Often characters will have a radical giving a clue to the pronunciation, and one or more other radicals giving a clue to the meaning. But this is more of a tendency than an actual rule.* For example, the left side of the character for red hong2 红 is the thread radical, while the left side of rainbow hong2 虹 is the insect radical (in each case above, the number 2 after hong indicates that these characters are pronounced in Mandarin with the second tone, which is the rising tone). I suppose you could argue that the thread radical evokes red cloth, while the insect radical evokes an arched inchworm or iridescent fly wing or something, but these arguments require quite a stretch of the imagination (a stretch that can be worth taking as a mnemonic device for memorizing the characters, but might not have any validity with respect to the actual reason the character evolved in a particular way). As in the case of English spellings, the characters have their own histories and can be traced back through time, and that might offer some more clues.

    Incidentally, the rainbow hong2 虹 is the primary rainbow, considered “male,” and contrasted with the secondary rainbow ni2 霓 (a rainbow inside the primary rainbow, with the colors reversed), which is considered female.

    As for hong2 qiao2 as a bridge, there is both a 红桥 (red bridge) and a 虹桥 (arched bridge), both of which are also proper place names.

    *Although these “clues” (to meaning and pronunciation) are quite helpful in learning or recognizing a number of the characters *in Chinese*, as I mentioned in another comment, the degree of helpfulness is quite a bit less for the characters in Japanese than in Chinese.
  189. @istevefan
    I think there is a term called 'market dominant minority' that describes diaspora Jews, overseas Chinese and a few other select groups. Being in the diaspora enables groups with certain talents to cherry pick careers.

    Take a historical look at a formerly homogeneous place like Germany or some Euro nation. All the jobs in society, from janitors to the head of state, would be carried out by ethnic Germans or whatever group inhabited the nation. I am aware there were always some exceptions like Gypsies, Jews and other Euro ethnics for whom a border had crossed them, and they found themselves in a different country. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Even in Israel you had Jews occupying the full spectrum of employment from the lowest levels to the Prime Minister. Of course that might have changed somewhat today with third worlders trying to enter the nation. But my point remains that in an ethnic nation state, that ethnic group will provide the labor for the full range of job types.

    I only described the above to introduce a discussion about what would happen to the standard of living of all the diaspora Jews if every Jew in the world went to Israel to live. Assume that Israel could expel all non-Jews and even take extra real estate in Lebanon. I am guessing with all the Jews going there they would have a population of around 16 million, which would put them on par with the Netherlands.

    An Israel of 16 million would be wealthy like the Netherlands. It would be safe, have excellent medical care and social safety nets. It would probably be a great place to live and raise a family. But, what would all the diaspora Jews do?

    A nation of 16 million would need about 40K doctors to have a ratio of 2.5 docs per 1000 population. I think there are at least 100K Jewish physicians in America. What are 60K of them going to do if they went to Israel? What about the existing doctors in Israel and the ones from the UK, Canada, etc.? There would be too many. Some could find work as researchers. But you would think a non-trivial amount would become Uber drivers.

    You could see the same thing happening with lawyers and other professions where a nation of 16 million could only support so many jobs. The advantage of the diaspora is that it allows a group to concentrate on choice professions that they are capable of fulfilling when surrounded by others who can do the other jobs of society. If you are no longer in the diaspora, competition and the carrying capacity of your ethnic nation state makes job choices much tougher

    Yes, I am aware that if what I described actually happened, the USA would lose 1/8th of its physicians which would put a huge crimp on health care here. Ditto with lawyers. But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward. Of course there would be a non-financial benefit of living in a safe nation surrounded by your own people. And as many of us on this blog will agree, you can't put a price on that. Most of us would probably trade financial wealth for better demographics.

    So would it be a positive for diaspora Jews, or a negative for all of them live in Israel?

    istevefan, just wanted to say this is a first class comment.

    It’s important to do these thought experiments. I think about them coming from the science side, but it seems to me they are quite–maybe even more–useful on the social\political side.

    …. But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.

    Super important. It’s good for any people to do everything themselves. Develop the full range of capabilities.

    A notable historic data point is that Britain and France expelled their Jews … and went on to lead the modern world. Britain in particular didn’t have a significant number of Jews come back until quite recently, and as a result developed all the “middle man” capabilities in actual Britons, with terrific effect.

    But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward.

    This point can’t be emphasized enough. It’s been a tremendous boon to Jews to come to America and be able to do their middle-man activities on top of a big rich white–prosperous and rule-of-law–nation. Israel is there now. They really can do “next year in Jerusalem” … but they don’t go! Revealed preference.

    America has been absolutely terrific for the Jews … the Jews for Americans? Uh not, so much and perhaps even fatal.

    But this pattern doesn’t just apply to the Jews. Every member of the Democrats “coalition of fringes”–pretty much the same story. Jewish minoritarianism keeps preaching how just golly gee gosh golly terrible for minorities to bear the burden of life amongst those racist white (i.e. gentile) people.

    Yet … they won’t leave! Blacks–legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. etc.–live way way better than they would or could in Africa. Cheap air travel is here. And they are relative to Africans quite rick. But they won’t pack up and go. And in fact, more Africans keep coming. Hispanics? Same story. Asians? Same story. Jews? Same story. Somehow all that white “racism” and “anti-Semitism” just isn’t doing the trick.

    Nope the minoritarian demand is never “leave us alone” but rather is always “let us in!”. Your schools, your country clubs, your neighborhoods, your nations.

    Revealed preference.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Umm, England let the Jews back in around 1640 just about the time England began its rise.

    The standard pattern was Jews bribed or the monarch extorted money and the Jews lent vast amounts of money to monarch aristocrats mostly for their endless wars.

    Jews also lent money to businesses farmers abd everyone else at very high interest rates. Normal rate was 133% negotiated by the monarch and Jewish leadership before the Jews arruved

    After a few losing wars when the loot couldn’t pay the loans and the ordinary people were sick and tired of high interest balloon payments and the rest the monarch would kick the Jews out and the loans weren’t repaid.

    150 years later the monarchs needed money again and the Jews came back under the same extortion bribe high interest rate conditions.

    The Templars were much much worse 400% interest rates. Plus, the Jews peaceably relied on the courts to foreclose on collateral. Being warriors, the Templar’s just saddled up and took the castles and property of defaulting debtors by force. No Jews ever took over the treasury of France the way the Templars did.

    The Italian bankers were as I don’t want to say bad, but operated very similar to the Jews. Some of them are still around 700 years later.

    It worked for everybody. The monarchs and their armies and navies got their money, the Jews got the capital and a lot of interest back and moved on to the next country when the expulsion came.

    Some ordinary people had their property foreclosed but that happens.
  190. @Jack D
    Israel does give some transitional aid to immigrants, but in the long run welfare benefits are more generous in the US and Europe so if your goal to be a welfare leech you are better off staying in the US. And moving to Israel is a big deal, especially for someone of low intelligence - they speak Hebrew and use a non-Western alphabet. It's REALLY hard to switch languages like that. Israel got a whole bunch of Russians when the Soviet Union fell apart because economic conditions in Russia were relatively worse (by a significant margin) but most immigrants from the West come for ideological or religious reasons, not because of the subsidies, because standards of living are still higher in the West. And buying an apartment in Tel Aviv is as about as affordable as real estate in San Francisco. In fact that subsidies exist in order to make immigration more tempting than it would otherwise be, which is not very for someone coming from the West.

    Israel got a whole bunch of Russians when the Soviet Union fell apart because economic conditions in Russia were relatively worse (by a significant margin) but most immigrants from the West come for ideological or religious reasons, not because of the subsidies, because standards of living are still higher in the West.

    An acquaintance from the NY metro area made aliyah decades ago to the land of milk and honey. Did a U-turn after churning out a bunch of kids. Sabras stick around because it’s all they’ve known. But living in Israel is a rough transition for anyone who grew up stateside. And even sabras end up heading to the US. Because, home sickness aside, it’s really much more pleasant than living in Israel.

  191. @J.Ross
    So people want to murder Jews because Jews are meritocratically successful, wealthy, and generous? Okay, sounds like he has a fine grasp of the issue. Couldn't anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism, which would clearly create problems irrespective of individual wealth level.
    Seriously though, who are the goofs showing up to the "Let Us Cure Your Virulent Anri-Semitism" hectures? I picture the guy on Catch A Predator who didn't want the cookie.

    Couldn’t anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism

    As any visit to The Vatican, in its Spartan austerity, will illustrate.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    As will Tel Aviv's poured concrete.
    , @Anon
    Good one!!!!!!!!!!!


    You need to remember that all that splendid art music architecture and engineering is all for the glory of god not for mankind
    , @Anonymous
    The Mormons are getting to be more impressive than the Vatican, though the latest round of temples they are building are more Branson than Disneyland in the quality of the total environment they evoke (Disney is tough to beat).
    , @Nico
    Nice meme, although the equivocation between the material conditions of the high offices of the Vatican and those of the Jewish people worldwide is pretty blatantly bad-faith, if the intention is to equivocate between the materialistic outlook of Christian/Catholic culture and that of Jewish culture. The clerical population and artistic patrimony of the Vatican is scarcely representative of the people of Catholic societies worldwide, or even of the clergy as a whole. In contrast Jewish wealth is fairly ubiquitous almost anywhere adherents of their religion can be found, except maybe for some shrinking pockets in Yemen and cabbie abodes in Brooklyn.
  192. @Paul
    A friend of mine told me his Jewish girlfriend did get the two of them a price break on a couple of bowling balls. She asked the man who sold and drilled the balls at the bowling alley if a discount could be had for buying two balls. He cut the price a little. My friend was embarrassed when she did that sort of thing.

