The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
More Diversity Comes to the Oped Pages
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The recent hirings of Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, Michelle Goldberg, and Max Boot are bringing the op-ed pages of our national newspapers a much needed infusion of DIVERSITY!

From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wire service:

How New York Times editor Bari Weiss found herself at the center of the #MeToo debate

By Josefin Dolsten February 2, 2018 10:36am

NEW YORK (JTA) — … Since starting at The Times in May as staff editor and writer on the opinion pages, Weiss, 33, has been at the center of the often difficult discussions of men, women and sexual assault. Her willingness to defy the feminist consensus, both in her own writing and the articles she commissions, has earned her both praise and vilification.

For some, hers is a refreshing voice in The Times’ predominately liberal opinion section. For others, she is a Wall Street Journal transplant who is importing an unearned intolerance of the left. …

It’s a heady perch for a former pro-Israel activist at Columbia University, who after college worked as a freelance reporter and wrote for the Israeli daily Haaretz on a Dorot fellowship, a Jewish leadership program. Weiss’ prior positions include associate book review editor at The Wall Street Journal and senior news and politics editor at Tablet, the online Jewish journal.

… At The Times, Weiss has written pieces on a variety of subjects, including anti-Semitism on the left, cultural appropriation and a humorous take on Tiffany & Co.’s collection of high-end everyday items.

She has also recruited a cadre of high-profile writers for The Times. On her first day there, she shepherded an op-ed written by Monica Lewinsky slamming the late Fox News executive Roger Ailes for creating a toxic and abusive culture at the network. Weiss reached Lewinsky with the help of a rabbi at whose synagogue the former White House intern had spoken.

Weiss also commissioned articles by Julius Krein, a Trump supporter who on the cover of The Times’ Sunday Magazine said he regretted his vote …

Earlier she had commissioned an op-ed by Mayim Bialik in which the actress appeared to suggest that women in Hollywood could avoid harassment if they dressed and acted more demurely. …

Those were apparently the kinds of diverse reactions that The Times was hoping for when it hired Weiss and her fellow Wall Street Journal alum, Bret Stephens. Announcing Stephens’ hire last April, James Bennet, The Times’ editorial page editor, said readers could “expect other additions to our regular roster in coming months as we continue to diversify our lineup and enrich our debate.”

Stephens, who met Weiss when she was a student at Columbia and encouraged her to apply for a fellowship at the Journal, called her columns “both intellectually provocative and morally passionate.”

“I think that Bari provides a kind of common sense sensibility that people find themselves agreeing with even when they don’t have the courage to say so out loud,” Stephens, who earlier in his career edited The Jerusalem Post, told JTA.

Her writing, which includes criticism of the right and the left, doesn’t lend itself easily to labels.

“The thing I admire in other writers and try to stick to myself is really examining things issue by issue,” she said. “That’s largely meant for me that I’m very progressive on a lot of social issues, I’m hawkish on foreign policy. If that makes me a neocon to certain people, if that makes me a progressive to others, OK.” …

Weiss said her last year at the Journal was filled with frustration.

“I was no longer able to write for the op-ed page because I kept getting stonewalled because I was told that my pieces were too critical of Trump and Trump supporters,” she said.

… At Columbia, Weiss made a name for herself as an advocate for Israel.

Besides Weiss and Stephens, the NYT’s main recent hire for its op-ed page has been Michelle Goldberg, who is, of course, completely diverse and not at all like Weiss and Stephens in any possible way.

In other utterly diverse diversity news from the op-ed universe, the Washington Post hired as a columnist Max Boot.

 
Hide 162 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Muslims got cousin marriage.

    Jews got cousin media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rifleman

    The recent hirings of Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, Michelle Goldberg, and Max Boot are bringing the op-ed pages of our national newspapers a much needed infusion of DIVERSITY!
     
    Why leave out other recent NYTimes Jewish hires - Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush.

    The Nice Jewish Boy Glenn is still there despite being exposed as a pervert and harasser.
    , @biz
    In this case they are actually using "diversity" correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo. People here may not be able to appreciate it, but that is actually a yuge development to have on the OpEd page of the NYTimes.

    I realize that a lot of people around here think that unless the cover jacket of Steven Walt's book is reprinted every day on the front page of the Times that their views are being "censored" and Bret Stephens equals William Kuntzler because both Jewish, but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    , @pyrrhus
    Maybe a new term for this kind of hiring would be "zioversity"....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Funny. They don’t look meritocratic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    That's good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Besides Weiss and Stephens, the NYT’s main recent hire for its op-ed page has been Michelle Goldberg, who is, of course, completely diverse and not at all like Weiss and Stephens in any possible way.

    In other utterly diverse diversity news from the op-ed universe, the Washington Post hired as a columnist Max Boot.

    It’s almost as if they might have an agenda…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. You know, normally I see that whole line of reasoning as a big stretch, but even I picked up on the pattern in that article. Although it seems more connection than policy based.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. My favorite quote.

    She has also recruited a cadre of high-profile writers for The Times. On her first day there, she shepherded an op-ed written by Monica Lewinsky slamming the late Fox News executive Roger Ailes for creating a toxic and abusive culture at the network. Weiss reached Lewinsky with the help of a rabbi at whose synagogue the former White House intern had spoken.

    Remember Reverend Wright? Here’s what he had to say.

    “Bill did us the way he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin dirty.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Let the geniusing begin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. I believe the NY Times is slowly realizing that its brand has been compromised by affirmative action hires like DEAN BAQUET. My guess is very few blacks read the Times, and I’d also venture that the powers to be are diversityed out. The rot at the Times is most noticeable in its culture section–expect that to change soon. Also expect Baquet to go bye bye soon. paper needs a world-class talent, not a lightweight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    "My guess is very few blacks read the Times, "
     
    Way more is at stake than the Times' own readership; its opinion page is a choke point nationwide because NYT and WAPO opinion writers get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Maybe it’s not such a dumb question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Someone should do a satire of Stephens and Weiss rejecting a Palestinian writer for not being diverse enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Not to be outdone, Breitbart added Caroline Glick, conservative columnist of Jerusalem Post, to their roster. Jews are controlling both sides of the debate, so we can get the best of both worlds: open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    Read More
    • LOL: Pat Kittle
    • Replies: @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
    , @anon
    open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    Technically, we also get open borders for America from nearly all of the neocon Jews as well.
    , @Anonym

    Not to be outdone, Breitbart added Caroline Glick, conservative columnist of Jerusalem Post, to their roster. Jews are controlling both sides of the debate, so we can get the best of both worlds: open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.
     
    Indeed. Pollak writes H̶o̶w̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶J̶e̶w̶s̶ How Not to Become a 'Shithole Country' -

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/02/blue-state-blues-how-not-to-become-a-shthole-country/

    It's useful to be on all sides of every issue.
    , @Tyrion 2
    Breitbart is pro-military but it certainly isn't pro-war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Maybe grounds for an employment discrimination suit charging lack of persons of Protestant and Catholic descent in editorial positions? Wouldn’t win but think of the publicity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wouldn't work--anyone who tried something like that would be called out as a Nazi tout suite, and moreover the question must be: why now? This has been going on for 70 years or so.
    , @The Alarmist

    "Maybe grounds for an employment discrimination suit charging lack of persons of Protestant and Catholic descent in editorial positions? Wouldn’t win but think of the publicity."
     
    It would get no publicity. Even calling it out as N____m would expose too much of the truth.
    , @Autochthon
    Tee hee. Imagine if the suit made it all the way to the federal supreme court, where it will be decided by a panel composed of...uh...er...um...nevermind....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Thomas
    Funny. They don't look meritocratic.

    That’s good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. They are dead men and women walking. Lets face it, there are not that many great journo (hack) jobs out there, and there are plenty of really diverse Genius T. Coates types out there willing, ready, and able to agitate until they get the job and the pale, stale, and mostly male though Jewish people get the boot. Or Max Boot.

    Look at what’s happening in Goolag. Employees there are in a hot civil war, with SJW trying to purge White men especially Jews, and in return White men are baiting them into saying how much they hate and want to discriminate against Straight White men and going to HR with those statements which are actionable (for now) in a court of law.

    Or Hollywood, where as Larry David noted, its mostly White Jewish guys (as opposed to the reincarnation of Sammy Davis Jr. man!) who are getting the Purge. After all, Hollywood is making much better movies and TV with Kathleen Kennedy running Star Wars and the Oprah-fication of ABC. You certainly don’t see any Wayans or Tyler Perry or Dave Chapelle ME Too action now do you?

    Diversity is a weapon. It was stupidity among the most vulnerable — professional class urban Jews — to think it would not be used against them and very successfully to get their jobs. What, the NYT will lose any more customers if every writer is just like Genius T. Coates? Heck their readers can’t get enough of that. And making money is not the object any more than it is for Disney and Star Wars or ABC or any of that — its spreading the Diversity Gospel of “Good News” (aka Die Whitey Die DIe Die!) This is not a hedge fund where a wrong bet can bankrupt the firm or at least make it endure large losses and see investors flee. That matters. The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders so he can rake off more money from illegals calling back home to Mexico. That’s it. A Diverse set of people like say, “Men on Film” will do just as well as some White Jewish people that don’t have a braying mob behind them.

    Bonus — a “Jewish Free” NYT will be less prone to spontaneous acts of Islam (tm Paul Kersey) all over the place like Charlie Hebdo.

    Read More
    • LOL: Nico
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders
     
    Yet again: Carlos Slim does not control the NYT and he never did. He never owned a majority of Class A shares or anything remotely close (17% at his max, and he has since sold off), and more importantly never owned one single Class B share–the share class which actually controls the Board of Directors and hence votes on corporate policy. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns and controls the New York Times and has for a very, very long time.

    This "Carlos Slim Owns the NYT" meme has become so widespread and persistent that it's finally occurred to me that it may be the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign promoted by the Sulzbergers. There's nothing as safe as being hidden.

    Meanwhile, Whiskey, your posts can be entertaining but your knowledge of the world appears to be shrinking.

    , @Meretricious
    "What, the NYT will lose any more customers if every writer is just like Genius T. Coates? Heck their readers can’t get enough of that."--Whiskey, ur wrong; my guess is that Negro fatigue is making a big comeback among serious publications. You think anyone reads Tennessee Coates over at the Altlantic? LOL. His 15 are up.

    and Max Boot is a great hire

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. We got both kinds of music – pizmonim and klezmer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. All behind a paywall, safe and sound.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. The New York Times: You can wear any color hat you want, as long as it’s black.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    LOL. I'm going to have to remember that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Anon
    Muslims got cousin marriage.

    Jews got cousin media.

    The recent hirings of Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, Michelle Goldberg, and Max Boot are bringing the op-ed pages of our national newspapers a much needed infusion of DIVERSITY!

    Why leave out other recent NYTimes Jewish hires – Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush.

    The Nice Jewish Boy Glenn is still there despite being exposed as a pervert and harasser.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    Hiring Maggie is a good decision though. She has access (or at least it strongly seems like) to Donald Trump, whom she has covered since he was in real estate. Who wouldn't want to hire someone who has access to the President?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. It’s a heady perch for a former pro-Israel activist at Columbia University,

    Yeah. As we all know, being pro-Israel is the mark of Cain in today’s society….

    who after college worked as a freelance reporter and wrote for the Israeli daily Haaretz on a Dorot fellowship, a Jewish leadership program.

    Are there WASP leadership programs?

    Weiss’ prior positions include associate book review editor at The Wall Street Journal and senior news and politics editor at Tablet, the online Jewish journal.

    … At The Times, Weiss has written pieces on a variety of subjects, including anti-Semitism on the left, cultural appropriation and a humorous take on Tiffany & Co.’s collection of high-end everyday items.

    See, she’s willing to take on the SJW crowd…when they get uppity and forget who’s buttering their bread….

    That’s largely meant for me that I’m very progressive on a lot of social issues, I’m hawkish on foreign policy. If that makes me a neocon to certain people, if that makes me a progressive to others, OK.”

    Short version: Invade the world, invite the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rifleman

    “That’s largely meant for me that I’m very progressive on a lot of social issues, I’m hawkish on foreign policy.

    If that makes me a neocon to certain people, if that makes me a progressive to others, OK.” …
     
    No, it makes you a Jewish bigot. Not OK.
    , @Tyrion 2

    Are there WASP leadership programs?
     
    There are Protestant, Catholic and Mormon leadership programmes.
    , @Anon
    As intelligent and sophisticated as many Jews are, there is an element of the shtetl hick, the Beverly Hillbillies, and this is esp true with Eastern European Jews have chips on their shoulders in regard to both Wasps and Germanic Jews.

    They got too rich and too powerful too fast. Their success outpaced their grooming for success.
    In a few generations, they went from the world of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF to the world of MARGIN CALL. When a famished person is shown lots of food, he just gorges and gorges, and he doesn't know when to stop. Too much too fast leads to indigestion but instead of slowing down, his hunger still remains in overdrive as an article of faith(despite the full stomach), and he blames the indigestion on everything but his 'rightful' appetite.

    Anglos, stuck in a small isle, were so hungry for land that they kept expanding to take control of more even when they had more than enough. Imagine how much better US, Canadian, and Australian history would have been if the Anglos didn't keep on pushing to grab more land in Asia and Africa.
    Russians, having lots of land, never had this insatiable appetite to control more territory all over the world.

    Jews had lots of talent and energy, and they hungered for control, and when they finally got it, they just couldn't control their appetite. It led to the orgies of violence in the USSR, the inability of Israel to be a normal nation because Zionists seek to control the entire MENA, and the restlessness of US policy in both invade and invite mode. They feel that they were denied righteous domination for so long that, when they finally got it, they can't get enough of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @syonredux

    It’s a heady perch for a former pro-Israel activist at Columbia University,
     
    Yeah. As we all know, being pro-Israel is the mark of Cain in today's society....

    who after college worked as a freelance reporter and wrote for the Israeli daily Haaretz on a Dorot fellowship, a Jewish leadership program.
     
    Are there WASP leadership programs?

    Weiss’ prior positions include associate book review editor at The Wall Street Journal and senior news and politics editor at Tablet, the online Jewish journal.

    … At The Times, Weiss has written pieces on a variety of subjects, including anti-Semitism on the left, cultural appropriation and a humorous take on Tiffany & Co.’s collection of high-end everyday items.
     
    See, she's willing to take on the SJW crowd...when they get uppity and forget who's buttering their bread....

    That’s largely meant for me that I’m very progressive on a lot of social issues, I’m hawkish on foreign policy. If that makes me a neocon to certain people, if that makes me a progressive to others, OK.”
     
    Short version: Invade the world, invite the world.

    “That’s largely meant for me that I’m very progressive on a lot of social issues, I’m hawkish on foreign policy.

    If that makes me a neocon to certain people, if that makes me a progressive to others, OK.” …

    No, it makes you a Jewish bigot. Not OK.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu, The Anti-Gnostic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. We saw this argument with the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: ‘Kagan is a woman and an ethnic minority, therefore she totally adds diversity to the court! A black waitress from Arkansas, a Hispanic textile worker from Georgia, and a Basque shepherd from Idaho should totally identify with her – she’s a minority just like them! If the SCOTUS had nine Jews born and raised in New York it would be 100% diverse!’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    If the SCOTUS had nine Jews born and raised in New York it would be 100% diverse!’
     
    Only a racist would engage in such a transparent attempt to exclude Jews born in Miami, Chicago, and L.A. Not to mention Israel. You wouldn't want to be racist, now would you?