    My mother isn’t Jewish (or Asian or Hispanic or Middle Eastern), but she used to do the same thing. When I was growing up, I assumed that it was just the normal way that people did their shopping.

    Her technique was to patronize the same stores and restaurants often enough to get to know all of the managers. Then she would sweet-talk and strong-arm them into giving her special deals and discounts.

    As a child, I was taught to keep one eye on the ground for any spare pennies that might be lying around. I was also admonished *never* to give any money to anyone.

    One time, when I was probably about ten, my mother sent me into a store to buy something. On the way out, I gave a dollar to a beggar. When my mother found out that I had given away some of her change, she was so angry that she screamed at me for half an hour. I never made that mistake again.

    Of course, she was constantly stiffing me on lunch money, so I was always having to borrow from my teachers. My mother never made much of an effort to pay them back. I usually had to ask my grandmother for the cash.

  193. @Jack D
    Good comment. Thanks. One quibble. Hong is a very common Chinese word - there is lots of RED stuff in Communist China. But Hongqiao doesn't mean red bridge it means rainbow bridge (rainbow referring to the arch shape).

    Hong 红 red and Hong 虹 rainbow are both pronounced the same (lots of homonyms in Chinese) and even share a radical as you can see from the characters (although I don't know the reason why).

    You had me doubting my memory, so I checked, and it actually is red bridge in this case.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I can't make it out in the photo, but I checked and you are right. In this case it's red bridge. That's strange because a red bridge is not a thing in Chinese culture but a rainbow bridge (arch bridge) is a thing - there are many famous rainbow bridges.
  194. @Almost Missouri
    In the Middle East everyone haggles. Even among Westerners, haggling still holds a purchase (heh) among Southern Europeans and Levantines. A Tunisian friend of mine was badly cheated by an Italian merchant in a way that would have made me genocidally enraged, yet he could only express admiration for the cut-throated way the Italian had outdone him. Similarly, a Greek Consular officer there liked to express how the Middle Eastern culture was similar to Greece, in terms of bargaining and family-work intermingling. Translated into my WEIRD framework, he was saying that he too engaged in market anarchy, nepotism and insider-dealing.

    I myself probably caused some consternation by WEIRDing when I should have When-In-Rome-ed. For instance a customer of my employer invited me to partake some of his residential privileges, which did sound enticing, but I offhandedly replied that I couldn't accept because I had to maintain "clean hands" with respect to my employer's interest. I think this really offended him. Probably he found other employees who were more amenable.

    But this culture can change, though it takes a lifetime. I was amused there by a local friend who was very good at haggling but who had married co-ethnic/co-religionist girl who had grown up in the West whom he then brought back to the Middle East (in effect importing a wife back to her "native" country—sort of the reverse of what we see Muslim immigrant men do here nowadays). His Westernized wife always quailed with embarrassment whenever her husband started squeezing the haggle-vise on a vendor, which was whenever they bought something, so all the time in other words. The irony was that I, a native Westerner, had theretofore always watched these haggle sessions with keen interest since I knew I needed to learn to haggle better so as not to get taken in every deal, but whenever his wife was around, I found it impossible not to feel her embarrassment.

    Haggling lesson from Life of Brian:

  195. @Jack D
    I read the article and I think I understand what you and the author are saying. At first, it seemed to me that whether you haggle is between you and the merchant so I didn't really get why other people were so resentful (unless you are holding up the line haggling with the Home Depot cashier) but I see your point that too many buyers who attempt to haggle eventually undermines the no haggling paradigm in that merchants begin to quote a high starting price to leave room for negotiation which adverse effects those who would prefer not to haggle. It's one of those high trust/low trust society differences - you trust the merchant to quote you a "fair" price and everyone saves having to spend half a day negotiating in order to buy the ingredients for dinner and can get some real productive work done instead.

    OTOH, customers are not averse to coupons and sales and other marketing tricks which involve high starting prices. When JC Penney attempted an "everyday low price" strategy it was a big flop - people want to perceive they are getting a bargain. But as the author of the article pointed out , this kind of price discrimination is egalitarian - everyone can buy when the item is "on sale". But haggling only advantages those who are willing/able to do it and do it well. Maybe there is an element of sour grapes by people who know that they are not good at it?

    That’s it. Thanks for following up.

    I think this from you is a key point: “It’s one of those high trust/low trust society differences” and might help explain some of the visceral reactions.

    OTOH, customers are not averse to coupons and sales and other marketing tricks which involve high starting prices.

    Good point. No one ever said people are consistent ; ) But I think both your egalitarian point and the time saving point of “I can look at the ad and decide if that price works” rather than going to the store for an extended haggle session (which may lead nowhere in the end!) show there is an important difference.

    Maybe there is an element of sour grapes by people who know that they are not good at it?

    Perhaps. But I think it is more likely just annoyance from people who don’t enjoy it and consider it a waste of time. Groups (and individuals) which consider haggling fun and even an art form obviously would see things differently.

    P.S. I hope my points about societal norms and their violation came across. I think that forms an important element of some of the negative feelings about Jews we see.

  196. @Anonymous
    So, why aren't there many Jews with the surname 'Smith' or the Slavic or German equivalent?

    'Taylor' and the like are represented, but curiously 'Smith' isn't.

    Schmitt, Schmitz ,Shmidman etc are not uncommon Jewish names, though not nearly as common as Schneider, Snyder etc

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Schmitz
     
    A non-Jewish Schmitz:

    John G. Schmitz
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




    John George Schmitz (August 12, 1930 – January 10, 2001) was a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives and California State Senate from Orange County, California. He was also a member of the John Birch Society. In 1972 he was the American Independent Party candidate for President of the United States, later known as the American Party.

    Schmitz was notable for his extreme right-wing sympathies. By one measure, he was found to be the third most conservative member of Congress between 1937 and 2002,[1] and the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, of which Schmitz was a longtime leader, later expelled him for extremist rhetoric.[2]

    On October 25, 1971 Schmitz composed an introduction to the highly controversial book None Dare Call it Conspiracy written by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham.[3]

    In 1982, after it was revealed—and Schmitz admitted—that he had engaged in an extra-marital affair and fathered two children with one of his former college students, Schmitz's career as a politician effectively ended, as did his wife Mary's as a conservative political commentator.[citation needed]

    Schmitz's oldest son John P. Schmitz was Deputy White House Counsel to President George H.W. Bush from 1989-1992 and has worked in private practice since 1993, with a focus on transatlantic relations.[4]

    Schmitz's son Joseph E. Schmitz has held prominent posts in Republican presidential administrations [5] and has also worked for the international security firm Blackwater.[6]

    His daughter Mary Kay Letourneau, a 6th grade teacher, became well-known after her arrest for raping a 12 year old male student, whom she later married.
    , @Anonymous

    Schmitt, Schmitz ,Shmidman etc are not uncommon Jewish names, though not nearly as common as Schneider, Snyder etc
     
    Why not "Schmidt"? Is that a common Jewish name?
  197. @Dave Pinsen

    Couldn’t anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism
     
    As any visit to The Vatican, in its Spartan austerity, will illustrate.

    As will Tel Aviv’s poured concrete.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    You're right. Israel is a very Spartan country. The buildings are ugly. The people dress cheaply. I didn't see a single flash car and the public facing side of the houses of the extremely rich, that I saw, were modest.
  198. @Jack D
    Good comment. Thanks. One quibble. Hong is a very common Chinese word - there is lots of RED stuff in Communist China. But Hongqiao doesn't mean red bridge it means rainbow bridge (rainbow referring to the arch shape).

    Hong 红 red and Hong 虹 rainbow are both pronounced the same (lots of homonyms in Chinese) and even share a radical as you can see from the characters (although I don't know the reason why).

    I wish I could show you a mathematically precise explanation of hanzi radicals that worked like an elaborate alphabet and lent itself to a nice orderly chart, and there are attempts at this, some of which work part of the time (like the observation that descending tone words tend to be negative — they tend to be, but it’s not constant), but it’s effectively usage. It could have been an original meaning that doesn’t make a lot of sense now, or could have had to do with the pronunciation or category, or there might be no reason. One of the good things about the radicals is they allow organization into a dictionary without reference to pronunciation.

  199. @Jack D
    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people's time is a big factor. When people here don't find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don't think that's a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies - again it seems like it is beneath people's "dignity" but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike "Jewing down" a merchant, it doesn't hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is " we are so rich that we don't bother with trivial sums" (where the value of "trivial" set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts - I can't really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn't.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms - the merchant sets a "fair" price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you'd settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    Another example is bending down to pick up pennies – again it seems like it is beneath people’s “dignity” but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis

    I’m guilty of that. I never leave a penny, let alone a nickel or dime on the sidewalk. I probably have $200 worth of loose change I’ve accumulated over the past few years. It’s incredible what people just toss. And as you wrote, it is little effort to retrieve. In fact it is probably good exercise bending over to collect them.

  200. @Jack D
    After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian Jews were no longer " religiously oppressed" refugees eligible for US visas and Israel put pressure on the US to make it less easy for Russian Jews to come here in order to funnel that immigration to Israel instead.

    Even during the Soviet period, the ostensible reason under Soviet law that Russian Jews were allowed to leave was for "family reunification". Almost every Soviet Jew that left (aside from those who had actual relatives in the US) received a letter from a (real or imaginary) "cousin" in Israel inviting him to go to Israel. Exit from the Soviet Union was not direct to Israel. Rather they would get off the plane or train in Vienna or Rome and once they got off they would "change their minds" and seek refuge in the US. It was all a kind of elaborate charade but Israel and the US played along because they wanted to help get the Jews out of the Soviet Union. But once the Communists were gone, the same impetus was not there.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian Jews were no longer ” religiously oppressed” refugees eligible for US visas and Israel put pressure on the US to make it less easy for Russian Jews to come here in order to funnel that immigration to Israel instead.

    In my honest opinion, I consider this to have been a huge shame. Soviet Jews could have significantly contributed to the U.S. and thus more of them should have been allowed to come here after 1989.

    My own parents wanted to come to the U.S. in 1991 but the door to the U.S. was closed to them during this time. Thus, they ended up moving to Israel and only got the chance to move to the U.S. 10 years later–specifically in 2001. We then got lucky in winning the Diversity Green Card Lottery in 2004, though they were unable to process my dad’s paperwork in time and thus he had to get a Green Card from his work/job several years later (in 2011, I think). The rest of us got Green Cards back in 2004, though. As for U.S. citizenship, we got it later–everyone but my dad got it in 2010.

    Ultimately, the Diversity Green Card Lottery was not decisive for us (as I wrote above, my dad’s work/job did his Green Card for him and it would have very likely done the same for the rest of us had we not won the Diversity Green Card Lottery), but it was still nice for us to win it. I do wonder what effect the Diversity Green Card Lottery (Diversity Visa Lottery) has on our nation’s average IQ, though. Trump is full of BS when he says that this lottery brings the worst people from various countries into the U.S., but he nevertheless does raise the question of what kind of immigrants this lottery actually does bring to the U.S.

  201. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    I'd read that the line "no one's gettin' fat 'cept Mama Cass" in "Creeque Alley" has nothing to do with her physique, but rather to the fact that, by moonlighting at bar mitzvahs and weddings, she was making money from music when her bandmates were not.

    Anyone in an unsigned rock and roll band knew that “casuals” (weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, frat parties, CYO dances) paid better than rock gigs, which until you had a real record deal usually meant bar gigs. The better class of musicians, who could read well, would get society gigs or play in tribute big bands and they could actually make a decent living if willing to travel regionally.

  202. @Tyrion 2
    Frank Field is left wing. He is also a patriot. If you don't get that, you know nothing about UK politics.

    Left wing and patriot really go well together.

  203. @Jack D
    No I am really trying to understand and I think that the value of people's time is a big factor. When people here don't find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum. As I mentioned before, I don't think that's a complete explanation because the return on haggling is often quite good. Another example is bending down to pick up pennies - again it seems like it is beneath people's "dignity" but if you compute how long it takes to pick up a penny it is actually lucrative on an hourly basis. (And unlike "Jewing down" a merchant, it doesn't hurt anyone, and yet it is frowned upon). The cultural norm is " we are so rich that we don't bother with trivial sums" (where the value of "trivial" set quite high). The irony is that the people who say this are often NOT rich. Maybe it makes them feel richer to be able to ignore small amounts - I can't really be Rockefeller but I can not haggle the way I imagine he wouldn't.

    There is also the problem of asymmetric warfare where Group A operates according to one set of norms - the merchant sets a "fair" price and Group B operates as if they were still back in the village. As your link points out, back in the village the merchant would quote you 2x what the item was worth and you would offer him 1/2X and you'd settle on 1x, where as here, supposedly, the merchant is giving you the 1x price up front so if you haggle it is seen as unfair and creates resentment.

    >When people here don’t find Jewish (or other ethnic) haggling behavior to be despicable, they often find it to be at least amusing, in that it seems to them to be a waste of time to haggle over an insignificant sum.

    Especially since extremely similar stereotypes surrounding ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia elicit at least grudging acknowledgement of brains and work ethic ’round these parts.

  204. @Tom Verso
    “using their wealth in concert” is a very important sociological concept.

    This is my understanding of the works of Kevin MacDonald and E. Michael Jones. The Jewish people worldwide are a unified 'Nation' bound together by a common ideological goal of what is best for Jews. I read recently that a Mossad agent said that he could knock on any door of any Jew in the world and he would be welcomed and helped. I'm Italian-American. If an someone from an Italian agency knocks on my door, I tell him 'forget-about-it'.

    Further, the many local Jewish organizations integrate into national and international groups. This unified ideological perspective and behavior is the basis of Jewish power and influence. Their wealth is of secondary importance. If total Jewish wealth were halved they would still be a National force to be reckoned with.

    In short, it is sociologically meaningless to think of Jews as an ethnic or religious group akin to Italians, Catholics, etc. Rather they are a Nation akin to France, England, etc.

    Jews don’t work “in concert to undermine US government and Constitution.” They work in concert to promote their best interest as do all Nations of the world. What passes as anti-Semitism is rather contra-Semitism. Just as conflicts between say Germany and France were not anti-Germans of Frenchmen having to do with personal characteristics of the people of the respective nations. Rather, it was a conflict of perceived national interest.

    I think some Jews would tell the Mossad agent”Fuhgedaboutit.” If only because they’d rather play golf.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In a book about Mossad I read about "sayanim", the "sayan" being an individual who on a volunteer basis would do helpful stuff for the Mossad. Only Jews were even allowed to be "sayanim", much less recruited.

    If one Jew in 100 were a sayan it would be a huge advantage for the Mossad in its secretive overseas activities.

    I had a friend (long since deceased: he was eighty when I was 25) who was a ham radio operator and a big anti-Cemmunist and evangelical Christian. He had been contacted by someone behind the Iron Curtain apparently from his ham call in the Callbook, and, became pen pals with this guy. The man was effusive in his praise for a US broadcast station and said he secretly built radios so his church members could hear this forbidden station. Well, the guy wrote the address of the station and they used his name in a flier remarking on how much people in Communist countries read it. Someone in the US took it upon themselves to inform the embassy of the communist country and the man wound up in the Gulag (or his country's variant of it) until communism fell. My friend the ham received a letter from him after all this and he wondered how he had been found out and my friend had to tell him. It was very sad.

    Someone in the US took it upon themselves to inform on him. How many Americans would do such a thing? Probably a tiny number, but the story illustrates how a tiny number of finks, rats, resentful traitors, can do immense damage.

    After the war it was revealed that the Norden Bombsight plans had been given to the Germans by a German plant worker. Now 99% of Germans in the US were loyal to the US and many fought against their ancestral homeland, and as it turned out the Norden Bombsight was not really a very important asset-it was more valuable for propaganda and as a honeypot for would be spies than a military weapon. But again, it illustrates that it only takes a tiny number of such people.

    I personally have made the acquaintance of several first generation Chinese and Vietnamese people, and am assured there are Russian and Israeli and Palestinian immigrants in similar situations, working at the Honeywell bomb plant in Belton, Mo. That's where all the non nuclear parts for the fuzing, safety and surety of all US nuclear weapons are made. I bet 99 percent of those people are one hundred percent loyal to the US. That means if there are a hundred, the likelihood of ONE being a fink is pretty good. Since the plant is highly compartmentalized no one person could give a rival nation everything, but schematics for one board here and one machine drawing there could add up. It means the odds of an enemy getting a weapon apart without blowing himself to kingdom come, should one fall in enemy hands, go up substantially.

    Pantex in Amarillo is full of Mexican-Americans. Again, I bet 99 percent are one hundred percent loyal. Since they are at least a quarter of the workforce.......Mexico could be a nuclear power a little sooner than we think, if circumstances change. Pantex is the crown jewel in the GO-CO system, the final assembly point, and it's there you'd want to get a mole or two in, even more than KC or the late Rocky Flats. (RF would have been good for learning to machine plutonium, but that's well described in public materials.)
  205. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Any idea what the limits really are there in a legal and practical sense?
     
    The courts have held that agreements not to "advertise" below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of "advertising"). But legally they can't stop you from SELLING below a set price - that's illegal. And the customer can't buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get "call for price" or "put it in the cart" or "email for price". This way the merchant is not "advertising" below the required minimum price.

    Now most Americans are still willing to haggle when it comes to really high ticket items - houses and cars especially. For lower priced items, I guess if you are making $3/day (either as a merchant or a buyer) then it pays (it may be a matter of necessity or survival) to haggle extensively over the price of each tomato but for most Americans they don't think it is worth their time. The question is where you draw the line between those extremes and how much time you are willing to invest in the negotiation. Because Americans have been socially conditioned not to haggle, they tend to draw the line very high. It might take them 20 minutes to earn $5 but spending 1 minute asking for $5 off the price of a bowling ball is somehow not worth their time or is seen as being "cheap" or begging (even though people who are much richer than they are do it all the time).

    The courts have held that agreements not to “advertise” below a certain price are legal. Manufacturers give merchants (the merchants own) money back in the form of coop advertising, rebates, etc. and they may legally condition granting these funds on the merchant not advertising below a certain price (and listing the price on your web page is a form of “advertising”). But legally they can’t stop you from SELLING below a set price – that’s illegal. And the customer can’t buy the thing until you tell him the price. So you get “call for price” or “put it in the cart” or “email for price”. This way the merchant is not “advertising” below the required minimum price.

    For the longest time (i.e., at least until ten years or so ago) McIntosh Laboratory would revoke dealerships for “substantial discounting” on its new products. New products with McIntosh warranty were to be sold for the list price-period.

    However, trade-ins were allowed, which means dealers might give $500 for a junk Dynaco amp or Pioneer receiver if you were buying, say, a MC7270.

    None challenged its legality. Basically if you wanted a new Mcintosh product you paid list.

    Of course, dealers could sell the product as “used” for any price they liked but, there was no factory warranty, and that was no small thing. Dealers, at least up until ten or fifteen years ago, had to have a repair department fully equipped with the latest and best technology to repair and certify Mcintosh’s products. If you bought the equipment Mc recommended that was a $25K investment if not more.

    If McIntosh is remembered for anything, it’s the famous amplifier clinics headed by Dave O’Brien. An amazing number of people still remember these clinics and Dave at the test bench. Not surprising–he did this for 29 years.