    And where was Roger Cohen born, btw? Oh yeah, London. Give his dad credit--he got out of South Africa while the gettin' was good.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Christian, married 20something mom Elizabeth Bruenig at the Post is beginning to seem like an outlier on the prestige op-ed pages…

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    It's a shame the woman is a complete moron. From her latest
    https://medium.com/@ebruenig/among-the-nationalists-de2cc101322c

    Ethnic nationalism in America is an even stranger proposition, seeing as its success — that is, an ethnic group attaining political autonomy — would mean the destruction of America itself. It’s an existential threat to the republic only insofar as people take it seriously, but it mostly appears to me that Americans are so thoroughly liberal that the vast majority of them — even avowed racists — can’t get behind the organic-unitive-collectivist aspects of ethnic nationalism, which subjugate the individual will. America isn’t a nation-state, and it has no national identity in the proper sense.
     
    I guess 'America' in her mind only came into existence in 1965
    , @Dave Pinsen
    She certainly brought a different perspective to the "Cat Person" phenomenon on Twitter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Luke Lea
    Maybe grounds for an employment discrimination suit charging lack of persons of Protestant and Catholic descent in editorial positions? Wouldn't win but think of the publicity.

    Wouldn’t work–anyone who tried something like that would be called out as a Nazi tout suite, and moreover the question must be: why now? This has been going on for 70 years or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Wilkey
    We saw this argument with the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: 'Kagan is a woman and an ethnic minority, therefore she totally adds diversity to the court! A black waitress from Arkansas, a Hispanic textile worker from Georgia, and a Basque shepherd from Idaho should totally identify with her - she's a minority just like them! If the SCOTUS had nine Jews born and raised in New York it would be 100% diverse!'

    If the SCOTUS had nine Jews born and raised in New York it would be 100% diverse!’

    Only a racist would engage in such a transparent attempt to exclude Jews born in Miami, Chicago, and L.A. Not to mention Israel. You wouldn’t want to be racist, now would you?

    And where was Roger Cohen born, btw? Oh yeah, London. Give his dad credit–he got out of South Africa while the gettin’ was good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @I, Libertine
    As I've noted here previously, there are no Protestants, male or female, black or white, on the Supreme Court Court, as has been the case for eight years now. Unless you count Gorsuch, who was raised a Catholic, but refuses to say if he shares his wife's Episcopalian persuasion. Other "identity groups," such as, say, lesbians, are wildly over-represented, compared to their presence in the population. Yet I hear no complaints about the Court's lack of diversity.

    Is it hate speech for me to point that out?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Whiskey
    They are dead men and women walking. Lets face it, there are not that many great journo (hack) jobs out there, and there are plenty of really diverse Genius T. Coates types out there willing, ready, and able to agitate until they get the job and the pale, stale, and mostly male though Jewish people get the boot. Or Max Boot.

    Look at what's happening in Goolag. Employees there are in a hot civil war, with SJW trying to purge White men especially Jews, and in return White men are baiting them into saying how much they hate and want to discriminate against Straight White men and going to HR with those statements which are actionable (for now) in a court of law.

    Or Hollywood, where as Larry David noted, its mostly White Jewish guys (as opposed to the reincarnation of Sammy Davis Jr. man!) who are getting the Purge. After all, Hollywood is making much better movies and TV with Kathleen Kennedy running Star Wars and the Oprah-fication of ABC. You certainly don't see any Wayans or Tyler Perry or Dave Chapelle ME Too action now do you?

    Diversity is a weapon. It was stupidity among the most vulnerable -- professional class urban Jews -- to think it would not be used against them and very successfully to get their jobs. What, the NYT will lose any more customers if every writer is just like Genius T. Coates? Heck their readers can't get enough of that. And making money is not the object any more than it is for Disney and Star Wars or ABC or any of that -- its spreading the Diversity Gospel of "Good News" (aka Die Whitey Die DIe Die!) This is not a hedge fund where a wrong bet can bankrupt the firm or at least make it endure large losses and see investors flee. That matters. The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders so he can rake off more money from illegals calling back home to Mexico. That's it. A Diverse set of people like say, "Men on Film" will do just as well as some White Jewish people that don't have a braying mob behind them.

    Bonus -- a "Jewish Free" NYT will be less prone to spontaneous acts of Islam (tm Paul Kersey) all over the place like Charlie Hebdo.

    The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders

    Yet again: Carlos Slim does not control the NYT and he never did. He never owned a majority of Class A shares or anything remotely close (17% at his max, and he has since sold off), and more importantly never owned one single Class B share–the share class which actually controls the Board of Directors and hence votes on corporate policy. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns and controls the New York Times and has for a very, very long time.

    This “Carlos Slim Owns the NYT” meme has become so widespread and persistent that it’s finally occurred to me that it may be the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign promoted by the Sulzbergers. There’s nothing as safe as being hidden.

    Meanwhile, Whiskey, your posts can be entertaining but your knowledge of the world appears to be shrinking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    There’s nothing as safe as being hidden.
     
    They're hiding right on the NYT's Masthead.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat

    Carlos Slim does not control the NYT and he never did. He never owned a majority of Class A shares or anything remotely close (17% at his max, and he has since sold off), and more importantly never owned one single Class B share–the share class which actually controls the Board of Directors and hence votes on corporate policy. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns and controls the New York Times and has for a very, very long time.
     
    Two or three percent ownership is enough to make you an "activist investor," with influence over corporate policy and direction. For example, that's how Peltz does it with Trian.

    Slim's 17% ownership is tremendously influential, even if it's Class A shares. Do you think he bought the 17% for the returns?
    , @Anonymous
    I seem to recall that you posted almost the same reply to my own Anonymous comment a week or two ago. At the time I took myself as properly rebuked, but now it seems that you are cutting and pasting, and I become skeptical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Remember, these same Jews will whine endlessly over “too many white men” in XYZ setting. US media is essentially Jews hiring Jews.

    Even that Weiss woman only breaks with the left because it helps Jewish interests. On MeToo, many of the gropers were Jewish men so it makes sense why she would side with Jewish women over white women. Her tribal allegiances are stronger than those she has to her gender.

    On foreign policy, the reason why she’d be hawkish is self-explanatory, go look at US mid-east foreign policy in the last 20 years for more clues or read Mearsheimer’s “Israel Lobby” book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    In law school I was struck by the number of jewish professors. The only Gentiles were dorkish, like the son in law lawyer sent by Rabinowitz to Archie's house. Lots of in group hiring I surmised.
    , @Samuel Skinner

    Her tribal allegiances are stronger than those she has to her gender.
     
    Women have no gender allegiance. Men work together because it helps them get women. Women working together does not help them get men so women don't care about women in the abstract.
    , @helena
    Has Poland legalised non-trading on Sundays? If so, hooray!! Well done, Poland.
    , @Marty T
    She'd be siding with white men, some of whom are Jewish, over white women, few of whom are Jewish. Jewish women are very feminist and liberal. By NYT standards Weiss' views actually are diverse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Mr. Anon
    The New York Times: You can wear any color hat you want, as long as it's black.

    LOL. I’m going to have to remember that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Whiskey
    They are dead men and women walking. Lets face it, there are not that many great journo (hack) jobs out there, and there are plenty of really diverse Genius T. Coates types out there willing, ready, and able to agitate until they get the job and the pale, stale, and mostly male though Jewish people get the boot. Or Max Boot.

    Look at what's happening in Goolag. Employees there are in a hot civil war, with SJW trying to purge White men especially Jews, and in return White men are baiting them into saying how much they hate and want to discriminate against Straight White men and going to HR with those statements which are actionable (for now) in a court of law.

    Or Hollywood, where as Larry David noted, its mostly White Jewish guys (as opposed to the reincarnation of Sammy Davis Jr. man!) who are getting the Purge. After all, Hollywood is making much better movies and TV with Kathleen Kennedy running Star Wars and the Oprah-fication of ABC. You certainly don't see any Wayans or Tyler Perry or Dave Chapelle ME Too action now do you?

    Diversity is a weapon. It was stupidity among the most vulnerable -- professional class urban Jews -- to think it would not be used against them and very successfully to get their jobs. What, the NYT will lose any more customers if every writer is just like Genius T. Coates? Heck their readers can't get enough of that. And making money is not the object any more than it is for Disney and Star Wars or ABC or any of that -- its spreading the Diversity Gospel of "Good News" (aka Die Whitey Die DIe Die!) This is not a hedge fund where a wrong bet can bankrupt the firm or at least make it endure large losses and see investors flee. That matters. The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders so he can rake off more money from illegals calling back home to Mexico. That's it. A Diverse set of people like say, "Men on Film" will do just as well as some White Jewish people that don't have a braying mob behind them.

    Bonus -- a "Jewish Free" NYT will be less prone to spontaneous acts of Islam (tm Paul Kersey) all over the place like Charlie Hebdo.

    “What, the NYT will lose any more customers if every writer is just like Genius T. Coates? Heck their readers can’t get enough of that.”–Whiskey, ur wrong; my guess is that Negro fatigue is making a big comeback among serious publications. You think anyone reads Tennessee Coates over at the Altlantic? LOL. His 15 are up.

    and Max Boot is a great hire

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Meretricious
    I believe the NY Times is slowly realizing that its brand has been compromised by affirmative action hires like DEAN BAQUET. My guess is very few blacks read the Times, and I'd also venture that the powers to be are diversityed out. The rot at the Times is most noticeable in its culture section--expect that to change soon. Also expect Baquet to go bye bye soon. paper needs a world-class talent, not a lightweight.

    “My guess is very few blacks read the Times, “

    Way more is at stake than the Times’ own readership; its opinion page is a choke point nationwide because NYT and WAPO opinion writers get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    True enough, but that mainly means that over 60-yr-old people nationwide are reading their crap.

    What's that? STOP PRESS hold everything, I just noticed this:


    https://i.imgur.com/XYqM7ya.jpg

    PS to Steve: "Marshal" has just one L.

    , @Anon
    "get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers."

    Do local yokels even read local papers?

    Actually, local yokels don't matter. Power and wealth are all concentrated in a few cities, and that's why NYT matters. It speaks to the elites and for the elites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @anon
    Not to be outdone, Breitbart added Caroline Glick, conservative columnist of Jerusalem Post, to their roster. Jews are controlling both sides of the debate, so we can get the best of both worlds: open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Sure. Harvey Weinstein could give a hands-on demonstration.
    , @anon
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Well, that depends. Do you think the pundit class typically does a very good job? If not, then the answer is probably "no".

    If you think it does, then I would be very interested to know how you found yourself here, reading Steve Sailer.

    , @Anon

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
     
    I don't see ethnic networking. No! I see the cream rising! To the top!
    , @With the thoughts you'd be thinkin
    As does the scum.
    , @anon

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
     
    Nope. Just tribalism. Pure and simple.

    White privilege is a misnomer, it's really just Jew privilege.

    , @AnotherDad

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
     
    Definitely explains why she hired Monica Lewinsky for an op-ed.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
     
    Or could it be that "Sh*t floats".
    , @ben tillman

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
     
    No.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Sure. Harvey Weinstein could give a hands-on demonstration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @anon

    "My guess is very few blacks read the Times, "
     
    Way more is at stake than the Times' own readership; its opinion page is a choke point nationwide because NYT and WAPO opinion writers get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers.

    True enough, but that mainly means that over 60-yr-old people nationwide are reading their crap.

    What’s that? STOP PRESS hold everything, I just noticed this:


    PS to Steve: “Marshal” has just one L.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whoever

    “Marshal” has just one L.
     
    Fixed on the uploaded image. Better fix on the original. Thanks! (˶′◡‵˶)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. They all have (((intersectional diversity superpowers))) and can be counted towards any special category we wish, except of course, the “privileged white people” category.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @anon
    Not to be outdone, Breitbart added Caroline Glick, conservative columnist of Jerusalem Post, to their roster. Jews are controlling both sides of the debate, so we can get the best of both worlds: open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    Technically, we also get open borders for America from nearly all of the neocon Jews as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Well, that depends. Do you think the pundit class typically does a very good job? If not, then the answer is probably “no”.

    If you think it does, then I would be very interested to know how you found yourself here, reading Steve Sailer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j
    Touche! On this point I have no illusions. They are American media professionals, they will lie convincingly like the best. That is the reason they have been hired. The only difference between you and me is that you think they were hired through ethnic networking, and I believe they are good in their chosen profession. Anyway, the NYT cannot sink any lower.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Is it reasonable to be expecting meritocracy from partisan media organs? That’s like expecting them not to be partisan. James Bowman recently had a line on this, re: Charlie Rose’s cock-up, asking [paraphrase] who really ever looked up to these people, aside from other media employees?

    Even our universities are lousy at practicing meritocracy, which they’ve taken to openly slurring in the interest of NAM self-esteem. The military is obviously a joke outside of certain specialized units. Time to retire this meritocratic unicorn as a realistic standard for human-operated institutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    I don’t see ethnic networking. No! I see the cream rising! To the top!

    Read More
    • Replies: @j
    I love diversity and colors in fruit compote. With whipped cream. At the workplace, it is disruptive.
    , @Anonymous
    Ask any of them. They'll tell you that they're smarter than everyone else and that they work harder than everyone else. Strictly merit. So much so that they don't even need to interview others for the plum jobs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @anon
    Not to be outdone, Breitbart added Caroline Glick, conservative columnist of Jerusalem Post, to their roster. Jews are controlling both sides of the debate, so we can get the best of both worlds: open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    Not to be outdone, Breitbart added Caroline Glick, conservative columnist of Jerusalem Post, to their roster. Jews are controlling both sides of the debate, so we can get the best of both worlds: open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    Indeed. Pollak writes H̶o̶w̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶’̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶J̶e̶w̶s̶ How Not to Become a ‘Shithole Country’ –

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/02/blue-state-blues-how-not-to-become-a-shthole-country/

    It’s useful to be on all sides of every issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Earl Lemongrab
    Christian, married 20something mom Elizabeth Bruenig at the Post is beginning to seem like an outlier on the prestige op-ed pages...

    https://www.religionenlibertad.com/imagenes/imagenesck2017/10/images/elizabeth_bruenig.jpg

    It’s a shame the woman is a complete moron. From her latest

    https://medium.com/@ebruenig/among-the-nationalists-de2cc101322c

    Ethnic nationalism in America is an even stranger proposition, seeing as its success — that is, an ethnic group attaining political autonomy — would mean the destruction of America itself. It’s an existential threat to the republic only insofar as people take it seriously, but it mostly appears to me that Americans are so thoroughly liberal that the vast majority of them — even avowed racists — can’t get behind the organic-unitive-collectivist aspects of ethnic nationalism, which subjugate the individual will. America isn’t a nation-state, and it has no national identity in the proper sense.

    I guess ‘America’ in her mind only came into existence in 1965

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Sheesh. What gobbledygook. Is there a name for this style of writing?

    Reads like consultant-speak... or, say, Richard Posner's A Failure of Capitalism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Earl Lemongrab
    Christian, married 20something mom Elizabeth Bruenig at the Post is beginning to seem like an outlier on the prestige op-ed pages...

    https://www.religionenlibertad.com/imagenes/imagenesck2017/10/images/elizabeth_bruenig.jpg

    She certainly brought a different perspective to the “Cat Person” phenomenon on Twitter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @anon
    Not to be outdone, Breitbart added Caroline Glick, conservative columnist of Jerusalem Post, to their roster. Jews are controlling both sides of the debate, so we can get the best of both worlds: open borders for America from the liberal Jews of MSM, and more wars on behalf of Israel for the neocon Jews of Breitbart.

    Breitbart is pro-military but it certainly isn’t pro-war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Anonymous

    The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders
     
    Yet again: Carlos Slim does not control the NYT and he never did. He never owned a majority of Class A shares or anything remotely close (17% at his max, and he has since sold off), and more importantly never owned one single Class B share–the share class which actually controls the Board of Directors and hence votes on corporate policy. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns and controls the New York Times and has for a very, very long time.