    Dave has had an interest in audio for many years. He joined the Audio Engineering Society in 1949 and is now a lifetime member. He wrote an article titled “A Simple Preamplifier and Tone-Control Unit” that was published in Audio Engineering in November of 1951. He started the first exclusively Hi Fi component store in Columbus, Ohio with a partner, Ed Anderson. It opened in February 1954 and was called Anderson Hi Fi Center. The store was later sold and renamed Stereo Lab. He stayed in that business for 3 1/2 years before joining Bell Sound in Columbus. At his new job with Bell, Dave worked in the sales department, wrote manuals and was a consultant to the advertising manager. He also made some design improvements at his home lab. He left Bell in 1962 to join McIntosh.

    Meanwhile, the first McIntosh Audio Clinic began at the New York High Fidelity Show in 1961. The first production run of the C20 preamp was having diode failure in the DC filament supply. As the first units were sold only in the New York city area, management decided to invite all McIntosh owners to bring in not only their preamplifiers but also their power amplifiers for a free evaluation. These units were restored to normal performance at no charge, including parts and tubes. This free audio clinic was a big success and was talked about by customers and dealers for many months.

    I remember standing in line with a friend out on the sidewalk waiting to get into the show. The man in front of us was holding an MC30 under his arm. An MC30 weighs 30-1/2 lb. We wondered why he would be taking it into the show with him. It wasn’t until later that we learned about a clinic at the McIntosh room.

    After Dave was hired, management decided to hold a second Audio Clinic at the October 1962 Boston High Fidelity Show. This time McIntosh offered a free test for all brands of amplifiers and preamps. This was the beginning of the truth about the performance of other brands. It was not unusual to find the actual power output of an amplifier to be one half of what the advertising claimed. Distortion levels were often well off the graph paper which stopped at 7%. Graphs were actually extended into the area on the form where the names and addresses were located. Again, free tubes and parts were used to restore any McIntosh unit. Dave and Gordon Gow both performed the tests.

    http://www.roger-russell.com/clinics.htm

  206. @NJ Transit Commuter
    “Jewish wealth is a stereotype,” Muller said, “but in almost every society in which Jews have been granted a modicum of equal legal rights, even if there was social and religious discrimination, they tended to do disproportionately well economically."

    This above sentence just gave me whiplash.

    Seems to me pretty obvious that certain ethnic groups and races have different abilities. I have no idea about the reasons for this and won't speculate here. Needless to say, this is not the officially accepted opinion in polite US society these days.

    So we run into all kinds of interesting things, like the sentence above, or all of the elaborate explanations for what we see in society: White privilege, stereotype threat, etc, etc... More and more it reminds me of the crazy theories the Catholic church came up with to depend a geocentric model of the universe (epicycles and the like) when observation pointed more and more towards a heliocentric model.

    Many sterotyoes are true.

  207. @Dave Pinsen

    Couldn’t anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism
     
    As any visit to The Vatican, in its Spartan austerity, will illustrate.

    Good one!!!!!!!!!!!

    You need to remember that all that splendid art music architecture and engineering is all for the glory of god not for mankind

  208. @Bill P
    I used to do some small-scale trading when I lived in China. Pretty good return at the time, although customs was a pain in the rear.

    I'd do most of my purchasing at a market in Beijing called Hongqiao (Red Bridge), where there were vendors from all over the country. The vendors from Dongbei (NE China) required haggling. Their products were inferior and they always asked for way more than they were worth, so you had to "Jew them down" (to use the vernacular relevant to the thread).

    The merchants from Zhejiang, on the other hand, had excellent products of uniform quality and only went through the motions of haggling. Basically, the second price they'd quote was the final price. And it was a good price.

    So, naturally, I ditched the Dongbei merchants and only dealt with the people from Zhejiang. No haggling, profit all around, everyone's happy.

    I think haggling is necessary when dishonesty is the norm in business. You have to take time and negotiate because if you don't you'll get cheated. It's worth it in those conditions. But when you're dealing with honest merchants, it's simply a waste of time.

    So in my view haggling is more of a symptom of a low-trust society than anything else. If most merchants are above board, it's an extra expense in time and effort. If not, it's a necessary precaution.

    You should get and listen to some of the sales training tapes from the late David Sandler. “Negative Reverse Selling” I think he called it. Much more than sales training at work there.

  209. The most bizarre thing about this Jewish hissy over the muzzie gal’s comment is that there isn’t anything specifically anti-Semitic about it–at all.

    The claim that politicians votes are influenced by contributions, by money is absolutely *routine* when attacking any “special interest”–basically any position you don’t like.

    You hear that about the NRA and gun control. Wall Street and proposals for financial regulation. The defense industry and military spending and military aid. Environmentalists trot it out all the time against oil companies, car companies, real estate developers, etc. etc. Conservatives say it with respect to the trial lawyers or public employee unions.

    It’s a bog standard line. It’s a basic assertion that your preferred position is the public interest one, and politicians are voting the other way because of cash. Sometimes it’s not quite the full story. The NRA’s power doesn’t come from money, but from it’s endorsement, because a lot of Americans care a great deal about their gun rights and vote to preserve them. The unions bring money, but also campaign staff and a bit of a vote bank. But overall, it’s quite a reasonable and legitimate thing for an advocate to say. There’s no doubt for a bunch of stuff … it really is about the Benjamins.

    For her comment to be anti-Semitic, would require that somehow this general rule is obviously not true in the case of US Israel policy. Perhaps because the Jews don’t have money or don’t use it to to influence politics. The mind reels.

  210. @Bill P
    You had me doubting my memory, so I checked, and it actually is red bridge in this case.

    I can’t make it out in the photo, but I checked and you are right. In this case it’s red bridge. That’s strange because a red bridge is not a thing in Chinese culture but a rainbow bridge (arch bridge) is a thing – there are many famous rainbow bridges.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    Yeah, it's a lousy photo, but it does the job if you expand it.

    I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if it were rainbow bridge, because that would have stood out in Beijing. I remember the places with psychedelic type names, like the "magic mushroom" bar I used to visit on (I think) Xizhimen. It's probably been bulldozed, but Beijing had a pretty cool art scene back in those days. I doubt Mr. Xi would tolerate that stuff. He's too busy flattening the old neighborhoods and building his craptastic new China.

    BTW, the market is right across the street from the Temple of Heaven, which is in my opinion the best park in Beijing. I went there one year on Chinese New Year when the city streets were deserted and I had the entire park to myself. I'll never forget that. It's really impressive when you see it without distractions.
  211. @Jack D
    Absolutely right - us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert (we play a little klezmer music in the background) how we can use our wealth to undermine the Constitution today. No goys are allowed in these meetings. We get fined if we haven't used our wealth during the previous week to weaken the Constitution in some way. Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it's all fake.

    No other religion has Elders of Baptists or Elders of Presbyterians or Elders of Mormons.. oh, wait they do have those.

    Absolutely right – us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert

    Wack D with his stereotypical duplicity. RobinG wrote nothing about “secretly.”

    Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it’s all fake.

    Here we agree! “Joo organizations like the ACLU” are anti-Second Amendment. That’s anti-Constitutional and that’s treason. See also: Everytown For Gun Safety.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jewish or otherwise, the real conspiracies are conducted openly and in public.
  212. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    istevefan, just wanted to say this is a first class comment.

    It's important to do these thought experiments. I think about them coming from the science side, but it seems to me they are quite--maybe even more--useful on the social\political side.

    .... But for the most part, prior to modern day open-borders immigration, the natives pretty much had to fill the job slots from the lowest to the highest.
     
    Super important. It's good for any people to do everything themselves. Develop the full range of capabilities.

    A notable historic data point is that Britain and France expelled their Jews ... and went on to lead the modern world. Britain in particular didn't have a significant number of Jews come back until quite recently, and as a result developed all the "middle man" capabilities in actual Britons, with terrific effect.

    But it appears that if it did happen a lot of diaspora Jews would find themselves worse off if they could not keep their career or transfer to one of comparable prestige and reward.
     
    This point can't be emphasized enough. It's been a tremendous boon to Jews to come to America and be able to do their middle-man activities on top of a big rich white--prosperous and rule-of-law--nation. Israel is there now. They really can do "next year in Jerusalem" ... but they don't go! Revealed preference.

    America has been absolutely terrific for the Jews ... the Jews for Americans? Uh not, so much and perhaps even fatal.


    But this pattern doesn't just apply to the Jews. Every member of the Democrats "coalition of fringes"--pretty much the same story. Jewish minoritarianism keeps preaching how just golly gee gosh golly terrible for minorities to bear the burden of life amongst those racist white (i.e. gentile) people.

    Yet ... they won't leave! Blacks--legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. etc.--live way way better than they would or could in Africa. Cheap air travel is here. And they are relative to Africans quite rick. But they won't pack up and go. And in fact, more Africans keep coming. Hispanics? Same story. Asians? Same story. Jews? Same story. Somehow all that white "racism" and "anti-Semitism" just isn't doing the trick.

    Nope the minoritarian demand is never "leave us alone" but rather is always "let us in!". Your schools, your country clubs, your neighborhoods, your nations.

    Revealed preference.

    Umm, England let the Jews back in around 1640 just about the time England began its rise.

    The standard pattern was Jews bribed or the monarch extorted money and the Jews lent vast amounts of money to monarch aristocrats mostly for their endless wars.

    Jews also lent money to businesses farmers abd everyone else at very high interest rates. Normal rate was 133% negotiated by the monarch and Jewish leadership before the Jews arruved

    After a few losing wars when the loot couldn’t pay the loans and the ordinary people were sick and tired of high interest balloon payments and the rest the monarch would kick the Jews out and the loans weren’t repaid.

    150 years later the monarchs needed money again and the Jews came back under the same extortion bribe high interest rate conditions.

    The Templars were much much worse 400% interest rates. Plus, the Jews peaceably relied on the courts to foreclose on collateral. Being warriors, the Templar’s just saddled up and took the castles and property of defaulting debtors by force. No Jews ever took over the treasury of France the way the Templars did.

    The Italian bankers were as I don’t want to say bad, but operated very similar to the Jews. Some of them are still around 700 years later.

    It worked for everybody. The monarchs and their armies and navies got their money, the Jews got the capital and a lot of interest back and moved on to the next country when the expulsion came.

    Some ordinary people had their property foreclosed but that happens.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna

    Umm, England let the Jews back in around 1640 just about the time England began its rise.
     
    England's Golden Age had been underway for nearly 100 years by then. In fact, by 1640 it was clear that England had become--among other things--a wealth-generating engine nonpareil, and you can bet the Chosen People weren't going to let the English enjoy all of that alone.
  213. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hibernian
    I think some Jews would tell the Mossad agent"Fuhgedaboutit." If only because they'd rather play golf.

    In a book about Mossad I read about “sayanim”, the “sayan” being an individual who on a volunteer basis would do helpful stuff for the Mossad. Only Jews were even allowed to be “sayanim”, much less recruited.

    If one Jew in 100 were a sayan it would be a huge advantage for the Mossad in its secretive overseas activities.

    I had a friend (long since deceased: he was eighty when I was 25) who was a ham radio operator and a big anti-Cemmunist and evangelical Christian. He had been contacted by someone behind the Iron Curtain apparently from his ham call in the Callbook, and, became pen pals with this guy. The man was effusive in his praise for a US broadcast station and said he secretly built radios so his church members could hear this forbidden station. Well, the guy wrote the address of the station and they used his name in a flier remarking on how much people in Communist countries read it. Someone in the US took it upon themselves to inform the embassy of the communist country and the man wound up in the Gulag (or his country’s variant of it) until communism fell. My friend the ham received a letter from him after all this and he wondered how he had been found out and my friend had to tell him. It was very sad.

    Someone in the US took it upon themselves to inform on him. How many Americans would do such a thing? Probably a tiny number, but the story illustrates how a tiny number of finks, rats, resentful traitors, can do immense damage.

    After the war it was revealed that the Norden Bombsight plans had been given to the Germans by a German plant worker. Now 99% of Germans in the US were loyal to the US and many fought against their ancestral homeland, and as it turned out the Norden Bombsight was not really a very important asset-it was more valuable for propaganda and as a honeypot for would be spies than a military weapon. But again, it illustrates that it only takes a tiny number of such people.

    I personally have made the acquaintance of several first generation Chinese and Vietnamese people, and am assured there are Russian and Israeli and Palestinian immigrants in similar situations, working at the Honeywell bomb plant in Belton, Mo. That’s where all the non nuclear parts for the fuzing, safety and surety of all US nuclear weapons are made. I bet 99 percent of those people are one hundred percent loyal to the US. That means if there are a hundred, the likelihood of ONE being a fink is pretty good. Since the plant is highly compartmentalized no one person could give a rival nation everything, but schematics for one board here and one machine drawing there could add up. It means the odds of an enemy getting a weapon apart without blowing himself to kingdom come, should one fall in enemy hands, go up substantially.

    Pantex in Amarillo is full of Mexican-Americans. Again, I bet 99 percent are one hundred percent loyal. Since they are at least a quarter of the workforce…….Mexico could be a nuclear power a little sooner than we think, if circumstances change. Pantex is the crown jewel in the GO-CO system, the final assembly point, and it’s there you’d want to get a mole or two in, even more than KC or the late Rocky Flats. (RF would have been good for learning to machine plutonium, but that’s well described in public materials.)

  214. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Absolutely right – us Joos have the Elders of Zion where we all get together every Shabbos and secretly plot in concert
     
    Wack D with his stereotypical duplicity. RobinG wrote nothing about “secretly.”

    Joo organizations like the ACLU pretend that they are fighting to uphold Constitutional rights like free speech but it’s all fake.
     
    Here we agree! “Joo organizations like the ACLU” are anti-Second Amendment. That’s anti-Constitutional and that’s treason. See also: Everytown For Gun Safety.

    Jewish or otherwise, the real conspiracies are conducted openly and in public.

  215. A security guard, who had a gun but was obviously completely untrained, has shot a man who was “canvassing” outside a synagogue. The shooting appears to have been a warning shot (which is illegal) ricoche’ing into the man’s leg in a non-life-threatening injury. Expect both lyingpress certainty that this guy had it coming, and a lawsuit. An attached school responded to the sound of the gunshot by going into lockdown.
    https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jewish-school-in-LA-goes-on-lockdown-as-security-guard-shoots-man-in-leg-580738

    • Replies: @Anon
    Security guard had an African accent. Victim claims he was filming the interesting architecture of the synagogue. Victim claims to be trans.

    Most black security guards get their jobs through the parole office.
    , @Tyrion 2
    Man who claims to be trans and also known as "Furry Potato" tries to enter all girls' high school/synagogue with a camera. The security guard prohibits this. A scuffle ensues and said security guard shoots provocateur in the leg. A graze results.

    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-synagogue-shooting-20190214-story.html

    Here is another of "Furry Potato's" past actions: "making a terrorist threat against a marine recruiting station."

    https://www.usmclife.com/2018/06/transgender-arrested-for-allegedly-making-terrorist-threats-at-marine-recruiting-station/
  216. @Jack D
    You're missing the point - crass and vulgar are just words for "bad" - why is it bad? Saying it's a white thang is not helpful - if you can't articulate why it's bad you have no insight into your own culture. If I asked you why killing people for the slightest offense is bad you wouldn't say it's a white thang, you'd have lots of reasons that you'd be able to articulate. You can't have a functioning society where people kill each other whenever they are offended but cultures where bargaining is common is ubiquitous. Even in the West we didn't alway have department stores with little tags on every item.

    In China or Lebanon, it would be "presumptuous" or "haughty" (again just words for "bad") for a merchant to give you a price and refuse to negotiate. Just who the hell does he think he is that he is above negotiating?

    You’re missing the point – crass and vulgar are just words for “bad” – why is it bad? Saying it’s a white thang is not helpful – if you can’t articulate why it’s bad you have no insight into your own culture.

    Jack you’re an American and can’t figure this out?

    Haggling is extremely economically inefficient.

    The society–at large–wins when goods\services are priced transparently. This is a big win for people in two ways:
    1) They don’t waste time haggling. All that time is recaptured for productive or leisure activity. Plus all the emotional drama is eliminated.

    2) They don’t have to spend time accumulating knowledge of what the real market price is–which you sort of need to learn to haggle very effectively.

    So a nation moving to fixed-posted-prices model gains tremendously.

    ~~
    But like so many nice things that come from having a cooperative high-trust population … it can be destroyed by low-trust interlopers who don’t cooperate.

    Simple model:
    Merchant/craftsman/service-provider is selling something. His costs, fixed and variable average to $40. But he needs a 25% profit–$10 a pop–to make his living feed his family. Other vendors are in pretty much the same boat. Market equilibrium price is $50. Posted prices, everyone we’ll call them “natives” is paying $50, life is fine. (Innovation down the road might improve things, but for where we’re at with technology, all is well.)

    But then some other people arrive, the hagglers. They haggle, whine, waste the vendors time and to just get their ass taken care of and out of his hair the vendor cuts them a break. Ok, fine $45. But the vendor isn’t really going to live on $45 bucks for everyone. He can’t pay his bills, feeds his kids. He’d have to do something else.

    One of “the hagglers”, the vendor can just deal with it. But now say more of “the hagglers” show up. Now they are 10% of the populace. Their haggling is wasting more of his time–preventing him from doing useful labor and generally making his work day less pleasant–and if he gives them $45 it will really bite into his family’s lifestyle.

    He could post a sign in the window: “Haggler people not welcome”. (That’s no doubt how he feels.) And maybe the best most-efficient vendor could get away with that. But the marginal guys–no. So what can he do? Well he can … raise prices! Charge $52. Sure the hagglers will haggle it down to maybe $46, but some of the non-haggling natives will make up for this by paying full price.

    Take a moment to reflect:

    Net loss in economic efficiency. Net loss in pleasantness of life. And wealth transfer from cooperative high-trust people to … the assholes.

    • Replies: @Anon
    An older Mexican woman told me about how Sears wiped out local stores when it expanded to Mexico and S America in the 1940s and 50s. Shoppers were so happy to walk into a store, see a stated price and just pay it instead of endless bargaining. Furniture delivery? Set price simple and quick.

    It’s possible to haggle with vets as their prices are so high they can afford to reduce price by 1/2 or more
    , @Trevor H.
    One more of many reasons why an advanced, civilized society can tolerate a small number of minorities from backward lands but never more than that. If even one small group sets about to destroy a high-trust society it can succeed if it's first able to inoculate itself against legitimate criticism.
  217. @Jack D
    I can't make it out in the photo, but I checked and you are right. In this case it's red bridge. That's strange because a red bridge is not a thing in Chinese culture but a rainbow bridge (arch bridge) is a thing - there are many famous rainbow bridges.

    Yeah, it’s a lousy photo, but it does the job if you expand it.

    I’m pretty sure I would have remembered if it were rainbow bridge, because that would have stood out in Beijing. I remember the places with psychedelic type names, like the “magic mushroom” bar I used to visit on (I think) Xizhimen. It’s probably been bulldozed, but Beijing had a pretty cool art scene back in those days. I doubt Mr. Xi would tolerate that stuff. He’s too busy flattening the old neighborhoods and building his craptastic new China.