    This "Carlos Slim Owns the NYT" meme has become so widespread and persistent that it's finally occurred to me that it may be the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign promoted by the Sulzbergers. There's nothing as safe as being hidden.

    Meanwhile, Whiskey, your posts can be entertaining but your knowledge of the world appears to be shrinking.

    There’s nothing as safe as being hidden.

    They’re hiding right on the NYT’s Masthead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Tell me which has greater purchase in the public consciousness: a widespread internet meme or the 'masthead' that you have to be motivated to search to find.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @syonredux

    It’s a heady perch for a former pro-Israel activist at Columbia University,
     
    Yeah. As we all know, being pro-Israel is the mark of Cain in today's society....

    who after college worked as a freelance reporter and wrote for the Israeli daily Haaretz on a Dorot fellowship, a Jewish leadership program.
     
    Are there WASP leadership programs?

    Weiss’ prior positions include associate book review editor at The Wall Street Journal and senior news and politics editor at Tablet, the online Jewish journal.

    … At The Times, Weiss has written pieces on a variety of subjects, including anti-Semitism on the left, cultural appropriation and a humorous take on Tiffany & Co.’s collection of high-end everyday items.
     
    See, she's willing to take on the SJW crowd...when they get uppity and forget who's buttering their bread....

    That’s largely meant for me that I’m very progressive on a lot of social issues, I’m hawkish on foreign policy. If that makes me a neocon to certain people, if that makes me a progressive to others, OK.”
     
    Short version: Invade the world, invite the world.

    Are there WASP leadership programs?

    There are Protestant, Catholic and Mormon leadership programmes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Are there WASP leadership programs?

    There are Protestant, Catholic and Mormon leadership programmes.
     

    Confessional identities.....Not quite the same thing as an ethnic/racial identity leadership program.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Besides Weiss and Stephens, the NYT’s main recent hire for its op-ed page has been Michelle Goldberg, who is, of course, completely diverse and not at all like Weiss and Stephens in any possible way.

    To slightly modify a sentence that cost the most senior black woman her job,

    There can be 12 Jews in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.

    That said, the recent hiring streak of three Jewish columnists is a bit surprising. The new publisher of the NYT is now, what, a quarter Jewish? The editorial page editor is half-Jewish but seems to be the product of a similar Jewish-WASP marriage as A.G. Sulzberger’s father. I’m guessing his deputy editorial page editor Dao isn’t Jewish. Dunno if the other deputy (Kingsbury) is. No Wiki bio on her.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Luke Lea
    Maybe grounds for an employment discrimination suit charging lack of persons of Protestant and Catholic descent in editorial positions? Wouldn't win but think of the publicity.

    “Maybe grounds for an employment discrimination suit charging lack of persons of Protestant and Catholic descent in editorial positions? Wouldn’t win but think of the publicity.”

    It would get no publicity. Even calling it out as N____m would expose too much of the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell’s government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We’ve been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king’s court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    OK, well, if that was the real driving force, then wouldn't the media be better at what it does?

    It's awful, though. And at some point, you have to wonder if it's like the "bad schools" argument. Maybe the schools aren't bad because there's something magically wrong with the bricks that were used to build the school. Maybe the school is bad because of the students who go there.

    Likewise, maybe the media isn't bad because there's something inherently wrong with the media. Maybe it's bad because of the people who run it. Maybe there's just something wrong with them.

    Considering that I routinely run into more insightful commentary from commenters named "metallicaroolz696969" than I do from the David Brookses and Thomas Friedmans of the world, I can't help but think that that's probably the case.

    , @Nico
    As Dr. Fleming put it, if we could invite 500 million Martians to set up home in the U.S., and they were all polite, hard-working, law-abiding and intelligent, would that be good for the nation, and if so, what do you mean by “nation”?
    , @S. Anonyia
    Not buying it that it's coincidence. Upper class southerners have a verbal culture too. They've been over-represented among popular fiction writers for a century, yet they are underrepresented in media.
    , @AnotherDad

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.
     
    Oh c'mon, Lot.

    Yes, Jews have a very high verbal IQ and are going to be over-represented in these jobs--maybe 7X. Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you'd get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.

    The proof here is ... these people aren't very good! Do you find them to be great prose stylists? Compelling to read, even though you disagree? Part of "high verbal IQ" is supposed to be the ability to both detect and produce verbal logic. You're writing an op-ed, so along with your opinion, one would expect you'd have some reasoning. You'd have a "because" followed by evidence, or some evidence preceding your "therefore". Evidence compelling--or at least interesting and worth a think--to at least the intelligent neutral observer. Do you see that?

    I don't. I just see cheerleaders for the liberal Jewish establishment narrative, wildly waving their verbal pompoms, higher and harder, faster and more furiously, as if that suffices to justify the phony faslehoods they peddle.
    , @Anonymous
    But there's nothing that suggests that Stephens, Weiss, Goldberg, Boot, et al have "extremely high verbal IQs". Quite the opposite if you actually read their output. The idea that Stephens, Weiss, Goldberg, Boot, et al are on the op ed pages because the millions of gentiles who outnumber them don't have similar or greater verbal IQs is implausible.
    , @Anonymous
    Ok, so if Jews are so brilliant, why are they so opposed to there being exclusively gentile organization and institutions?
    , @Issac
    So superior they must convince the goyim that genetics isnt real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Anon

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
     
    I don't see ethnic networking. No! I see the cream rising! To the top!

    I love diversity and colors in fruit compote. With whipped cream. At the workplace, it is disruptive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    ... With whipped cream. At the workplace, it is disruptive.
     
    It’s your passing out from nitrous hypoxia that’s got HR concerned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell's government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We've been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king's court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    OK, well, if that was the real driving force, then wouldn’t the media be better at what it does?

    It’s awful, though. And at some point, you have to wonder if it’s like the “bad schools” argument. Maybe the schools aren’t bad because there’s something magically wrong with the bricks that were used to build the school. Maybe the school is bad because of the students who go there.

    Likewise, maybe the media isn’t bad because there’s something inherently wrong with the media. Maybe it’s bad because of the people who run it. Maybe there’s just something wrong with them.

    Considering that I routinely run into more insightful commentary from commenters named “metallicaroolz696969″ than I do from the David Brookses and Thomas Friedmans of the world, I can’t help but think that that’s probably the case.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @anon
    It really is the funniest dynamic:

    Anti-Semite: "Man, it sucks how the Joos control the media!"

    Joo: "Listen, goy, the only reason we control the media is because we're so good at it!"

    Anti-Semite: "Oh yeah? Well, if you're so good at running the media, then how come only like 20% of people trust the media anymore?"

    Joo: *disappears*

    [The next day]

    Joo: "Listen, goy, the only reason we control the media is because we're so good at it!"

    Anti-Semite: *Gradually, begins to hate them*

    , @Big Bill
    I propose an experiment to test the "schools" for "badness":

    Replace all the teachers, students and administrators with WASPs, Catholics, Hindus, or Jews. Spend exactly the same amount. Compare the graduation rates before and after.
    , @Jack D
    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who's the stupid one?

    If you understand that journalists are paid lackeys without their own opinions (or carefully pre-selected as having the right opinions by Moldburg's "Cathedral") then it all makes sense. And each one of these guys is one accusation away from being unpersoned if he shows the wrong opinions. So they never ever show the wrong opinions.

    Some of these guys are really smart and know the score, but they are very careful never to say the wrong thing. Others are really not that smart but have learned to sing the right tune by heart so that even if you woke them in the middle of the night they could launch right into the approved script - that in itself is a skill of a sort.

    And remember they live in an echo chamber where everyone else is saying the same thing and those who have differing opinions can be easily dismissed as trailer trash rednecks lacking in dental hygiene who cohabit with their close relations so after a while they start to believe their own BS even though it doesn't withstand close scrutiny (or even no-so-close scrutiny).

    , @Rosamond Vincy
    I resent your casting aspersions on the gentle, soothing sounds of James Hetfield.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @DFH
    It's a shame the woman is a complete moron. From her latest
    https://medium.com/@ebruenig/among-the-nationalists-de2cc101322c

    Ethnic nationalism in America is an even stranger proposition, seeing as its success — that is, an ethnic group attaining political autonomy — would mean the destruction of America itself. It’s an existential threat to the republic only insofar as people take it seriously, but it mostly appears to me that Americans are so thoroughly liberal that the vast majority of them — even avowed racists — can’t get behind the organic-unitive-collectivist aspects of ethnic nationalism, which subjugate the individual will. America isn’t a nation-state, and it has no national identity in the proper sense.
     
    I guess 'America' in her mind only came into existence in 1965

    Sheesh. What gobbledygook. Is there a name for this style of writing?

    Reads like consultant-speak… or, say, Richard Posner’s A Failure of Capitalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ganderson
    https://youtu.be/0u7sa6WFhxg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    OK, well, if that was the real driving force, then wouldn't the media be better at what it does?

    It's awful, though. And at some point, you have to wonder if it's like the "bad schools" argument. Maybe the schools aren't bad because there's something magically wrong with the bricks that were used to build the school. Maybe the school is bad because of the students who go there.

    Likewise, maybe the media isn't bad because there's something inherently wrong with the media. Maybe it's bad because of the people who run it. Maybe there's just something wrong with them.

    Considering that I routinely run into more insightful commentary from commenters named "metallicaroolz696969" than I do from the David Brookses and Thomas Friedmans of the world, I can't help but think that that's probably the case.

    It really is the funniest dynamic:

    Anti-Semite: “Man, it sucks how the Joos control the media!”

    Joo: “Listen, goy, the only reason we control the media is because we’re so good at it!”

    Anti-Semite: “Oh yeah? Well, if you’re so good at running the media, then how come only like 20% of people trust the media anymore?”

    Joo: *disappears*

    [The next day]

    Joo: “Listen, goy, the only reason we control the media is because we’re so good at it!”

    Anti-Semite: *Gradually, begins to hate them*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Dave Pinsen

    There’s nothing as safe as being hidden.
     
    They're hiding right on the NYT's Masthead.

    Tell me which has greater purchase in the public consciousness: a widespread internet meme or the ‘masthead’ that you have to be motivated to search to find.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    Wikipedia?

    The New York Times

    The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated as The NYT or The Times) is an American newspaper based in New York City with worldwide influence and readership.[6][7][8] Founded in 1851, the paper has won 122 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper.[9][10]

    As of September 2016, it had the largest combined print-and-digital circulation of any daily newspaper in the United States.[11] The New York Times is ranked 18th in the world by circulation.

    The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.[12] It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger the paper's publisher and, his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. the company's chairman, is the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper.[13]
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Anon

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?
     
    I don't see ethnic networking. No! I see the cream rising! To the top!

    Ask any of them. They’ll tell you that they’re smarter than everyone else and that they work harder than everyone else. Strictly merit. So much so that they don’t even need to interview others for the plum jobs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Yeah, and the funny thing is, writing the kind of op-eds they have in the Times is not exactly back-breaking work, nor is it rocket surgery. It is, rather, a privilege.

    Brains and hard work, my ass. Merit, in a pig's eye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @j
    I love diversity and colors in fruit compote. With whipped cream. At the workplace, it is disruptive.

    … With whipped cream. At the workplace, it is disruptive.

    It’s your passing out from nitrous hypoxia that’s got HR concerned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    As does the scum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. j says: • Website
    @anon
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Well, that depends. Do you think the pundit class typically does a very good job? If not, then the answer is probably "no".

    If you think it does, then I would be very interested to know how you found yourself here, reading Steve Sailer.

    Touche! On this point I have no illusions. They are American media professionals, they will lie convincingly like the best. That is the reason they have been hired. The only difference between you and me is that you think they were hired through ethnic networking, and I believe they are good in their chosen profession. Anyway, the NYT cannot sink any lower.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    They are American media professionals, they will lie convincingly like the best.

    The only difference between you and me is that you think they were hired through ethnic networking, and I believe they are good in their chosen profession.

    OK, so...

    Are you saying that the reason these professional liars are so heavily Jewish is because Jewish people are just abnormally good at lying? Or, they just like lying more than other people do, or what?

    I'm not sure what else that could mean.

    Wouldn't "ethnic networking" actually be the more favorable of the two possibilities?

    And another problem is, they must not even be all that convincing, either, because not many people even trust the media anymore. So if it's their job to be convincing, then they don't even seem to be particularly good at that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Anonymous

    The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders
     
    Yet again: Carlos Slim does not control the NYT and he never did. He never owned a majority of Class A shares or anything remotely close (17% at his max, and he has since sold off), and more importantly never owned one single Class B share–the share class which actually controls the Board of Directors and hence votes on corporate policy. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns and controls the New York Times and has for a very, very long time.

    This "Carlos Slim Owns the NYT" meme has become so widespread and persistent that it's finally occurred to me that it may be the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign promoted by the Sulzbergers. There's nothing as safe as being hidden.

    Meanwhile, Whiskey, your posts can be entertaining but your knowledge of the world appears to be shrinking.

    Carlos Slim does not control the NYT and he never did. He never owned a majority of Class A shares or anything remotely close (17% at his max, and he has since sold off), and more importantly never owned one single Class B share–the share class which actually controls the Board of Directors and hence votes on corporate policy. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns and controls the New York Times and has for a very, very long time.

    Two or three percent ownership is enough to make you an “activist investor,” with influence over corporate policy and direction. For example, that’s how Peltz does it with Trian.

    Slim’s 17% ownership is tremendously influential, even if it’s Class A shares. Do you think he bought the 17% for the returns?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Polish Perspective
    Remember, these same Jews will whine endlessly over "too many white men" in XYZ setting. US media is essentially Jews hiring Jews.

    Even that Weiss woman only breaks with the left because it helps Jewish interests. On MeToo, many of the gropers were Jewish men so it makes sense why she would side with Jewish women over white women. Her tribal allegiances are stronger than those she has to her gender.

    On foreign policy, the reason why she'd be hawkish is self-explanatory, go look at US mid-east foreign policy in the last 20 years for more clues or read Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book.

    In law school I was struck by the number of jewish professors. The only Gentiles were dorkish, like the son in law lawyer sent by Rabinowitz to Archie’s house. Lots of in group hiring I surmised.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Announcing Stephens’ hire last April, James Bennet, The Times’ editorial page editor, said readers could “expect other additions to our regular roster in coming months as we continue to diversify our lineup and enrich our debate.”

    Wow… does this mean that the Times will be hiring Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @anon
    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    OK, well, if that was the real driving force, then wouldn't the media be better at what it does?

    It's awful, though. And at some point, you have to wonder if it's like the "bad schools" argument. Maybe the schools aren't bad because there's something magically wrong with the bricks that were used to build the school. Maybe the school is bad because of the students who go there.

    Likewise, maybe the media isn't bad because there's something inherently wrong with the media. Maybe it's bad because of the people who run it. Maybe there's just something wrong with them.

    Considering that I routinely run into more insightful commentary from commenters named "metallicaroolz696969" than I do from the David Brookses and Thomas Friedmans of the world, I can't help but think that that's probably the case.

    I propose an experiment to test the “schools” for “badness”:

    Replace all the teachers, students and administrators with WASPs, Catholics, Hindus, or Jews. Spend exactly the same amount. Compare the graduation rates before and after.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Only neo-Nazis say things like “the Jews control the media.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Anon
    Muslims got cousin marriage.

    Jews got cousin media.

    In this case they are actually using “diversity” correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo. People here may not be able to appreciate it, but that is actually a yuge development to have on the OpEd page of the NYTimes.

    I realize that a lot of people around here think that unless the cover jacket of Steven Walt’s book is reprinted every day on the front page of the Times that their views are being “censored” and Bret Stephens equals William Kuntzler because both Jewish, but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Roger Cohen is a total Zionist. So, is David Brooks. Douthat is hardly pro-Palestinian, and most other writers either ignore the Palestinian issue or quietly support Israel.

    Also, some Jews are worried about MeToo because they are into MeJew thinking. They see MeToo as the Revenge of the Shikses. The bimbos were supposed to obey and be good stepford shicks. But something went haywire.

    The anti-Trump mania somehow got confused and began to lash out at ALL men in position of power. Even Democratic Jewish bigshots suddenly began to look like Trump. Feminists and slut priders began to see Trump here, there, everywhere. Anti-Trump hysteria filled the media and entertainment with 'Pussy grabber is in power!!! Pussy grabbing is evil!!!' And even Jewish guys were encouraging this attitude.. But then, the women began to subconsciously connect the dots. "Trump is a pussy grabber. He is evil because he grabs pussies... Wait a minute.. who else grabs pussies? My Jewish boss!!! He is Trump too!!!"

    So, some Jews are in damage control mode. They are trying to reprogram the public, "Haven Monny, he's the bad guy. And Trump too. But not the Jews who fund the Democratic Party."
    , @anon
    but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Oh? Which one of them is against flooding the United States with third-world immigrants?

    Or do you have to be an "aspie" to be against that?
    , @AnotherDad

    In this case they are actually using “diversity” correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo.
     
    Biz, everyone has their mental universe. You're hyper sensitive to certain scents and when your noise smells a possible mention of Jews or Israel, you pop up like a prairie dog.

    But i'm an American. I wish the Israelis well in preserving their nation, but "diversity of thought" in an American newspaper is not defined by diversity of opinion on Israeli politics, settlements, negotiating position.

    "Diversity of the thought" in an American newspaper ought to include having people actually in favor of preserving the *American* nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @anon
    Sheesh. What gobbledygook. Is there a name for this style of writing?

    Reads like consultant-speak... or, say, Richard Posner's A Failure of Capitalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Anonymous

    If the SCOTUS had nine Jews born and raised in New York it would be 100% diverse!’
     
    Only a racist would engage in such a transparent attempt to exclude Jews born in Miami, Chicago, and L.A. Not to mention Israel. You wouldn't want to be racist, now would you?

    And where was Roger Cohen born, btw? Oh yeah, London. Give his dad credit--he got out of South Africa while the gettin' was good.

    As I’ve noted here previously, there are no Protestants, male or female, black or white, on the Supreme Court Court, as has been the case for eight years now. Unless you count Gorsuch, who was raised a Catholic, but refuses to say if he shares his wife’s Episcopalian persuasion. Other “identity groups,” such as, say, lesbians, are wildly over-represented, compared to their presence in the population. Yet I hear no complaints about the Court’s lack of diversity.

    Is it hate speech for me to point that out?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @anon
    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    OK, well, if that was the real driving force, then wouldn't the media be better at what it does?

    It's awful, though. And at some point, you have to wonder if it's like the "bad schools" argument. Maybe the schools aren't bad because there's something magically wrong with the bricks that were used to build the school. Maybe the school is bad because of the students who go there.

    Likewise, maybe the media isn't bad because there's something inherently wrong with the media. Maybe it's bad because of the people who run it. Maybe there's just something wrong with them.

    Considering that I routinely run into more insightful commentary from commenters named "metallicaroolz696969" than I do from the David Brookses and Thomas Friedmans of the world, I can't help but think that that's probably the case.

    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who’s the stupid one?

    If you understand that journalists are paid lackeys without their own opinions (or carefully pre-selected as having the right opinions by Moldburg’s “Cathedral”) then it all makes sense. And each one of these guys is one accusation away from being unpersoned if he shows the wrong opinions. So they never ever show the wrong opinions.

    Some of these guys are really smart and know the score, but they are very careful never to say the wrong thing. Others are really not that smart but have learned to sing the right tune by heart so that even if you woke them in the middle of the night they could launch right into the approved script – that in itself is a skill of a sort.

    And remember they live in an echo chamber where everyone else is saying the same thing and those who have differing opinions can be easily dismissed as trailer trash rednecks lacking in dental hygiene who cohabit with their close relations so after a while they start to believe their own BS even though it doesn’t withstand close scrutiny (or even no-so-close scrutiny).

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who’s the stupid one?
     
    Well, sure, if you believe in nothing but power and money and that wealth and ego-gratifcation justify being a douche-bag.

    And remember they live in an echo chamber where everyone else is saying the same thing and those who have differing opinions can be easily dismissed as trailer trash rednecks lacking in dental hygiene who cohabit with their close relations so after a while they start to believe their own BS even though it doesn’t withstand close scrutiny (or even no-so-close scrutiny).
     
    They only "so easily dismiss" differing opinions as coming from inbred, stump-toothed hicks because they have relentlessly pushed that notion for years on end. Being able to "credibly" paint your opponents in the worst light is one of many benefits of controlling the megaphone.

    Needless to say, harping on inbreeding is pretty rich coming from New-York-Times-Americans.

    , @anon
    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who’s the stupid one?

    Well, I didn't say either one was stupid, really. But it's still Tom Friedman.

    Others are really not that smart but have learned to sing the right tune by heart so that even if you woke them in the middle of the night they could launch right into the approved script – that in itself is a skill of a sort.


    Not much of one. Go on Twitter. Every leftist you run into has the same ability.

    And if they're not particularly smart or particularly talented, then we're back to the question of why there are so many Goldbergs and Friedmans and Weisses. If they're doing a job anyone could do, why doesn't it seem like it's just anyone who gets hired to do it?
    , @Anonymous
    Guys like Friedman are paid lackeys of other guys like Friedman. Guys like metallicaroolz696969 are individuals whose livelihoods are threatened by the guys like Friedman if they publicly espouse their views.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Polish Perspective
    Remember, these same Jews will whine endlessly over "too many white men" in XYZ setting. US media is essentially Jews hiring Jews.

    Even that Weiss woman only breaks with the left because it helps Jewish interests. On MeToo, many of the gropers were Jewish men so it makes sense why she would side with Jewish women over white women. Her tribal allegiances are stronger than those she has to her gender.

    On foreign policy, the reason why she'd be hawkish is self-explanatory, go look at US mid-east foreign policy in the last 20 years for more clues or read Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book.

    Her tribal allegiances are stronger than those she has to her gender.

    Women have no gender allegiance. Men work together because it helps them get women. Women working together does not help them get men so women don’t care about women in the abstract.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Anonymous
    Tell me which has greater purchase in the public consciousness: a widespread internet meme or the 'masthead' that you have to be motivated to search to find.

    Wikipedia?

    The New York Times

    The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated as The NYT or The Times) is an American newspaper based in New York City with worldwide influence and readership.[6][7][8] Founded in 1851, the paper has won 122 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper.[9][10]

    As of September 2016, it had the largest combined print-and-digital circulation of any daily newspaper in the United States.[11] The New York Times is ranked 18th in the world by circulation.

    The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.[12] It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger the paper’s publisher and, his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. the company’s chairman, is the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper.[13]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Lot
    Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell's government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We've been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king's court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    As Dr. Fleming put it, if we could invite 500 million Martians to set up home in the U.S., and they were all polite, hard-working, law-abiding and intelligent, would that be good for the nation, and if so, what do you mean by “nation”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Nope. Just tribalism. Pure and simple.

    White privilege is a misnomer, it’s really just Jew privilege.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Anonymous
    Ask any of them. They'll tell you that they're smarter than everyone else and that they work harder than everyone else. Strictly merit. So much so that they don't even need to interview others for the plum jobs.

    Yeah, and the funny thing is, writing the kind of op-eds they have in the Times is not exactly back-breaking work, nor is it rocket surgery. It is, rather, a privilege.

    Brains and hard work, my ass. Merit, in a pig’s eye.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Definitely explains why she hired Monica Lewinsky for an op-ed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Polish Perspective
    Remember, these same Jews will whine endlessly over "too many white men" in XYZ setting. US media is essentially Jews hiring Jews.

    Even that Weiss woman only breaks with the left because it helps Jewish interests. On MeToo, many of the gropers were Jewish men so it makes sense why she would side with Jewish women over white women. Her tribal allegiances are stronger than those she has to her gender.

    On foreign policy, the reason why she'd be hawkish is self-explanatory, go look at US mid-east foreign policy in the last 20 years for more clues or read Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book.

    Has Poland legalised non-trading on Sundays? If so, hooray!! Well done, Poland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Tyrion 2

    Are there WASP leadership programs?
     
    There are Protestant, Catholic and Mormon leadership programmes.

    Are there WASP leadership programs?

    There are Protestant, Catholic and Mormon leadership programmes.

    Confessional identities…..Not quite the same thing as an ethnic/racial identity leadership program.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Lot
    Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell's government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We've been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king's court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    Not buying it that it’s coincidence. Upper class southerners have a verbal culture too. They’ve been over-represented among popular fiction writers for a century, yet they are underrepresented in media.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Or could it be that “Sh*t floats”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Jack D
    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who's the stupid one?

    If you understand that journalists are paid lackeys without their own opinions (or carefully pre-selected as having the right opinions by Moldburg's "Cathedral") then it all makes sense. And each one of these guys is one accusation away from being unpersoned if he shows the wrong opinions. So they never ever show the wrong opinions.

    Some of these guys are really smart and know the score, but they are very careful never to say the wrong thing. Others are really not that smart but have learned to sing the right tune by heart so that even if you woke them in the middle of the night they could launch right into the approved script - that in itself is a skill of a sort.

    And remember they live in an echo chamber where everyone else is saying the same thing and those who have differing opinions can be easily dismissed as trailer trash rednecks lacking in dental hygiene who cohabit with their close relations so after a while they start to believe their own BS even though it doesn't withstand close scrutiny (or even no-so-close scrutiny).

    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who’s the stupid one?

    Well, sure, if you believe in nothing but power and money and that wealth and ego-gratifcation justify being a douche-bag.

    And remember they live in an echo chamber where everyone else is saying the same thing and those who have differing opinions can be easily dismissed as trailer trash rednecks lacking in dental hygiene who cohabit with their close relations so after a while they start to believe their own BS even though it doesn’t withstand close scrutiny (or even no-so-close scrutiny).

    They only “so easily dismiss” differing opinions as coming from inbred, stump-toothed hicks because they have relentlessly pushed that notion for years on end. Being able to “credibly” paint your opponents in the worst light is one of many benefits of controlling the megaphone.

    Needless to say, harping on inbreeding is pretty rich coming from New-York-Times-Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Lot
    Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell's government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We've been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king's court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    Oh c’mon, Lot.

    Yes, Jews have a very high verbal IQ and are going to be over-represented in these jobs–maybe 7X. Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you’d get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.

    The proof here is … these people aren’t very good! Do you find them to be great prose stylists? Compelling to read, even though you disagree? Part of “high verbal IQ” is supposed to be the ability to both detect and produce verbal logic. You’re writing an op-ed, so along with your opinion, one would expect you’d have some reasoning. You’d have a “because” followed by evidence, or some evidence preceding your “therefore”. Evidence compelling–or at least interesting and worth a think–to at least the intelligent neutral observer. Do you see that?

    I don’t. I just see cheerleaders for the liberal Jewish establishment narrative, wildly waving their verbal pompoms, higher and harder, faster and more furiously, as if that suffices to justify the phony faslehoods they peddle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    William Safire was pretty good as a stylist. And some of Brooks' columns, years ago, struck me as well crafted. Overall, not so much. I detest Friedman, and can only suggest you read Matt Taibbi's review of The World is Flat for the ultimate takedown on him.
    , @utu

    Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you’d get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.
     
    No. This would require assumption of (1) much higher mean of IQ for Jews than any studies indicated and/or (2) postulation of non-Gaussian fat left tail distribution cover for Jews. No empirical evidence for (1) or (2). The degree of overrepresentation of Jews best can be explained by various form of networking encompassed by what might be called ethnic nepotism.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I’m not a fan of either of them, but if the job of a columnist is to get clicks, Brooks and Stephens are champs at riling up readers for clicks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who's the stupid one?

    If you understand that journalists are paid lackeys without their own opinions (or carefully pre-selected as having the right opinions by Moldburg's "Cathedral") then it all makes sense. And each one of these guys is one accusation away from being unpersoned if he shows the wrong opinions. So they never ever show the wrong opinions.

    Some of these guys are really smart and know the score, but they are very careful never to say the wrong thing. Others are really not that smart but have learned to sing the right tune by heart so that even if you woke them in the middle of the night they could launch right into the approved script - that in itself is a skill of a sort.

    And remember they live in an echo chamber where everyone else is saying the same thing and those who have differing opinions can be easily dismissed as trailer trash rednecks lacking in dental hygiene who cohabit with their close relations so after a while they start to believe their own BS even though it doesn't withstand close scrutiny (or even no-so-close scrutiny).

    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who’s the stupid one?

    Well, I didn’t say either one was stupid, really. But it’s still Tom Friedman.

    Others are really not that smart but have learned to sing the right tune by heart so that even if you woke them in the middle of the night they could launch right into the approved script – that in itself is a skill of a sort.

    Not much of one. Go on Twitter. Every leftist you run into has the same ability.

    And if they’re not particularly smart or particularly talented, then we’re back to the question of why there are so many Goldbergs and Friedmans and Weisses. If they’re doing a job anyone could do, why doesn’t it seem like it’s just anyone who gets hired to do it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. “…At The Times, Weiss has written pieces on a variety of subjects, including anti-Semitism on the left, cultural appropriation and a humorous take on Tiffany & Co.’s collection of high-end everyday items. …”

    Yeah, quite a “variety” there. The ideas these people spawn are as insular and inbred as their gene pool.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Speaking of diversity….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @AnotherDad

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.
     
    Oh c'mon, Lot.

    Yes, Jews have a very high verbal IQ and are going to be over-represented in these jobs--maybe 7X. Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you'd get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.

    The proof here is ... these people aren't very good! Do you find them to be great prose stylists? Compelling to read, even though you disagree? Part of "high verbal IQ" is supposed to be the ability to both detect and produce verbal logic. You're writing an op-ed, so along with your opinion, one would expect you'd have some reasoning. You'd have a "because" followed by evidence, or some evidence preceding your "therefore". Evidence compelling--or at least interesting and worth a think--to at least the intelligent neutral observer. Do you see that?

    I don't. I just see cheerleaders for the liberal Jewish establishment narrative, wildly waving their verbal pompoms, higher and harder, faster and more furiously, as if that suffices to justify the phony faslehoods they peddle.

    William Safire was pretty good as a stylist. And some of Brooks’ columns, years ago, struck me as well crafted. Overall, not so much. I detest Friedman, and can only suggest you read Matt Taibbi’s review of The World is Flat for the ultimate takedown on him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell's government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We've been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king's court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    But there’s nothing that suggests that Stephens, Weiss, Goldberg, Boot, et al have “extremely high verbal IQs”. Quite the opposite if you actually read their output. The idea that Stephens, Weiss, Goldberg, Boot, et al are on the op ed pages because the millions of gentiles who outnumber them don’t have similar or greater verbal IQs is implausible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    Oh, yeah?

    bored identity can assure you that any generic bergweissing bootgold is way more verbally-Talmudic than you are.

    Question:

    Do you really think that The Smartest Guys in The Situation Echo Chamber would let Blitzer prancing on gentiles' hypothalami for more than 28 years, if Wolfie weren’t really, really,really smart?


    After all, Blitzer did great on Jeopardy! :

    https://youtu.be/DVC28oemocA


    And he did even better on Jewpardy! :

    https://youtu.be/9MaiaIdjcK8?t=9m5s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Jack D
    metallicaroolz696969 lives in a trailer and hides his identity. Tom Friedman lives in an enormous mansion and is feted by heads of state. So who's the stupid one?