    BTW, the market is right across the street from the Temple of Heaven, which is in my opinion the best park in Beijing. I went there one year on Chinese New Year when the city streets were deserted and I had the entire park to myself. I’ll never forget that. It’s really impressive when you see it without distractions.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Temple of Heaven is great and must have been even greater without the crowds. My MIL has photos from when she saw it in the early '80s and the Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests (which most people think of as the Temple but really the Temple is the whole complex) was painted with much more muted colors and slightly run down looking. It looks very sharp now and the colors really pop (especially on a rare sunny day) but I don't know which colors are really more authentic. The original temple burned down in the 19th century and the one you see now was rebuilt with timbers from Oregon because you could no longer get big trees in China at that point - all the 1st growth forest had been cut down centuries before.

    "Rainbow bridge" sounds sort of psychedelic in English but in Chinese it just refers (slightly poetically) to an arch shaped bridge and has nothing to do with rainbows per se.

  218. @Reg Cæsar

    That is, until now. The Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is hosting “Loaded: Jews & Money,”
     
    And according to a story on Drudge, there should be piles of human feces outside in the streets.

    Why didn't they hold it in a clean city?

    No, it’s in the inner Richmond just west of presidio heights; a couple miles west of Van Ness the street that divides the fecal district from the rest of the city. Nice place, lots of kids programs open to everybody

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    the street that divides the fecal district from the rest of the city.
     
    Now that's classic.
  219. @Dave Pinsen

    Couldn’t anything to do with the Semitic world and Christendom having totally opposite attitudes toward materialism
     
    As any visit to The Vatican, in its Spartan austerity, will illustrate.

    The Mormons are getting to be more impressive than the Vatican, though the latest round of temples they are building are more Branson than Disneyland in the quality of the total environment they evoke (Disney is tough to beat).

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I got a tour of the Mormon temple in Oakland once. Spectacular site.
  220. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    You’re missing the point – crass and vulgar are just words for “bad” – why is it bad? Saying it’s a white thang is not helpful – if you can’t articulate why it’s bad you have no insight into your own culture.
     
    Jack you're an American and can't figure this out?

    Haggling is extremely economically inefficient.

    The society--at large--wins when goods\services are priced transparently. This is a big win for people in two ways:
    1) They don't waste time haggling. All that time is recaptured for productive or leisure activity. Plus all the emotional drama is eliminated.

    2) They don't have to spend time accumulating knowledge of what the real market price is--which you sort of need to learn to haggle very effectively.

    So a nation moving to fixed-posted-prices model gains tremendously.

    ~~
    But like so many nice things that come from having a cooperative high-trust population ... it can be destroyed by low-trust interlopers who don't cooperate.

    Simple model:
    Merchant/craftsman/service-provider is selling something. His costs, fixed and variable average to $40. But he needs a 25% profit--$10 a pop--to make his living feed his family. Other vendors are in pretty much the same boat. Market equilibrium price is $50. Posted prices, everyone we'll call them "natives" is paying $50, life is fine. (Innovation down the road might improve things, but for where we're at with technology, all is well.)

    But then some other people arrive, the hagglers. They haggle, whine, waste the vendors time and to just get their ass taken care of and out of his hair the vendor cuts them a break. Ok, fine $45. But the vendor isn't really going to live on $45 bucks for everyone. He can't pay his bills, feeds his kids. He'd have to do something else.

    One of "the hagglers", the vendor can just deal with it. But now say more of "the hagglers" show up. Now they are 10% of the populace. Their haggling is wasting more of his time--preventing him from doing useful labor and generally making his work day less pleasant--and if he gives them $45 it will really bite into his family's lifestyle.

    He could post a sign in the window: "Haggler people not welcome". (That's no doubt how he feels.) And maybe the best most-efficient vendor could get away with that. But the marginal guys--no. So what can he do? Well he can ... raise prices! Charge $52. Sure the hagglers will haggle it down to maybe $46, but some of the non-haggling natives will make up for this by paying full price.

    Take a moment to reflect:

    Net loss in economic efficiency. Net loss in pleasantness of life. And wealth transfer from cooperative high-trust people to ... the assholes.

    An older Mexican woman told me about how Sears wiped out local stores when it expanded to Mexico and S America in the 1940s and 50s. Shoppers were so happy to walk into a store, see a stated price and just pay it instead of endless bargaining. Furniture delivery? Set price simple and quick.

    It’s possible to haggle with vets as their prices are so high they can afford to reduce price by 1/2 or more

    • Replies: @res

    It’s possible to haggle with vets as their prices are so high they can afford to reduce price by 1/2 or more
     
    You know what really needs to be brought into this discussion of haggling and posted list prices?

    Medical bills. What is up with that "market"?
  221. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kaganovitch
    Schmitt, Schmitz ,Shmidman etc are not uncommon Jewish names, though not nearly as common as Schneider, Snyder etc

    Schmitz

    A non-Jewish Schmitz:

    John G. Schmitz
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    John George Schmitz (August 12, 1930 – January 10, 2001) was a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives and California State Senate from Orange County, California. He was also a member of the John Birch Society. In 1972 he was the American Independent Party candidate for President of the United States, later known as the American Party.

    Schmitz was notable for his extreme right-wing sympathies. By one measure, he was found to be the third most conservative member of Congress between 1937 and 2002,[1] and the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, of which Schmitz was a longtime leader, later expelled him for extremist rhetoric.[2]

    On October 25, 1971 Schmitz composed an introduction to the highly controversial book None Dare Call it Conspiracy written by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham.[3]

    In 1982, after it was revealed—and Schmitz admitted—that he had engaged in an extra-marital affair and fathered two children with one of his former college students, Schmitz’s career as a politician effectively ended, as did his wife Mary’s as a conservative political commentator.[citation needed]

    Schmitz’s oldest son John P. Schmitz was Deputy White House Counsel to President George H.W. Bush from 1989-1992 and has worked in private practice since 1993, with a focus on transatlantic relations.[4]

    Schmitz’s son Joseph E. Schmitz has held prominent posts in Republican presidential administrations [5] and has also worked for the international security firm Blackwater.[6]

    His daughter Mary Kay Letourneau, a 6th grade teacher, became well-known after her arrest for raping a 12 year old male student, whom she later married.

    • Replies: @Kaganovitch
    Yes, many German surnames were common to both Christian and Jewish Germans. In addition to the above mentioned names , Stahl, Eisen and the like ,may also refer to Smith occupation.
  222. @Bill P
    Yeah, it's a lousy photo, but it does the job if you expand it.

    I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if it were rainbow bridge, because that would have stood out in Beijing. I remember the places with psychedelic type names, like the "magic mushroom" bar I used to visit on (I think) Xizhimen. It's probably been bulldozed, but Beijing had a pretty cool art scene back in those days. I doubt Mr. Xi would tolerate that stuff. He's too busy flattening the old neighborhoods and building his craptastic new China.

    BTW, the market is right across the street from the Temple of Heaven, which is in my opinion the best park in Beijing. I went there one year on Chinese New Year when the city streets were deserted and I had the entire park to myself. I'll never forget that. It's really impressive when you see it without distractions.

    Temple of Heaven is great and must have been even greater without the crowds. My MIL has photos from when she saw it in the early ’80s and the Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests (which most people think of as the Temple but really the Temple is the whole complex) was painted with much more muted colors and slightly run down looking. It looks very sharp now and the colors really pop (especially on a rare sunny day) but I don’t know which colors are really more authentic. The original temple burned down in the 19th century and the one you see now was rebuilt with timbers from Oregon because you could no longer get big trees in China at that point – all the 1st growth forest had been cut down centuries before.

    “Rainbow bridge” sounds sort of psychedelic in English but in Chinese it just refers (slightly poetically) to an arch shaped bridge and has nothing to do with rainbows per se.

  223. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Don't Look at Me
    A dumb farmer is a hungry farmer. Food doesn't just leap out of the ground and into your cart.

    Farmers have to live by the calendar, knowing when to plant and when to harvest. They have to have the discipline to get up every day and toil in the field, for a reward that is months away. They have to store food, firewood, and supplies for the winter or they will starve.

    The ant and the grasshopper, anyone?

    A farmer needs to have future time orientation, but he does not necessarily have to be particularly highly cognitive. Some farmers are, but most are of average or slightly higher intelligence, but with a very developed sense of consequences of present behavior to their future. Farming is inevitably hard physical work even with all of the mechanized technology now in use.If you didn’t grow up doing it you probably will not succeed at it.

  224. @peterike

    You’re missing the point – crass and vulgar are just words for “bad” – why is it bad? Saying it’s a white thang is not helpful – if you can’t articulate why it’s bad you have no insight into your own culture.

     

    Res has already replied well. But let's add some more.

    First, crass and vulgar are not simple synonyms for "bad." They have specific meanings.

    Crass: without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid

    Vulgar: characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste

    So for starters, it is, as res says, a cultural thing. And that ought to be the end of the argument. It's white culture. This is (was) a white nation. Abide by our social mores or get out. Well, it should be as simple as that.

    Now why is it crass? Haggling is arguing. It's emotional, it's heated, it pits one side against the other, it's competitive. Now, from a men-with-chains perspective, that's all good sport. But from a white culture perspective, entering into such a fray for the sake of saving a few dollars is using a harpoon to spear a minnow. Why on earth would you bother? Only a lout would behave in this way.

    Arguing between strangers is a thing to be avoided whenever possible. It lowers the social tone. It creates friction where there need not be any friction. It can set up one social group against the other. It's bad for society. It has no upside whatsoever. And all that for the sake of grubbing a few extra dollars.

    That's why bargaining over a car or house is NOT considered déclassé. The stakes are high enough that it's worth it. But even then, you don't haggle over the house price. You make an offer. Car buying is more mercenary, at least in New York where it's all men-with-chains unless you're buying high end. See, even there, the buying experience is hugely different between Mercedes and, say, Toyota. If I try to buy a Toyota odds are 95% that I'm getting a first generation immigrant from somewhere-not-white trying to sell me a car using every scheme he can come up with to fleece me ("I can only give you this offer if you sign today"). It's repulsive. Haggling is, at the end of the day, simply in bad taste.