    If you understand that journalists are paid lackeys without their own opinions (or carefully pre-selected as having the right opinions by Moldburg's "Cathedral") then it all makes sense. And each one of these guys is one accusation away from being unpersoned if he shows the wrong opinions. So they never ever show the wrong opinions.

    Some of these guys are really smart and know the score, but they are very careful never to say the wrong thing. Others are really not that smart but have learned to sing the right tune by heart so that even if you woke them in the middle of the night they could launch right into the approved script - that in itself is a skill of a sort.

    And remember they live in an echo chamber where everyone else is saying the same thing and those who have differing opinions can be easily dismissed as trailer trash rednecks lacking in dental hygiene who cohabit with their close relations so after a while they start to believe their own BS even though it doesn't withstand close scrutiny (or even no-so-close scrutiny).

    Guys like Friedman are paid lackeys of other guys like Friedman. Guys like metallicaroolz696969 are individuals whose livelihoods are threatened by the guys like Friedman if they publicly espouse their views.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Lot
    Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell's government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We've been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king's court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    Ok, so if Jews are so brilliant, why are they so opposed to there being exclusively gentile organization and institutions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Because ALL exclusively gentile organizations and institutions have gas chambers hidden in the back.

    Never forget.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @AnotherDad

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.
     
    Oh c'mon, Lot.

    Yes, Jews have a very high verbal IQ and are going to be over-represented in these jobs--maybe 7X. Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you'd get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.

    The proof here is ... these people aren't very good! Do you find them to be great prose stylists? Compelling to read, even though you disagree? Part of "high verbal IQ" is supposed to be the ability to both detect and produce verbal logic. You're writing an op-ed, so along with your opinion, one would expect you'd have some reasoning. You'd have a "because" followed by evidence, or some evidence preceding your "therefore". Evidence compelling--or at least interesting and worth a think--to at least the intelligent neutral observer. Do you see that?

    I don't. I just see cheerleaders for the liberal Jewish establishment narrative, wildly waving their verbal pompoms, higher and harder, faster and more furiously, as if that suffices to justify the phony faslehoods they peddle.

    Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you’d get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.

    No. This would require assumption of (1) much higher mean of IQ for Jews than any studies indicated and/or (2) postulation of non-Gaussian fat left tail distribution cover for Jews. No empirical evidence for (1) or (2). The degree of overrepresentation of Jews best can be explained by various form of networking encompassed by what might be called ethnic nepotism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Nepotism and bribery both make a great contribution to Harvard's hugely overweighted, but under-intelligent Jewish population...We'll see if Harvard is ever required to respond to discovery in the lawsuits filed against it.
    , @Lot
    A 140IQ non-Ashekanzi white more likely will take a job that pays well in money over one that pays well in social capital than an Ashkenazi or Ashkenazi-Puritan American.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. The Jew-controlled corporate propaganda outlets must be treated as treasonous monopolies by White Core Americans. Comcast, the New York Times, CNN, Viacom, Google and other propaganda organs that are controlled and directed by Jews must be broken up. Jews in the media must be held accountable for their anti-White attacks on America.

    This must be brought out into the political arena. Any politician who will not discuss the Jewish Question in terms of media ownership and media control should be thought of as cowardly or worse.

    I’ll throw in the WASP Question to even out the vituperation. And, one more time, when I say WASP I don’t mean all the people of English ancestry, I mean the snot-nosed plutocrat WASPs from the prep schools and the Ivy League and the old money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. @Polish Perspective
    Remember, these same Jews will whine endlessly over "too many white men" in XYZ setting. US media is essentially Jews hiring Jews.

    Even that Weiss woman only breaks with the left because it helps Jewish interests. On MeToo, many of the gropers were Jewish men so it makes sense why she would side with Jewish women over white women. Her tribal allegiances are stronger than those she has to her gender.

    On foreign policy, the reason why she'd be hawkish is self-explanatory, go look at US mid-east foreign policy in the last 20 years for more clues or read Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book.

    She’d be siding with white men, some of whom are Jewish, over white women, few of whom are Jewish. Jewish women are very feminist and liberal. By NYT standards Weiss’ views actually are diverse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Do people still read it? When I left NYC in the ’90s, people used its employment section to job hunt, but for recreational options and politics, it was NY Press, which was later supplanted by the revived Village Voice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. @anon
    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    OK, well, if that was the real driving force, then wouldn't the media be better at what it does?

    It's awful, though. And at some point, you have to wonder if it's like the "bad schools" argument. Maybe the schools aren't bad because there's something magically wrong with the bricks that were used to build the school. Maybe the school is bad because of the students who go there.

    Likewise, maybe the media isn't bad because there's something inherently wrong with the media. Maybe it's bad because of the people who run it. Maybe there's just something wrong with them.

    Considering that I routinely run into more insightful commentary from commenters named "metallicaroolz696969" than I do from the David Brookses and Thomas Friedmans of the world, I can't help but think that that's probably the case.

    I resent your casting aspersions on the gentle, soothing sounds of James Hetfield.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Amazing that Diversity in journalism has added to the numbers of blacks, browns, yellows, Moslems, gays, and – especially – Jews, all of whom are Liberal or even farther left on cultural and moral issues, while significantly cutting out white male heterosexuals.

    Surely that wasn’t THE intention. Surely Diversity is fair and reasonable and not out to harm any group in any way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. Ethnic diversity is critically important for firefighters, not for opinion journalists.

    Read More
    • LOL: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. “Diversity” as spoken by Libmedia is officially code for:

    The sheeple know. We need to close ranks & double down on our Narrative. Clamp down any marginally unreliable voices. We need total discipline, turbo levels of the Emma Lazarus feelz inculcation, and More Immigration ASAP.
    Also, hate speech codes must be enforced. Since we can’t enact them on a federal level, we must use our connections in Silicone Valley & in Banking to deplatform hate speech promulgators.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. @Anonymous
    True enough, but that mainly means that over 60-yr-old people nationwide are reading their crap.

    What's that? STOP PRESS hold everything, I just noticed this:


    https://i.imgur.com/XYqM7ya.jpg

    PS to Steve: "Marshal" has just one L.

    “Marshal” has just one L.

    Fixed on the uploaded image. Better fix on the original. Thanks! (˶′◡‵˶)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Anon
    Muslims got cousin marriage.

    Jews got cousin media.

    Maybe a new term for this kind of hiring would be “zioversity”….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @anon

    "My guess is very few blacks read the Times, "
     
    Way more is at stake than the Times' own readership; its opinion page is a choke point nationwide because NYT and WAPO opinion writers get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers.

    “get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers.”

    Do local yokels even read local papers?

    Actually, local yokels don’t matter. Power and wealth are all concentrated in a few cities, and that’s why NYT matters. It speaks to the elites and for the elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "Do local yokels even read local papers?"

    The relevant audience in my mind is moderate middle class suburbanites. By "local" I don't mean rural or small town folks--more like those in metropolitan areas 5-50 in population.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Do local yokels even read local papers?
     
    The kind of "local" papers that can afford to run syndicated columns usually aren't really local papers anyway. They are owned by large media groups located in New York or Washington D.C. Your hometown "local" paper probably takes its editorial direction from Advance Publications or the Gannett Company.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @utu

    Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you’d get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.
     
    No. This would require assumption of (1) much higher mean of IQ for Jews than any studies indicated and/or (2) postulation of non-Gaussian fat left tail distribution cover for Jews. No empirical evidence for (1) or (2). The degree of overrepresentation of Jews best can be explained by various form of networking encompassed by what might be called ethnic nepotism.

    Nepotism and bribery both make a great contribution to Harvard’s hugely overweighted, but under-intelligent Jewish population…We’ll see if Harvard is ever required to respond to discovery in the lawsuits filed against it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @I, Libertine
    As I've noted here previously, there are no Protestants, male or female, black or white, on the Supreme Court Court, as has been the case for eight years now. Unless you count Gorsuch, who was raised a Catholic, but refuses to say if he shares his wife's Episcopalian persuasion. Other "identity groups," such as, say, lesbians, are wildly over-represented, compared to their presence in the population. Yet I hear no complaints about the Court's lack of diversity.

    Is it hate speech for me to point that out?

    Catholics are over-represented on the Court – 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK’s election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog

    Well, Jack, I'm sorry. But when you dominate professions that people rightfully hate, like mass media punditry, then guess what? People probably aren't going to like you as much as you want them to.

    They could stop at any time, you know. They could all just quit the punditry game. Or they could, theoretically, do a better job at it. And then maybe people wouldn't engage in all that anti-Semitic noticing. But they don't do either of these things, do they?

    So, sorry, I guess. But those are the breaks.

    , @DFH

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?
     
    Catholics don't control intellectual institutions and the media and constantly try to use them to subvert white American society (and act similarly in every other white country they inhabit) and make white people a minority in their own country? Just a guess
    , @AnotherDad

    Catholics are over-represented on the Court – 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore.
     
    Yep--5 nominal Catholics and one raised and converted to Episcopal and three Jews.

    The court really need not be "representative" because really these judges are *supposed* to be rendering judgements according to law--the kind of thing a legal-AI program should be able to do.

    But of course they now sit as sort of Talmudic scholars/philospher kings, scratching around to in penumbras in order to pronounce on the great issues of today --hey gay marriage, says so right there!--because otherwise that would be left to the hoi polloi electing representives and we can't have that!

    Given that, yeah i do think the Catholic over-representation is way over the top. And the Jewish over-representation is even more over the top. For the Catholic piece, you can--sort of--blame 'W', who apparently considers himself a bible believing Protestant but couldn't find an acceptable Protestant to replace two retiring Prots.

    Given more "diversity!", the racial and ethnic bean counting and game playing can only ramp up--and that's not even counting women whining. You need 3 white protestants (2 regularly church going), 1 black protestant, 1 practicing white Catholic, 1 "Catholic" "Hispanic", 2 white gentile non-practicing seculars (one with protestant roots, one with maybe a little Catholic--pick me!), and one Asian, Jew, Muslim, Pacific Islander, LGBQWERTY or Native American.

    Personally i think it would be cool to just have a Native American seat on the court. They could wear one of those bitchin' feathered headdresses. After all it was their country before the white man came and stole it from them only to piss it away, giving it to foreigners. They might have an opinion on all that.
    , @biz
    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites. The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor's radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Do you recognize any such thing as "anti-gentilism" practiced by some - actually a not inconsiderable number of - Jews?

    If not, pardon me for not giving a flying f**k about your breast-beating about anti-semitism.
    , @Hibernian
    Stuff like the Feinstein (went to a Catholic school)/Durbin (Catholic himself, of sorts) "the dogma lives loudly in you" explosion in a recent judicial nomination hearing still happens. (Nominee was Catholic and , based on maiden name, likely Irish. She exhorted Notre Dame Law students to practice thir profession for the Glory of God, similar to a fundamentalist at Wheaton College.)
    , @AnotherDad

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?
     
    "Anti-Semitism"--at least from the majority of commenters on this blog--comes as a reaction to Jewish behavior--principally Jewish anti-gentilism. I realize you--and a few other guys are highly resistant to that simple, obvious proposition, but that's the gist of it.

    My supposed "anti-semitism" is akin to what i would guess was your parents' "anti-Germanism" in say late '39--hostility to people who are hostile to you, who wish you ill, are trying to disposses you, destroy you as a people, a nation.

    ~
    The reason anti-Catholicism is "dead as doornail" is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream and on board with America's republican project--no better or worse--than American Protestants. They aren't taking orders from Rome. They aren't hostile to republicanism. They aren't on some separatism program anymore. They aren't enemies of the nation, but--on average--want the nation to survive and prosper.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on--working for--their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    And don't give me "it's those leftists". Folks like David Brooks are not "leftist" in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a "conservative". It's just that he's only interested in conserving Jews and Israel, but has no interest in conserving the American nation. When it comes to Americans ... oh, screw those guys, foreigners are better!

    And actual patriotic Jews--like Stephen Miller--who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe. So note, that it is Jews who are defining hostility to my people and my nation as part of the Jewish essence, not me.

    And all this anti-gentilism is very public. I'm not reading some Czarist forgery to get my information on Jewish thoughts about me. I'm reading what prominent Jews write for all to read on the pages of the New York Times.
    , @Anonymous
    Here's a rather flip answer: "Protestants" have been taught how to avoid thinking. By contrast, at least some strains of Catholicism and Judaism have promulgated thinking.
    A more serious answer: Protestants have been taught to avoid thinking about things that actually matter.
    An even more serious answer: This is actually a challenging issue. I personally respect anyone who contributes.
    , @Anon
    Because Jews weren't present enough to get up to their shenanigans until the late 19th century, largely starting with the poem on the statue of liberty. The papists were already there in large numbers. Things are so bad now that letting papists get up to their shenanigans would be an improvement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @j
    Touche! On this point I have no illusions. They are American media professionals, they will lie convincingly like the best. That is the reason they have been hired. The only difference between you and me is that you think they were hired through ethnic networking, and I believe they are good in their chosen profession. Anyway, the NYT cannot sink any lower.

    They are American media professionals, they will lie convincingly like the best.

    The only difference between you and me is that you think they were hired through ethnic networking, and I believe they are good in their chosen profession.

    OK, so…

    Are you saying that the reason these professional liars are so heavily Jewish is because Jewish people are just abnormally good at lying? Or, they just like lying more than other people do, or what?

    I’m not sure what else that could mean.

    Wouldn’t “ethnic networking” actually be the more favorable of the two possibilities?

    And another problem is, they must not even be all that convincing, either, because not many people even trust the media anymore. So if it’s their job to be convincing, then they don’t even seem to be particularly good at that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog

    Well, Jack, I’m sorry. But when you dominate professions that people rightfully hate, like mass media punditry, then guess what? People probably aren’t going to like you as much as you want them to.

    They could stop at any time, you know. They could all just quit the punditry game. Or they could, theoretically, do a better job at it. And then maybe people wouldn’t engage in all that anti-Semitic noticing. But they don’t do either of these things, do they?

    So, sorry, I guess. But those are the breaks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz
    In this case they are actually using "diversity" correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo. People here may not be able to appreciate it, but that is actually a yuge development to have on the OpEd page of the NYTimes.

    I realize that a lot of people around here think that unless the cover jacket of Steven Walt's book is reprinted every day on the front page of the Times that their views are being "censored" and Bret Stephens equals William Kuntzler because both Jewish, but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Roger Cohen is a total Zionist. So, is David Brooks. Douthat is hardly pro-Palestinian, and most other writers either ignore the Palestinian issue or quietly support Israel.

    Also, some Jews are worried about MeToo because they are into MeJew thinking. They see MeToo as the Revenge of the Shikses. The bimbos were supposed to obey and be good stepford shicks. But something went haywire.

    The anti-Trump mania somehow got confused and began to lash out at ALL men in position of power. Even Democratic Jewish bigshots suddenly began to look like Trump. Feminists and slut priders began to see Trump here, there, everywhere. Anti-Trump hysteria filled the media and entertainment with ‘Pussy grabber is in power!!! Pussy grabbing is evil!!!’ And even Jewish guys were encouraging this attitude.. But then, the women began to subconsciously connect the dots. “Trump is a pussy grabber. He is evil because he grabs pussies… Wait a minute.. who else grabs pussies? My Jewish boss!!! He is Trump too!!!”

    So, some Jews are in damage control mode. They are trying to reprogram the public, “Haven Monny, he’s the bad guy. And Trump too. But not the Jews who fund the Democratic Party.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. ” What happened?”

    Probably extensive direct exposure. You can learn a lot by just noticing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Catholics don’t control intellectual institutions and the media and constantly try to use them to subvert white American society (and act similarly in every other white country they inhabit) and make white people a minority in their own country? Just a guess

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Things haven’t changed at the NYT’s in over 60 years. https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/the-point-april-1958/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Catholics are over-represented on the Court – 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore.