    Ultimately, it comes down to people who are naturally crass and vulgar -- and among a certain sort of Jew this has long actually been a point of pride -- being almost genetically incapable of even understanding the concepts of crass and vulgar and why they are negatives. Just like men-with-chains will never understand the concept of "honor" and "self-sacrifice" and would see a heroic act as someone being a dumb chump. Some things can't be taught.

    Men in chains might argue that it’s dishonorable to let your daughter dress like a whore and sleep with half the football team. Some things can’t be taught.

    I realize that “emotional” and “arguing” is supposed to be a bad word in WASPdom – you are supposed to keep it to yourself and either drink it off or kill yourself or both. Other cultures view lack of emotion as being “dead inside”. Americans waste a huge amount of time watching sports but most don’t actually participate in any. In some cultures, bargaining is considered a participation sport and one that is open to all and you don’t have to pay for a country club membership to play. It’s a form of play fighting – to you it looks like people are screaming at each other and questioning each other morals, character, paternity, etc. but really there are no hard feelings when the deal is struck.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Kaganovitch
    In some cultures, bargaining is considered a participation sport and one that is open to all and you don’t have to pay for a country club membership to play.

    From what I saw of it in Israel, and even more so in Morocco, it seemed more like performance art. There were particularly creative merchants who would attract a small crowd of kibitzers around them ,presumably because they gave good performances. Perhaps the crowd was part of their shtick, it makes the mark/customer feel like he's disappointing everyone or not being a good sport if he walks away. As an introvert and an American I found it painful to participate, but kind of fun to watch.
    , @Kaganovitch
    Men in chains might argue that it’s dishonorable to let your daughter dress like a whore and sleep with half the football team. Some things can’t be taught.

    Jack, I see you've let your subscription to the Volkischer Beobachter lapse. The degradation of American females mores is the sole responsibility of Jew smut merchants. Try to keep up.
    , @Jefferson
    "I realize that “emotional” and “arguing” is supposed to be a bad word in WASPdom – you are supposed to keep it to yourself and either drink it off or kill yourself or both. Other cultures view lack of emotion as being “dead inside”.

    Asians lack even more emotion than WASPs. In fact Asians think WASPs show too much emotion, so imagine what they would think of Italians or Brazilians for example.

    I heard that in Asian culture it is extremely rare for Asian parents to tell their kids that they love them.
  225. @Anonym
    tvtropes.org

    Most everyone who stumbles on the site and exits, after a time, learns what tropes are. It is the same font bubbling forth Mary Sue, McGuffin, etc into the lexicon.

    I guess they decided the word “topos” would have been too hard for people to spell, pronounce, or pluralize, so they went and raped the dictionary instead. “Irony” was ruined decades ago. Soon there will be no language to talk about language, which I don’t think even Orwell foresaw.

    • Replies: @Kaganovitch
    Soon there will be no language to talk about language, which I don’t think even Orwell foresaw.

    Karl Kraus on the other hand ...
    .
  226. @Sean
    Frank Field always stuck me as Labour's Enoch Powell (he even looks and talks like him). He is working class ethic English. It is only a few years ago that the British Labour Party leadership contest for came down to the Milibrands In September 2010, Miliband narrowly lost the Labour leadership election to his brother Ed.. Jeremy Corbyn had very little Jewish ancestry, even less than Blair, but really you cannot pretend Labour is Anti-Semitic.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3413292,00.html

    LONDON – Many of the key players in the escalating British campaign to boycott Israel are Jewish or Israeli, the Jewish Chronicle revealed in an investigation published Thursday.


    According to the investigation, the Jewish academics justify their stance as part of the struggle for Palestinian rights and ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.


    The report stated that a high proportion of the academics were deeply involved in UCU, the University and College Union, which last month sparked an international outcry by voting to facilitate a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.


    Anti-boycott figures suggest that the campaign has been fuelled by a well-organized mix of far-left activists and Islamic organizations, the JC reported. In reality, the main proponents are a loosely knit collection of academics and trade unionists linked to groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for the Boycotting of Israeli Goods, and Bricup, the British Committee for Universities of Palestine
     
    Working class British do not have their own intellectuals, and so need Jews to do our thinking for us, doing what they say is a habit we don't spend much time questioning. I know that the brilliant public relations and political experts working for Israel must always lead with their Sunday punch and go nuclear with a moralising onslaught on white gentiles to get them to altruistically punish anyone Israel does not like, but could you stop getting us to blame ourselves for your own self hating intelligentsia please?

    Labour’s anti-Semitism is merely an ancillary
    to its institutional oikophobia.

  227. @Anon
    No, it’s in the inner Richmond just west of presidio heights; a couple miles west of Van Ness the street that divides the fecal district from the rest of the city. Nice place, lots of kids programs open to everybody

    the street that divides the fecal district from the rest of the city.

    Now that’s classic.

    • Replies: @Anon
    THAT’S San Francisco It’s also near Pelosi and Feinstein’s homes
  228. @PapayaSF
    This could be one result of centuries of discrimination. In the old days owning land was the key to wealth. Jews were often forbidden to own land, so many became merchants, traders, moneylenders, gem cutters, etc: careers that were portable. As economies and technology advanced, those became more lucrative than farming. And as Mencken was fond of pointing out, farmers are not known for brains.

    So if for millennia Jews often had to survive by their wits, and the slow or dumb or unlucky were less likely to survive and reproduce, there's a man-made selection pressure to make the group smarter (on average) over time.

    There were plenty of Jewish peasants in pre-WWII Poland.
    They died.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Some came to the United States before the war. Some lived in Russian occupied eastern Poland unmolested Some fled east to Russia
  229. @Anon1
    In my local area, you always see hordes of Indian immigrants returning items at stores. They're also infamous for bringing books of coupons wherever they go.

    At one of the largest local stores, there's food for sale outside. Inside, there are tiny free food samples available. I rarely see Indians buying any food outside, but they're always swarming the free sample booths inside.

    Indians are Jews times ten. In comparison to Indians, Jews seem like New England WASPs.

    After seeing Raj’s parents in BBT, I can see the resemblance.

  230. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Jews were not particularly money-oriented in societies where they permitted them to live like other people, own land & engage in trades. They were cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths,... in ancient Iran, Parthian empire, Rome, Abbasid caliphate, Cordoba caliphate...

    See more comprehensive histories by Simon Dubnov, or a more accessible & shorter authored by German historian Werner Keller.

    Jews always lived in their own neighborhoods so obviously they worked for each other building and repairing, specializing in various trades and crafts buying and selling necessary things. Jews weren’t allowed to own land but farm land was often rented. Sometimes people did farm work for a share of the crops or animals or rented a mule ox horse or equipment for a share of the harvest.

    If they’d lived among Christians they could have survived just being money lenders. But in segregated communities they’d have to engage in all the normal economic activities.

    This is just my opinion. I don’t believe all the Christians virtuously abstained from money lending usurious or not.

    • Replies: @HA
    This is just my opinion. I don’t believe all the Christians virtuously abstained from money lending usurious or not.

    That's not the only reason you don't want Christians (i.e. locals) handling the financial system. For example, the problem with hiring locals for, say, taxfarming -- as anyone trying to open a business anywhere in his hometown in, say, Africa can tall you -- was that all their relatives would expect discounts and extensions, and if your cousin wasn't given a break on this month's payment, you could expect an angry visit from your grandmother and a chilly atmosphere at the next get-together. Those not related to you would also be angry at this state of affairs, knowing that you would extract any shortfall by being even more ruthless whenever their payments came due.

    No, if you want to bleed the tenants and peasants and serfs, it's far better to hire a group of people who pride themselves in remaining apart, and who are prone to look down upon and sneer at all those "lazy, drunken peasants" (as one frequent commenter on this site called them), always ready with a sob story about why they can't pay this month, and who have no remorse in squeezing them all the more. Rinse and repeat this arrangement for a few centuries, and then be shocked, shocked, to find mutual and sometimes violent hostility between these two groups, one that can then be conveniently scapegoated on Christianity. (Admittedly, the lower clergy did tend to be more likely to lash out at Jews, but that probably had something to do with the fact that they could see what these oppressive taxes -- and the devious design by which they were extracted -- were doing to the poor, whereas the popes and bishops whose families had their own estates that also hired Jews to collect the rent, were more likely to be on the side of the status quo.)

    To the extent anyone recasts these tensions as simply a case of the Jews being more "honest" with regard to tax-collecting and the like (which I've heard more than once), is sorely missing the point.

  231. @Rosamond Vincy
    There were plenty of Jewish peasants in pre-WWII Poland.
    They died.

    Some came to the United States before the war. Some lived in Russian occupied eastern Poland unmolested Some fled east to Russia

  232. @Reg Cæsar

    the street that divides the fecal district from the rest of the city.
     
    Now that's classic.

    THAT’S San Francisco It’s also near Pelosi and Feinstein’s homes

  233. @Anonymous
    The Mormons are getting to be more impressive than the Vatican, though the latest round of temples they are building are more Branson than Disneyland in the quality of the total environment they evoke (Disney is tough to beat).

    I got a tour of the Mormon temple in Oakland once. Spectacular site.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I got a tour of the Mormon temple in Oakland once. Spectacular site.
     
    They let gentiles tour the temples when new, but once the building is consecrated (or whatever word they use), you can't go back. Tabernacles have looser rules, so you can go see the choir.

    (And can someone tell me why a Kindle would keep changing gentile to Hercules or febrile?)
     