    Yep–5 nominal Catholics and one raised and converted to Episcopal and three Jews.

    The court really need not be “representative” because really these judges are *supposed* to be rendering judgements according to law–the kind of thing a legal-AI program should be able to do.

    But of course they now sit as sort of Talmudic scholars/philospher kings, scratching around to in penumbras in order to pronounce on the great issues of today –hey gay marriage, says so right there!–because otherwise that would be left to the hoi polloi electing representives and we can’t have that!

    Given that, yeah i do think the Catholic over-representation is way over the top. And the Jewish over-representation is even more over the top. For the Catholic piece, you can–sort of–blame ‘W’, who apparently considers himself a bible believing Protestant but couldn’t find an acceptable Protestant to replace two retiring Prots.

    Given more “diversity!”, the racial and ethnic bean counting and game playing can only ramp up–and that’s not even counting women whining. You need 3 white protestants (2 regularly church going), 1 black protestant, 1 practicing white Catholic, 1 “Catholic” “Hispanic”, 2 white gentile non-practicing seculars (one with protestant roots, one with maybe a little Catholic–pick me!), and one Asian, Jew, Muslim, Pacific Islander, LGBQWERTY or Native American.

    Personally i think it would be cool to just have a Native American seat on the court. They could wear one of those bitchin’ feathered headdresses. After all it was their country before the white man came and stole it from them only to piss it away, giving it to foreigners. They might have an opinion on all that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Lot
    Jobs requiring extremely high verbal IQ and are fairly low paying are going to feature a very disproportionate share of Jews from old upper class families who provide the elite education and income subsidies that support most of these positions.

    The second most over represented group are going to be the old English and Anglo-Irish gentry and their decendants concentrated in New England and the mid-Atlantic, and also spread somewhat thinner a few pockets elsewhere.

    These two groups are about half way into a complete merger in some areas.

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.

    While in certain milestones the Italians and French were ahead of the English (first university), our Puritan and Non-Conforming ancestors pretty quickly and permanently exceeded them. This is partly because unlike in France and Italy, the intellectual gentry class took over the country, and even when Cromwell's government fell, never gave up practical power.

    In 1650, there were not many ethnic groups with widespread literacy. You had Jews, the English, the Dutch, and the Northern Italians. We've been co-evolving towards literary ability ever since. Elsewhere in Europe literate people may have existed, but they were mostly tied to and dependant on their king's court. The Jews and Puritans even studied many of the same things, with one of focuses of Puritan education being the Hebrew language and scripture.

    So superior they must convince the goyim that genetics isnt real.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    That's a task that is wrong on its merits and futile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites. The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Doesn't some of it probably come from the fact that they get tired of hearing Jews scream about "anti-Semitism" every time someone levels a criticism at them?

    It's especially funny when it happens here, too. Because the Jewish people who do this are the same ones who call out black misbehavior, and black criminality, and everything like that. They're perfectly happy to do that. And they presumably know perfectly well that, if the average black person was to hear them do so, they'd start screaming "Racist!" at them.

    So it's really kind of amusing to watch them do the same thing to others when it happens to them.

    It's like the noticing is only supposed to go so far, and no farther.

    Is there any possibility that some people just find that sort of double standard to be distasteful?

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims

    See? Like that. You have no problem portraying Muslims as devious and sinister (of course, many of them are, but they're hardly the only ones) to the point that you make up goofball accusations against them with no evidence at all. But heaven help anyone who points out any predispositions that Jewish people might have.

    Do you just not see the problem here?

    , @DFH

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.
     

    'Anti-semitism' is totally irrational goy
     
    For a people who supposedly have such a high verbal IQ, you sure are unoriginal
    , @Mr. Anon

    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites.
     
    Well, they've probably never read anything you've written.

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans..........
     
    Sure, everyone here is really wearing a Nation of Islam Bowtie or a Keffiyeh. I suppose what you wrote might be true if by "some proportion" you meant "exceedingly few".

    ......and in some other proportion spazzes who had some wird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.
     
    You forgot to accuse us of being inbred, and having small d**ks too. Oh, and being closeted homosexuals as well. Aren't those all part of the usual playbook?

    And yet people like you wonder why some people don't like you................

    .................it's a mystery, all right.

    , @ben tillman

    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites.
     
    Anti-semitism is a postjudice, not a prejudice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz
    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites. The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor's radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Doesn’t some of it probably come from the fact that they get tired of hearing Jews scream about “anti-Semitism” every time someone levels a criticism at them?

    It’s especially funny when it happens here, too. Because the Jewish people who do this are the same ones who call out black misbehavior, and black criminality, and everything like that. They’re perfectly happy to do that. And they presumably know perfectly well that, if the average black person was to hear them do so, they’d start screaming “Racist!” at them.

    So it’s really kind of amusing to watch them do the same thing to others when it happens to them.

    It’s like the noticing is only supposed to go so far, and no farther.

    Is there any possibility that some people just find that sort of double standard to be distasteful?

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims

    See? Like that. You have no problem portraying Muslims as devious and sinister (of course, many of them are, but they’re hardly the only ones) to the point that you make up goofball accusations against them with no evidence at all. But heaven help anyone who points out any predispositions that Jewish people might have.

    Do you just not see the problem here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Doesn’t some of it probably come from the fact that they get tired of hearing Jews scream about “anti-Semitism” every time someone levels a criticism at them?

    It’s especially funny when it happens here, too. Because the Jewish people who do this are the same ones who call out black misbehavior, and black criminality, and everything like that. They’re perfectly happy to do that. And they presumably know perfectly well that, if the average black person was to hear them do so, they’d start screaming “Racist!” at them.
     
    This is a good point, anon. (Pick a handle!)

    This is an "observations of Steve" blog, but certainly a chief insight is bring in--or being open to--HBD based interpretations of what's going on.

    And indeed there are several Jewish commentators here who are quite, quite happy to express their
    rather negative observations of black (mis)behavior. But of course ... not all blacks are like that. I'm friends with five blacks guys--not a criminal in the bunch. We're talking statistical tendencies which create a group character.

    But flip over to discussing the Jews--who openly publish their anti-gentile thoughts and feelings on the pages of or major media or craft them into their Hollyweird productions--and suddenly any noticing is "anti-semitic". "How dare you notice such things. Look at me, i'm not like that!"

    It's Sodom-ethics. If there are but ten righteous Jews not pushing to destroy all Western nations, then anyone noticing any pattern in Jewish thought is *Anti-Semitism!"
    , @biz
    I believe you've made the classic Millennial error of evaluating the validity of claims based on how they make people feel as opposed to their raw truth value. So yes, calling a fat person fat and a skinny person fat is insulting to both targets. However that doesn't make both claims equally wrong or sinister, since the statement is true in the former case and false in the latter.

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages - that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel - is simply false in most cases. iSteve is a cool guy overall, but he has accused anti-American Jews who write for fucking Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel, and many of the people here believe it without even bothering to click the link at the side to see what Mondoweiss has on their pages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @biz
    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites. The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor's radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    ‘Anti-semitism’ is totally irrational goy

    For a people who supposedly have such a high verbal IQ, you sure are unoriginal

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Anonymous
    But there's nothing that suggests that Stephens, Weiss, Goldberg, Boot, et al have "extremely high verbal IQs". Quite the opposite if you actually read their output. The idea that Stephens, Weiss, Goldberg, Boot, et al are on the op ed pages because the millions of gentiles who outnumber them don't have similar or greater verbal IQs is implausible.

    Oh, yeah?

    bored identity can assure you that any generic bergweissing bootgold is way more verbally-Talmudic than you are.

    Question:

    Do you really think that The Smartest Guys in The Situation Echo Chamber would let Blitzer prancing on gentiles’ hypothalami for more than 28 years, if Wolfie weren’t really, really,really smart?

    After all, Blitzer did great on Jeopardy! :

    And he did even better on Jewpardy! :

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @biz
    In this case they are actually using "diversity" correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo. People here may not be able to appreciate it, but that is actually a yuge development to have on the OpEd page of the NYTimes.

    I realize that a lot of people around here think that unless the cover jacket of Steven Walt's book is reprinted every day on the front page of the Times that their views are being "censored" and Bret Stephens equals William Kuntzler because both Jewish, but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Oh? Which one of them is against flooding the United States with third-world immigrants?

    Or do you have to be an “aspie” to be against that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Wow, they aren’t even trying to hide the Jewish dominance. They could at least have thrown in a token neutered black liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. Sweden may the most feminised country in the world, but America is fast becoming the overall global leader in identity politics. In part this is because American is such a capitalist country. Despite the cultural dominance of the left, classic economic Marxism is discouraged on American campuses, and people on the political left focus all their energy on identity politics. Most of the hyper-ethnocentric Jews at the NYT are former economic leftists who have switched to the right and now champion free markets and Jewish identity politics.

    It’s a winning combination, since in US politics only fringe nationalists will attack an ethnocentric Jew who claims to be a defender of capitalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @Luke Lea
    Maybe grounds for an employment discrimination suit charging lack of persons of Protestant and Catholic descent in editorial positions? Wouldn't win but think of the publicity.

    Tee hee. Imagine if the suit made it all the way to the federal supreme court, where it will be decided by a panel composed of…uh…er…um…nevermind….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Anon
    "get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers."

    Do local yokels even read local papers?

    Actually, local yokels don't matter. Power and wealth are all concentrated in a few cities, and that's why NYT matters. It speaks to the elites and for the elites.

    “Do local yokels even read local papers?”

    The relevant audience in my mind is moderate middle class suburbanites. By “local” I don’t mean rural or small town folks–more like those in metropolitan areas 5-50 in population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @AnotherDad

    Sure there is a nepotism aspect, but there also is the genetic advantages and the childhood and adolescence spent among parents and other highly educated adults who write and manipulate ideas for a living.
     
    Oh c'mon, Lot.

    Yes, Jews have a very high verbal IQ and are going to be over-represented in these jobs--maybe 7X. Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you'd get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.

    The proof here is ... these people aren't very good! Do you find them to be great prose stylists? Compelling to read, even though you disagree? Part of "high verbal IQ" is supposed to be the ability to both detect and produce verbal logic. You're writing an op-ed, so along with your opinion, one would expect you'd have some reasoning. You'd have a "because" followed by evidence, or some evidence preceding your "therefore". Evidence compelling--or at least interesting and worth a think--to at least the intelligent neutral observer. Do you see that?

    I don't. I just see cheerleaders for the liberal Jewish establishment narrative, wildly waving their verbal pompoms, higher and harder, faster and more furiously, as if that suffices to justify the phony faslehoods they peddle.

    I’m not a fan of either of them, but if the job of a columnist is to get clicks, Brooks and Stephens are champs at riling up readers for clicks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Yes the left seems to get more angry at Brooks and Dowd and now Stephens too and actually talk about them, while ignoring Krugman and Blow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Issac
    So superior they must convince the goyim that genetics isnt real.

    That’s a task that is wrong on its merits and futile.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @utu

    Do a NE coast demographic adjustment and you’d get Jewish overrepresentation like the Harvard student body or faculty.
     
    No. This would require assumption of (1) much higher mean of IQ for Jews than any studies indicated and/or (2) postulation of non-Gaussian fat left tail distribution cover for Jews. No empirical evidence for (1) or (2). The degree of overrepresentation of Jews best can be explained by various form of networking encompassed by what might be called ethnic nepotism.

    A 140IQ non-Ashekanzi white more likely will take a job that pays well in money over one that pays well in social capital than an Ashkenazi or Ashkenazi-Puritan American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Dave Pinsen
    I’m not a fan of either of them, but if the job of a columnist is to get clicks, Brooks and Stephens are champs at riling up readers for clicks.

    Yes the left seems to get more angry at Brooks and Dowd and now Stephens too and actually talk about them, while ignoring Krugman and Blow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. The great irony of American immigration policy is that Jews are into Christoid-mode — American is a Credo that must be shared with the whole world — , whereas white ‘Christians’ are into Jewoid mode — America is an ethnos essentially of European blood.

    Jewish view of America is ‘new testamental’.
    White conservative view of America is ‘old testamental’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. @Anon
    "get syndicated or reprinted in all the local newspapers."

    Do local yokels even read local papers?

    Actually, local yokels don't matter. Power and wealth are all concentrated in a few cities, and that's why NYT matters. It speaks to the elites and for the elites.

    Do local yokels even read local papers?

    The kind of “local” papers that can afford to run syndicated columns usually aren’t really local papers anyway. They are owned by large media groups located in New York or Washington D.C. Your hometown “local” paper probably takes its editorial direction from Advance Publications or the Gannett Company.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @biz
    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites. The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor's radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites.

    Well, they’ve probably never read anything you’ve written.

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans……….

    Sure, everyone here is really wearing a Nation of Islam Bowtie or a Keffiyeh. I suppose what you wrote might be true if by “some proportion” you meant “exceedingly few”.

    ……and in some other proportion spazzes who had some wird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    You forgot to accuse us of being inbred, and having small d**ks too. Oh, and being closeted homosexuals as well. Aren’t those all part of the usual playbook?

    And yet people like you wonder why some people don’t like you…………….

    ……………..it’s a mystery, all right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz

    Sure, everyone here is really wearing a Nation of Islam Bowtie or a Keffiyeh. I suppose what you wrote might be true if by “some proportion” you meant “exceedingly few”.
     
    As the famous meme says, on the internet nobody can tell that you are a dog. The number of erstwhile white nationalists posting here who are in reality Muslims is clearly not zero (e.g. rehmahat - lol, although there must be an internet outage in Tehran because he hasn't dropped by lately. And yes, his cover could not be said to be particularly deep). Whether the actual number is closer to 25% or 75% neither you or I know. I have my suspicions about several of the common posters here and if there was a way of verifying I would bet $1000 on my suspicions - turns of phrase that are strange for a native English speaker, and more tellingly, constant defense of Muslims, whatever the situation, which is strange territory for a supposed tradcon. Anyway, again, whether the number is closer to 25% or 75% I don't claim to know, but it is some.

    You forgot to accuse us of being inbred.
     
    Actually, I wouldn't do that, because I am familiar with the actual data, which shows that in the US antisemitism correlates with education. As do other stupid and destructive ideas in our country, like blank-slate-ism. So the typical white American antisemite is not someone in a trailer park. In fact the white working class is one the most philo-semitic demos. Rather it is as I outlined - someone with some education who is rather spastic and thinks it appropriate to hijack a Cleveland Browns forum by talking about how many of the Bolsheviks were Jewish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Do you recognize any such thing as “anti-gentilism” practiced by some – actually a not inconsiderable number of – Jews?

    If not, pardon me for not giving a flying f**k about your breast-beating about anti-semitism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Stuff like the Feinstein (went to a Catholic school)/Durbin (Catholic himself, of sorts) “the dogma lives loudly in you” explosion in a recent judicial nomination hearing still happens. (Nominee was Catholic and , based on maiden name, likely Irish. She exhorted Notre Dame Law students to practice thir profession for the Glory of God, similar to a fundamentalist at Wheaton College.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Anonymous
    Ok, so if Jews are so brilliant, why are they so opposed to there being exclusively gentile organization and institutions?

    Because ALL exclusively gentile organizations and institutions have gas chambers hidden in the back.

    Never forget.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. ‘Looks to me like the same ole Orwellian Jewish, cultural Marxist dominance, in one form or the other.

    And of course, you will probably find some reason to censor this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. @j
    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    “Anti-Semitism”–at least from the majority of commenters on this blog–comes as a reaction to Jewish behavior–principally Jewish anti-gentilism. I realize you–and a few other guys are highly resistant to that simple, obvious proposition, but that’s the gist of it.

    My supposed “anti-semitism” is akin to what i would guess was your parents’ “anti-Germanism” in say late ’39–hostility to people who are hostile to you, who wish you ill, are trying to disposses you, destroy you as a people, a nation.

    ~
    The reason anti-Catholicism is “dead as doornail” is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream and on board with America’s republican project–no better or worse–than American Protestants. They aren’t taking orders from Rome. They aren’t hostile to republicanism. They aren’t on some separatism program anymore. They aren’t enemies of the nation, but–on average–want the nation to survive and prosper.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on–working for–their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    And don’t give me “it’s those leftists”. Folks like David Brooks are not “leftist” in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a “conservative”. It’s just that he’s only interested in conserving Jews and Israel, but has no interest in conserving the American nation. When it comes to Americans … oh, screw those guys, foreigners are better!

    And actual patriotic Jews–like Stephen Miller–who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe. So note, that it is Jews who are defining hostility to my people and my nation as part of the Jewish essence, not me.

    And all this anti-gentilism is very public. I’m not reading some Czarist forgery to get my information on Jewish thoughts about me. I’m reading what prominent Jews write for all to read on the pages of the New York Times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The reason anti-Catholicism is “dead as doornail” is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance.
     
    Anti-Catholicism is “dead as a doornail” because Catholicism is dead as a doornail.
    , @Anon
    The reason anti-Catholicism is “dead as doornail” is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream...

    There is that side of Catholicism. But also the save-the-world side. Plenty of Catholic leaders in the US want More Immigrants. They want to share the Milk of American Plenty with the rest of the world. America as teats to the world. Mooooooo.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on–working for–their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    To destroy or to defeat white people/power? Big difference. Perhaps, the main agenda is not destruction but defeat. It's like the American intention in WWII was not to utterly destroy Germany and Japan. Rather, it was to defeat them and tame them. And then have them serve the US empire.
    Some peoples seek the utter destruction of foes. Nazi Germany sought to totally destroy Russia and wipe it off the map. It was meant to be a Carthaginian Peace. In contrast, not all of politics is on that radical level. When Sparta defeated Athens, it was for hegemony, not metrocide of Athens as people and culture.

    Surely, Jews know that white people are indispensable to Jewish success and power. But they want it defeated and tamed. Only that way will whites obey and serve Jews... like Germany and Japan came to obey and serve the US. It's like a cowboy doesn't want to kill the horse. Then, he'd have nothing to ride. But if he wants to ride the horse, the horse has to be 'broken' and tamed and made to obey.

    And this is why Jews seem to be pushing for more Diversity and promoting 'white guilt'. It's to tame the white horse. It's a domestication process. It's like a wild bull is a fearsome beast. It will gore you if you mess with it. It doesn't serve anything but itself. So, if you want a gentle cow that you can squeeze milk from indefinitely, the 'bull' has to be domesticated into a 'cow'. So, whites need to be cucked.

    From the POV of Jewish Power, this is smart thinking. If Jews just want to assimilate and go along, there is no need for this. But if Jews want the ultimate power and control, then they must keep White Power tamed and saddled. Or white power needs a cow-nose-ring.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2413548.main_image.jpg

    Now, Jews could tame and control Palestinian power in Israel with sheer superiority of numbers.
    But in gentile nations, Jews just don't have their own numbers. So, they have to play the Diversity Lottery to get the numbers. With enough Diversity, the electoral power of whites will break. Even if many whites vote one way, Diversity votes + white cuck votes will overwhelm white power... like in California and New York. Even Virginia now. And once Diversity totally defeats white power and when whites accept their defeat, they will have no choice but to serve the Jews to have the good life as individuals.

    In a way, what Jews are doing is a 'playboy or operator move'. It's not clean. But every decision/direction begins from a premise. If the premise were assimilation, Jews would just try to fit into whiteness. But if the premise is domination(based on sense of higher intelligence and/or historical resentment and revanchism), then what Jews are doing makes good sense.
    People generally feel contempt for those deemed inferior. When Anglos went to Hawaii, did they try to assimilate to the indigenous culture there? No, Anglos felt superior and sought to defeat the natives so that natives would serve the Anglo vision.

    And actual patriotic Jews–like Stephen Miller–who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe.

    Patriotic in a way. Or, it's just another variation of Jewish Tribalism. It could be that Miller looks into the future and sees Diversity doing more harm than good to Jews. Perhaps he believes that White America is already tamed enough for Jews to have it good. So, why push it even further and (1) fill the nation with non-whites who have less good feelies toward Jews and (2) risk driving white politics into far-right radicalism? Under such circumstances, democracy may even break down, and without Rule of Law, Jewish power becomes mostly useless. After all, it was Rule of Law(greater in US than in most nations) that allowed Jews to rise so high and so fast. Having grown up in California, Miller may believe he's seen the future, and it's not good. He may also be suspecting that Jews got high on their own supply. This Diversity thing was supposed to be pushed ONLY TO THE POINT of weakening white power. But it appears some Jews have forgotten it's a strategy and are upholding it as some kind of religion. If that becomes the case, it will be impossible for Jews to stop mass immigration and Diversity when it becomes more of a liability than an advantage to Jews. This has happened already in some parts of Europe. It's one thing play with the Diversity fire. Another thing to set the whole forest on fire. Darren Aronofsky, being a Hollywood person, is probably a political Liberal, but his movie MOTHER suggests a part of him is shi**ing bricks too about the future. Sorcerer's Apprentice stuff.

    And don’t give me “it’s those leftists”. Folks like David Brooks are not “leftist” in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a “conservative”.


    Yeah, he's the Neil Diamond of punditry. His columns are a variation of "Coming to America".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTHdC7k4uY

    Anyway, what does all this mean for the future? What happens to The Template? Will whites continue to work with Jews? Or will the Narrative run so out of control that things will just fall apart? With blacks, Jews can make money off sports and music, but that's about it. With Mexicans, Jews can get cheap nannies and fruit pickers. With Asians, they can get some decent managers and engineers but no one with leadership qualities. They'll be stuck with minions. With Hindus, Jews wil have their hands full. People who believe in elephant-headed eight-armed deities got some tricks up their sleeves.

    Now, more Diversity could break the white spirit, and whites could just serve as good horsey to Jewish power. Or, once broken, the whites could go into Samson mode and do whatever to bring down the whole system. The archaeofuturism of some on the right. Hasten the collapse. WGTOW or whites going their own way.

    Anglos defeated Hindus and used them as cattle for a good spell, but at some point, Hindus decided on disobedience to bring down the whole edifice. What if the meme spreads among whites that "Jews broke us", and instead of just serving Jews, they decide to subvert the system in so many ways. And why not? With Diversity and affirmative action, too many whites will lose out anyway.

    One guy who wants to mess up the system from within: https://youtu.be/DrbIU6_ehgM?t=29s

    And if The Template goes, what happens next? The Jewish Century needed the White Apollonians. Mercurians may be faster and sharper, but the heavy lifting had to be done by Apollonians. And by heavy lifting, I don't mean simple stuff like picking fruits. I mean running the elaborate system. Only whites could do this on a scale to make Jewish power/domination possible. In socialist history, Marx provide the vision but gentiles had to run much of the system. In science, Einstein and Oppenheimer were the great prophets of the New Energy, but the military-industrial complex had to be run by a vast white managerial class, of whom Anglos and Germanics were the best. It's like the movie FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY where Jews supply the vision but gentiles maintain the support system. And when the bomb goes off, Oppenheimer can express his wonder/terror only through mythology(Hindu).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emVaK5MoPBg

    It's understandable why Allan Bloom had a special allergy to Germanic philosophy. They threatened The Template that went back to ancient times. Bloom loved the Greeks and the Hebrews because Hellenism and Hebraism developed a symbiotic relationship. Though opposites in many ways, one offered what was missing in the other. It was like the story of short-armed creature and long-armed creature working together to eat the fruit. Greeks gave the world logic and beauty, Jews gave the world depth and vision. So, for the Modern West to develop, gentiles couldn't do without Jews. Gentile logic had to serve the greater Jewish vision. Gentile goods had to be traded via Jewish middlemen. Even though there were lots of tensions, gentiles kept inviting Jews back because Jews had special talents. Also, even without any Jews around, gentile souls were molded largely by Jewish ideas of Christianity, a religion made by heretical Jews. So, without Jews or Jewishness, gentiles could never feel complete.
    In contrast, the development of neo-pagan German philosophy and art threatened to overturn this Template and filled Germans with the idea that they can self-generate their own prophecy without the Jewish element. Even though 60s radicalism was far-removed from Germanism(and heavily influenced by Jewish elements), Bloom may have sensed something quasi-Germanic in the Romantic hubris that threw caution and tradition to the winds and embarked on a New Vision based on the Daemonic natural energies. To Bloom, Rock music was like new Wagnerianism, an Afro-Anglo paganism that didn't mind blowing up entire systems, traditions, and meaning just for the rapturous inspiration of the moment-as-eternity, like with Soul Sacrifice by Santana at Woodstock. If the Nazis cut off classical Greek-Roman culture from its symbiotic relation with Hebraism and connected it to Germanic paganism(thus making it all-in-the-Aryan-family with no need for Jews), Bloom saw Rock culture as the severing of Anglo culture from Jewish culture and attaching both to Afro-savage culture. Bloom liked the subtlety and sophistication of Jazz but loathed the out-of-control barbarism of Rock, an attitude also shared by Woody Allen.

    The Template had combined the gentile mind and body with Jewish mind and soul. And in Christianity, there was the centrality of the heart.
    But the new visions coming out of Germany seemed obsessed with the singularity of dark drive, will, or force above all else. And this was also true of German-influenced Jewish thinkers. Marx claimed to be for justice, but his entire focus was on the hands. It was all about labor. Economic materialism was everything. With Nietzsche and Hitler, it was the stomach. The hunger for power, the will to power. With Freud, it was the power of the pud. Mind, soul, and balance of the body were rendered secondary by the new visions that focused so absolutely on a single theory of power and history. Also, such dark theories of history, so often Germanic in origin, said the mind and soul were mere illusions, mere surface waves of deeper currents of power. At the deeper root is the will of the hands, the stomach, the pud. And feminism too has gone from an ideology of the heart to the ideology of the poon. Naomi Wolf even wrote an entire book on the vagina. If de Beauvoir were alive today, her book might have been called the Second Genital.

    So, what happens to The Template when the new theory of power focuses less on the conscious free-will of the mind, soul, and balance of the body(as depicted in Greek sculptures where all the parts of the body are in graceful harmony) and focuses more on the dark will of animal drives, unfettered id, and super-sensory organs: the mouth, eyes/ears, and genitals. Only a few organs have 'orgasmic' ability. Only the mouth can enjoy the mmmmmm of ice cream. Only eyes can see beauty. Only ears can hear music. Only genitals can feel orgasm. Because they are such pleasure centers, there is a natural tendency for people to indulge those organs... gluttony, lust, vanity, and escapism. This is why the philosophies and religions have tried to remind people to use the morally cultivated mind to control the body. Don't just indulge in food, sex, vanity, and good times(via music). Serve the whole body,and make the whole body work in unity, and limit the super-sensory organs to their place and time. Keep them in the cage.

    But as the New Philosophies and Visions, based on rise of (1)natural science that studied mankind as animal-organisms, (2)romanticism that favored emotions and urges over logic & control, and (3) consumerism that tempted super-sensory organs with more food, more music, more idols, more sexual pleasure, and etc., the traditional balance of mind and soul was undermined. And the ensuing chaos, on a global scale, even began to threaten The Template that had arrived at some kind of balance between Hellenism and Hebraism, perhaps the high point in art being the Renaissance when 'rediscovered' Hellenic modes were used to represent the stories and meanings of the Bible.

    It's like the covenant between men and women have also broken down. It used to be men and women understood each other's strengths and weaknesses and arrived as symbiotic cooperation via the family. So, it wasn't just about me-as-man or me-as-woman. It was about how men and women can work to arrive at some kind of balance, compromise, and give-and-take. But a demented form of neo-Freudianism turned it all into 'muh dic*' and 'muh pooter'. So, a man's main priority is no longer to find that nice woman, but to pleasure his pud with as many pooters as he can find. He is controlled by the pud than controls the pud. And the woman is the same. She doesn't guard her pooter to give to the right guy but lets it run wild in search for more fun.

    Now, Freud and Hitler both understood the dangers of chaos. Freud spoke of ego and super-ego too. He was well-aware of the troublesome nature of sexual energies. And Hitler knew that nothing could be done if people were into back-to-nature neo-barbarism, dancing around campfires and eating raw meat. He was all for discipline and order. BUT, because their visions were so fundamentally rooted in the sexual drive or will to power, other considerations came to serve that primal obsession that could, at its essence, only be savage or barbaric. So, despite Freud's anxieties and warnings, his philosophy turned into 'boing'. And despite Hitler's attempt at order and stability, his will to power drove Germany to invade and destroy because the will to power, in its primal state, cannot be satisfied with 'enough'.

    This is why the authorities completely miss the boat when they catch the communists in HAIL CAESAR. They just got the small fish. Also, those communist writers are not even prophetic types. They are really just closet-capitalists who are miffed because they didn't see enough of the profit. They are less about the workers than their own pocketbooks. Also, they adhere to an ideology that has already become ossified. Soviet Union was powerful after WWII but had no new ideas.

    The real whale is Marcuse who was working on Something New, something the anti-communist authorities had NO IDEA about in the 50s. While the anti-communists were looking for Soviet spies, the real prophecy was about blend of Marx and Freud in the fertile mind of Marcuse and other new prophets. And this blew up in the 60s with counterculture. And it even affected suburban Jewish communities like in SERIOUS MAN where kids in Jewish school are into Rock and Drugs. Authorities failed to see this danger in the period of HAIL CAESAR because they are bureaucrats, managers, company men. There's something happening but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones? In contrast, a prophet like Marcuse envisioned what could/should be, and his ideas played a key role in the massive boomer rebellion in the 60s.

    But then, what does this do for The Template in the long run? There was something Newtonian about how Hellenism and Hebraism worked together. But what is truth and meaning in a world that seems run by Chaos Theory? What goes with what, what connects with what, what works with what?

    One thing for sure, history is going to heat up big time in the 21st century. Fukuyama couldn't have got it more wrong. Something BIG is on the horizon all along the watchtower. And before something good comes along, it's gonna be hell like never before. Woe unto the morons who smashed The Template.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @biz
    In this case they are actually using "diversity" correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo. People here may not be able to appreciate it, but that is actually a yuge development to have on the OpEd page of the NYTimes.

    I realize that a lot of people around here think that unless the cover jacket of Steven Walt's book is reprinted every day on the front page of the Times that their views are being "censored" and Bret Stephens equals William Kuntzler because both Jewish, but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    In this case they are actually using “diversity” correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo.

    Biz, everyone has their mental universe. You’re hyper sensitive to certain scents and when your noise smells a possible mention of Jews or Israel, you pop up like a prairie dog.

    But i’m an American. I wish the Israelis well in preserving their nation, but “diversity of thought” in an American newspaper is not defined by diversity of opinion on Israeli politics, settlements, negotiating position.

    “Diversity of the thought” in an American newspaper ought to include having people actually in favor of preserving the *American* nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz

    “diversity of thought” in an American newspaper is not defined by diversity of opinion on Israeli politics, settlements, negotiating position.
     
    It is the relevant variable in the context of these perpetual accusations of them being hypocritical in regard to Israel. For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess. I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria. And... crickets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @biz
    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites. The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor's radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites.