     

  234. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Just on the news the LAPD arrested the black immigrant security guard who shot the White man to woman trans who was taking pictures of the attractive synagogue next to the girls school on Beverly dr

    The trans critter looks dresses and speaks like a man. Principal of the school says they’re always in alert. The Jews of Los Angeles have all their buildings surrounded by walls and razor wire.

    There’s a Jewish school on Olympic a bit west of Bundy with a 20 ft wall. That’s the lowest crime neighborhood in the whole town And they all have black parolee type security guards outside.

  235. @J.Ross
    A security guard, who had a gun but was obviously completely untrained, has shot a man who was "canvassing" outside a synagogue. The shooting appears to have been a warning shot (which is illegal) ricoche'ing into the man's leg in a non-life-threatening injury. Expect both lyingpress certainty that this guy had it coming, and a lawsuit. An attached school responded to the sound of the gunshot by going into lockdown.
    https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jewish-school-in-LA-goes-on-lockdown-as-security-guard-shoots-man-in-leg-580738

    Security guard had an African accent. Victim claims he was filming the interesting architecture of the synagogue. Victim claims to be trans.

    Most black security guards get their jobs through the parole office.

  236. @res

    At the same time, the idea that there is some sort of pristine state of bottom-up social wisdom which is perverted by top down propaganda strikes me as reductionist.
     
    Sometimes calling something "reductionist" is just a way of explaining away the 90% correct simple explanation by spending 100% of the time talking about that last 10%. We see a great deal of that type of "reasoning" in the Current Year.

    It seems like one is trying to make social perception do the work when actually the truth, clearly explained, will do – but perhaps that is my own naiveté.
     
    Could you elaborate on this? I don't feel like I understand the point you are trying to make. It seems to me stereotypes (when basically true) are just the reduction of complex truth to simple rules of thumb.

    Could you elaborate on this? I don’t feel like I understand the point you are trying to make. It seems to me stereotypes (when basically true) are just the reduction of complex truth to simple rules of thumb.

    It is doubtless that men commit violent crime far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. It is easy to prove it through actual evidence. This is then all but undeniable.

    Alternatively, one might simply say that because it is a bottom-up stereotype it is true – no smoke without fire. But this is an unsatisfying argument.

    For one, there is no clear definition of “bottom-up” as opposed to “top down” that one might, with total accuracy, apply to real world phenomena.

    Also, as stereotypes can be complicated and words have layers of meanings, popular conception can be plain wrong. For example, the popular conception that women are weaker emotionally leads to the general assumption that someone like Christine Ford could not be lying. After all, she is frail and weak and therefore not a Machiavellian woman. In reality, Ms Ford’s type of lie is something that women tend to find a lot easier than men. In other words, in the muddled popular mind “weakness” ends up defining even areas where women are actually incredibly strong. So “no smoke without fire” often ends up with the thinker imagining the wrong type of fire.

    Finally, this type of argument avoids doing the hard work of actually trying to discern the truth through proof. Instead, it simply rests on folk wisdom. Folk wisdom is better than making things up because they sound good – like the progressives do – but this is still an intellectually lazy approach which will result in predictably half-arsed results.

    • Replies: @Kaganovitch
    Finally, this type of argument avoids doing the hard work of actually trying to discern the truth through proof. Instead, it simply rests on folk wisdom. Folk wisdom is better than making things up because they sound good – like the progressives do – but this is still an intellectually lazy approach which will result in predictably half-arsed results.

    Stereotypes/Folk wisdom are primarily useful as heuristics when confronted with low specific information and high information costs. If you see a black teenager in a hoodie following you, you can gather specific information by inquiring if he is an honor student, just got accepted to university etc. The cost of gathering such information is high though, perhaps including premature death. It is rational to rely on stereotype in such instances, half arsed though they may be.
  237. @J.Ross
    A security guard, who had a gun but was obviously completely untrained, has shot a man who was "canvassing" outside a synagogue. The shooting appears to have been a warning shot (which is illegal) ricoche'ing into the man's leg in a non-life-threatening injury. Expect both lyingpress certainty that this guy had it coming, and a lawsuit. An attached school responded to the sound of the gunshot by going into lockdown.
    https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jewish-school-in-LA-goes-on-lockdown-as-security-guard-shoots-man-in-leg-580738

    Man who claims to be trans and also known as “Furry Potato” tries to enter all girls’ high school/synagogue with a camera. The security guard prohibits this. A scuffle ensues and said security guard shoots provocateur in the leg. A graze results.

    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-synagogue-shooting-20190214-story.html

    Here is another of “Furry Potato’s” past actions: “making a terrorist threat against a marine recruiting station.”

    https://www.usmclife.com/2018/06/transgender-arrested-for-allegedly-making-terrorist-threats-at-marine-recruiting-station/

    • Replies: @Anon
    His name is Zoe Perez He belongs to a group calls itself First Amendment Auditors. They walk around outside on public property filming hoping to attract attention.

    When someone asks them what they’re doing they respond rudely hoping to start an argument Then they post it on YouTube.
    He couldn’t possibly have tried to enter the school or the synagogue as it’s surroubded by fence and locked gate.

  238. @Neuday
    Anybody have stats on Jews below the Federal Poverty Line?

    Tons of them. Orthodox, principally around the NYC metro, and living on welfare and off the books.

    Some are multi-millionaires, which really is the way to go if you have to be poor.

  239. @Anon
    Umm, England let the Jews back in around 1640 just about the time England began its rise.

    The standard pattern was Jews bribed or the monarch extorted money and the Jews lent vast amounts of money to monarch aristocrats mostly for their endless wars.

    Jews also lent money to businesses farmers abd everyone else at very high interest rates. Normal rate was 133% negotiated by the monarch and Jewish leadership before the Jews arruved

    After a few losing wars when the loot couldn’t pay the loans and the ordinary people were sick and tired of high interest balloon payments and the rest the monarch would kick the Jews out and the loans weren’t repaid.

    150 years later the monarchs needed money again and the Jews came back under the same extortion bribe high interest rate conditions.

    The Templars were much much worse 400% interest rates. Plus, the Jews peaceably relied on the courts to foreclose on collateral. Being warriors, the Templar’s just saddled up and took the castles and property of defaulting debtors by force. No Jews ever took over the treasury of France the way the Templars did.

    The Italian bankers were as I don’t want to say bad, but operated very similar to the Jews. Some of them are still around 700 years later.

    It worked for everybody. The monarchs and their armies and navies got their money, the Jews got the capital and a lot of interest back and moved on to the next country when the expulsion came.

    Some ordinary people had their property foreclosed but that happens.

    Umm, England let the Jews back in around 1640 just about the time England began its rise.

    England’s Golden Age had been underway for nearly 100 years by then. In fact, by 1640 it was clear that England had become–among other things–a wealth-generating engine nonpareil, and you can bet the Chosen People weren’t going to let the English enjoy all of that alone.

  240. @Tyrion 2
    Labour lost their best MP, Frank Field, over the anti-Semitism accusations. That is, he said he was disgusted and quit. His opponents said thay he was cynically motivated by political concerns, but he's been a man of conscience his entire career.

    Here's why the Guardian says you're supposed to hate him;

    Immigration he views solely through the prism of its perceived effects on “the white working class”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/frank-field-labour-mp-brexit-birkenhead

    Recently, also, there was the attempt to push out Luciana Berger, a Jewish MP, by her own constituency head. That idiot also posts on social media about David Icke, the Rothschilds and other nuttiness. Considering that Mrs Berger is 8 months pregnant, and the facts above, it hasn't been difficult for the right wing to further tarnish the Labour brand.

    Or here is the Labour party's British "Barack Obama" calling said party "institutionally racist" against Jews. Again, not a headline that has helped their popularity.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ9a604LrgAhWC3OAKHZdLBzUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F09%2Fchuka-umunna-labour-is-institutionally-racist&psig=AOvVaw012upeDZyc6Wq1uGl8hlmL&ust=1550217516368183

    The Conservative party have now won three elections in a row and the Labour party are still behind in the polls. This is unique in British history, where the opposition generally is higher during non-election years, and the election may see the government catch up. It also comes at a time when the government is pursuing a compromise on the issue of the day that satisfies no one, while the Labour party gets the luxury of being all things to all people. Also, Theresa May is hardly a leader of great charisma, though the country does mostly now feel sorry for her...

    In all, it isn't just that the anti-Semitism accusations have totally stuck. It is that Labour can barely talk about anything else. It is an effective political tool, especially when excited loons crawl out of the woodwork to make it true.

    This lady (a very low rent Ilhan Omar) is not a vote winner:

    Labour councillor suspended over claims she called Hitler 'the greatest man in history'

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj3qM6s4rrgAhXb6OAKHRunA0kQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F04%2F10%2Flabour-councillor-suspended-over-claims-she-called-hitler-the-gr%2F&psig=AOvVaw1Ckhfaw6j6V-ZzH8az46qS&ust=1550218036980191

    Ilhna Omar is a very low rent Ilhan Omar.

  241. @the one they call Desanex
    “I didn’t have to be here, y’know. I didn’t have to show up here. With my vast financial holdings, I coulda been baskin’ in the sun in Florida. This is just a hobby for me. Nothin’, ya hear? A hobby!”

    —Handsome Dick Manitoba
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaKnSKc9JM

    The Dictators were my favorite Jewish White-Supremacists. Poor Handsome Dick has run into legal trouble as of late.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/punk-legend-handsome-dick-manitoba-pleads-guilty-violation-article-1.3969816

  242. @anonymous
    When America changed laws and they could no longer go there they tried Germany. Germany buckled under Israeli opposition (because holocaust) and eventually they went to Israel. Even then many of them left as soon as they could.

    New York and California are full of Russian Jews who went to Israel first and then to America.

  243. @Tyrion 2
    Man who claims to be trans and also known as "Furry Potato" tries to enter all girls' high school/synagogue with a camera. The security guard prohibits