    Anti-semitism is a postjudice, not a prejudice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @anon
    some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Doesn't some of it probably come from the fact that they get tired of hearing Jews scream about "anti-Semitism" every time someone levels a criticism at them?

    It's especially funny when it happens here, too. Because the Jewish people who do this are the same ones who call out black misbehavior, and black criminality, and everything like that. They're perfectly happy to do that. And they presumably know perfectly well that, if the average black person was to hear them do so, they'd start screaming "Racist!" at them.

    So it's really kind of amusing to watch them do the same thing to others when it happens to them.

    It's like the noticing is only supposed to go so far, and no farther.

    Is there any possibility that some people just find that sort of double standard to be distasteful?

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims

    See? Like that. You have no problem portraying Muslims as devious and sinister (of course, many of them are, but they're hardly the only ones) to the point that you make up goofball accusations against them with no evidence at all. But heaven help anyone who points out any predispositions that Jewish people might have.

    Do you just not see the problem here?

    Doesn’t some of it probably come from the fact that they get tired of hearing Jews scream about “anti-Semitism” every time someone levels a criticism at them?

    It’s especially funny when it happens here, too. Because the Jewish people who do this are the same ones who call out black misbehavior, and black criminality, and everything like that. They’re perfectly happy to do that. And they presumably know perfectly well that, if the average black person was to hear them do so, they’d start screaming “Racist!” at them.

    This is a good point, anon. (Pick a handle!)

    This is an “observations of Steve” blog, but certainly a chief insight is bring in–or being open to–HBD based interpretations of what’s going on.

    And indeed there are several Jewish commentators here who are quite, quite happy to express their
    rather negative observations of black (mis)behavior. But of course … not all blacks are like that. I’m friends with five blacks guys–not a criminal in the bunch. We’re talking statistical tendencies which create a group character.

    But flip over to discussing the Jews–who openly publish their anti-gentile thoughts and feelings on the pages of or major media or craft them into their Hollyweird productions–and suddenly any noticing is “anti-semitic”. “How dare you notice such things. Look at me, i’m not like that!”

    It’s Sodom-ethics. If there are but ten righteous Jews not pushing to destroy all Western nations, then anyone noticing any pattern in Jewish thought is *Anti-Semitism!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Mr. Anon

    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites.
     
    Well, they've probably never read anything you've written.

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans..........
     
    Sure, everyone here is really wearing a Nation of Islam Bowtie or a Keffiyeh. I suppose what you wrote might be true if by "some proportion" you meant "exceedingly few".

    ......and in some other proportion spazzes who had some wird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.
     
    You forgot to accuse us of being inbred, and having small d**ks too. Oh, and being closeted homosexuals as well. Aren't those all part of the usual playbook?

    And yet people like you wonder why some people don't like you................

    .................it's a mystery, all right.

    Sure, everyone here is really wearing a Nation of Islam Bowtie or a Keffiyeh. I suppose what you wrote might be true if by “some proportion” you meant “exceedingly few”.

    As the famous meme says, on the internet nobody can tell that you are a dog. The number of erstwhile white nationalists posting here who are in reality Muslims is clearly not zero (e.g. rehmahat – lol, although there must be an internet outage in Tehran because he hasn’t dropped by lately. And yes, his cover could not be said to be particularly deep). Whether the actual number is closer to 25% or 75% neither you or I know. I have my suspicions about several of the common posters here and if there was a way of verifying I would bet $1000 on my suspicions – turns of phrase that are strange for a native English speaker, and more tellingly, constant defense of Muslims, whatever the situation, which is strange territory for a supposed tradcon. Anyway, again, whether the number is closer to 25% or 75% I don’t claim to know, but it is some.

    You forgot to accuse us of being inbred.

    Actually, I wouldn’t do that, because I am familiar with the actual data, which shows that in the US antisemitism correlates with education. As do other stupid and destructive ideas in our country, like blank-slate-ism. So the typical white American antisemite is not someone in a trailer park. In fact the white working class is one the most philo-semitic demos. Rather it is as I outlined – someone with some education who is rather spastic and thinks it appropriate to hijack a Cleveland Browns forum by talking about how many of the Bolsheviks were Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @129 biz: "The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. . . I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying."
    , @Mr. Anon

    As the famous meme says, on the internet nobody can tell that you are a dog.
     
    No, but they can tell when you're a jerk.

    The number of erstwhile white nationalists posting here who are in reality Muslims is clearly not zero (e.g. rehmahat – lol, although there must be an internet outage in Tehran because he hasn’t dropped by lately. And yes, his cover could not be said to be particularly deep). Whether the actual number is closer to 25% or 75% neither you or I know.
     
    "Clearly not zero" could be "one or two", from which you leap to infer "25% - 75%"

    I really don't think there are many muslims at all who post here - I have seen no evidence of that.


    Actually, I wouldn’t do that,..............
     
    So you stuck to the old standbys of sexual frustration/perversion and mental illness.

    By the way, is there an ethnic group who often seem to have an odd predeliction for sexual deviancy? So much so, that certain members of that group even attempt to normalize it as something that underlies all human behavior, when really maybe it's just their own peculiar kink? People like Magnus Hirschfeld, and to a lesser extent the now discredited Sigmund Freud? Why was it that the concept of projection seemed so immediate to people like Freud?

    Moreover, before casually throwing around terms like "anti-semitism", care to define it? Because - increasingly - it seems to simply mean "people who notice things about Jews".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @anon
    some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Doesn't some of it probably come from the fact that they get tired of hearing Jews scream about "anti-Semitism" every time someone levels a criticism at them?

    It's especially funny when it happens here, too. Because the Jewish people who do this are the same ones who call out black misbehavior, and black criminality, and everything like that. They're perfectly happy to do that. And they presumably know perfectly well that, if the average black person was to hear them do so, they'd start screaming "Racist!" at them.

    So it's really kind of amusing to watch them do the same thing to others when it happens to them.

    It's like the noticing is only supposed to go so far, and no farther.

    Is there any possibility that some people just find that sort of double standard to be distasteful?

    The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims

    See? Like that. You have no problem portraying Muslims as devious and sinister (of course, many of them are, but they're hardly the only ones) to the point that you make up goofball accusations against them with no evidence at all. But heaven help anyone who points out any predispositions that Jewish people might have.

    Do you just not see the problem here?

    I believe you’ve made the classic Millennial error of evaluating the validity of claims based on how they make people feel as opposed to their raw truth value. So yes, calling a fat person fat and a skinny person fat is insulting to both targets. However that doesn’t make both claims equally wrong or sinister, since the statement is true in the former case and false in the latter.

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages – that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel – is simply false in most cases. iSteve is a cool guy overall, but he has accused anti-American Jews who write for fucking Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel, and many of the people here believe it without even bothering to click the link at the side to see what Mondoweiss has on their pages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I believe you’ve made the classic Millennial error of evaluating the validity of claims based on how they make people feel as opposed to their raw truth value.

    Uhh. No. That's what Jews do when you criticize them. They don't make any attempt whatsoever to point out how you're wrong. They just scream at you for being an "anti-Semite" and accuse you of being a Muslim with no evidence. As though, even if either of those things were true, it would change anything.

    However that doesn’t make both claims equally wrong or sinister, since the statement is true in the former case and false in the latter.

    OK, so what did I say that was untrue?

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages – that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel

    This is absolutely, 100% true.

    is simply false in most cases.

    Oh really? Because you yourself got all excited about some new perfidious-American woman writing for the New York Times. You pretended that she was different from all the other ones, but, in fact, she is pro-Israel and in favor of immigration policies that are bad for America. Just like all the others.

    Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel,

    That's because some of them ARE pro-Israel.

    As I said. As a Jew, you simply cannot handle criticism. Of any kind. Sure, some of the people there criticize Israel. But as a Jew, you just can't take that, can you? So, anyone who even questions Israel the slightest bit is "anti-Israel" for you.

    Anyway. If you're not able to handle criticism, maybe you should quit criticizing others and working to destroy their countries. You know?
    , @Mr. Anon

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages – that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel – is simply false in most cases.
     
    That is a mischaracterization of many of the claims made here, but that is unsurprising, given how dishonest you are being. And even to that (mischaracterized) claim: it is true in many cases, and in many important cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. I wonder who’s jock she had to jump on to get that job?

    Editor at 33? That doesn’t happen unless you know somebody….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz
    I believe you've made the classic Millennial error of evaluating the validity of claims based on how they make people feel as opposed to their raw truth value. So yes, calling a fat person fat and a skinny person fat is insulting to both targets. However that doesn't make both claims equally wrong or sinister, since the statement is true in the former case and false in the latter.

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages - that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel - is simply false in most cases. iSteve is a cool guy overall, but he has accused anti-American Jews who write for fucking Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel, and many of the people here believe it without even bothering to click the link at the side to see what Mondoweiss has on their pages.

    I believe you’ve made the classic Millennial error of evaluating the validity of claims based on how they make people feel as opposed to their raw truth value.

    Uhh. No. That’s what Jews do when you criticize them. They don’t make any attempt whatsoever to point out how you’re wrong. They just scream at you for being an “anti-Semite” and accuse you of being a Muslim with no evidence. As though, even if either of those things were true, it would change anything.

    However that doesn’t make both claims equally wrong or sinister, since the statement is true in the former case and false in the latter.

    OK, so what did I say that was untrue?

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages – that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel

    This is absolutely, 100% true.

    is simply false in most cases.

    Oh really? Because you yourself got all excited about some new perfidious-American woman writing for the New York Times. You pretended that she was different from all the other ones, but, in fact, she is pro-Israel and in favor of immigration policies that are bad for America. Just like all the others.

    Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel,

    That’s because some of them ARE pro-Israel.

    As I said. As a Jew, you simply cannot handle criticism. Of any kind. Sure, some of the people there criticize Israel. But as a Jew, you just can’t take that, can you? So, anyone who even questions Israel the slightest bit is “anti-Israel” for you.

    Anyway. If you’re not able to handle criticism, maybe you should quit criticizing others and working to destroy their countries. You know?

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz

    Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel,

    That’s because some of them ARE pro-Israel.
     
    Whoa... you're going with that?

    Alright, then I propose a bold wager, right here right now:
    If you can find and provide a hyperlink here to any pro-Israel article authored by a contributor that has ever been posted on Mondoweiss, I will not comment on this blog ever again! That's right, you read that correctly. In turn though, if, after combing Mondoweiss, you cannot find one single pro-Israel article, then you agree that you are a liar and pledge yourself to not comment on this blog ever again (using any handle, since you are being anon here).

    (no peeking though. Your comment accepting this wager must be time stamped at least 20 minutes before any comment where you provide any links from Mondoweiss.)

    Deal??

    All you would have to do is find one pro-Israel article at Mondoweiss! Pretty good deal, right? Offer expires at noon tomorrow.

    I will take failure to accept this wager as admission that you were bullshitting that there are pro-Israel writers at Mondoweiss. And since you were bullshitting about that, I must conclude that you were bullshitting about everything else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @biz

    Sure, everyone here is really wearing a Nation of Islam Bowtie or a Keffiyeh. I suppose what you wrote might be true if by “some proportion” you meant “exceedingly few”.
     
    As the famous meme says, on the internet nobody can tell that you are a dog. The number of erstwhile white nationalists posting here who are in reality Muslims is clearly not zero (e.g. rehmahat - lol, although there must be an internet outage in Tehran because he hasn't dropped by lately. And yes, his cover could not be said to be particularly deep). Whether the actual number is closer to 25% or 75% neither you or I know. I have my suspicions about several of the common posters here and if there was a way of verifying I would bet $1000 on my suspicions - turns of phrase that are strange for a native English speaker, and more tellingly, constant defense of Muslims, whatever the situation, which is strange territory for a supposed tradcon. Anyway, again, whether the number is closer to 25% or 75% I don't claim to know, but it is some.

    You forgot to accuse us of being inbred.
     
    Actually, I wouldn't do that, because I am familiar with the actual data, which shows that in the US antisemitism correlates with education. As do other stupid and destructive ideas in our country, like blank-slate-ism. So the typical white American antisemite is not someone in a trailer park. In fact the white working class is one the most philo-semitic demos. Rather it is as I outlined - someone with some education who is rather spastic and thinks it appropriate to hijack a Cleveland Browns forum by talking about how many of the Bolsheviks were Jewish.

    @129 biz: “The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. . . I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Seriously.

    You know how people talk about how the Trayvon Martin case was such an eye-opener for them? It’s because, when they started talking to black people online about it, the blacks they were talking too confirmed every single negative stereotype about blacks. They really were too dumb to understand the simplest of points. And they really were so violent they all agreed that you should just beat the crap out of any white person who annoys you.

    I don’t know if Jewish people get what effect they have on people when they just blatantly lie to your face, and then get mad at you for not trusting them. Or when they act like it makes sense for them to freak out over some stupid thing that happened to them (like having a plumber with a southern accent come to their house), when they would have mocked a black person or a white person who reacted the exact same way. When they turn every little thing that happens into an excuse to play the victim, while blaming everyone else for anything they do wrong.

    I don’t know what it is. They seem to have zero self-awareness. I realize that not all of them are like this, but jeez. The ones on the internet sure seem to be.

    Do they not mind that they’re acting like “anti-Semites” accuse them of acting?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. @AnotherDad

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?
     
    "Anti-Semitism"--at least from the majority of commenters on this blog--comes as a reaction to Jewish behavior--principally Jewish anti-gentilism. I realize you--and a few other guys are highly resistant to that simple, obvious proposition, but that's the gist of it.

    My supposed "anti-semitism" is akin to what i would guess was your parents' "anti-Germanism" in say late '39--hostility to people who are hostile to you, who wish you ill, are trying to disposses you, destroy you as a people, a nation.

    ~
    The reason anti-Catholicism is "dead as doornail" is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream and on board with America's republican project--no better or worse--than American Protestants. They aren't taking orders from Rome. They aren't hostile to republicanism. They aren't on some separatism program anymore. They aren't enemies of the nation, but--on average--want the nation to survive and prosper.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on--working for--their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    And don't give me "it's those leftists". Folks like David Brooks are not "leftist" in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a "conservative". It's just that he's only interested in conserving Jews and Israel, but has no interest in conserving the American nation. When it comes to Americans ... oh, screw those guys, foreigners are better!

    And actual patriotic Jews--like Stephen Miller--who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe. So note, that it is Jews who are defining hostility to my people and my nation as part of the Jewish essence, not me.

    And all this anti-gentilism is very public. I'm not reading some Czarist forgery to get my information on Jewish thoughts about me. I'm reading what prominent Jews write for all to read on the pages of the New York Times.

    The reason anti-Catholicism is “dead as doornail” is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance.

    Anti-Catholicism is “dead as a doornail” because Catholicism is dead as a doornail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?
     
    "Anti-Semitism"--at least from the majority of commenters on this blog--comes as a reaction to Jewish behavior--principally Jewish anti-gentilism. I realize you--and a few other guys are highly resistant to that simple, obvious proposition, but that's the gist of it.

    My supposed "anti-semitism" is akin to what i would guess was your parents' "anti-Germanism" in say late '39--hostility to people who are hostile to you, who wish you ill, are trying to disposses you, destroy you as a people, a nation.

    ~
    The reason anti-Catholicism is "dead as doornail" is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream and on board with America's republican project--no better or worse--than American Protestants. They aren't taking orders from Rome. They aren't hostile to republicanism. They aren't on some separatism program anymore. They aren't enemies of the nation, but--on average--want the nation to survive and prosper.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on--working for--their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    And don't give me "it's those leftists". Folks like David Brooks are not "leftist" in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a "conservative". It's just that he's only interested in conserving Jews and Israel, but has no interest in conserving the American nation. When it comes to Americans ... oh, screw those guys, foreigners are better!

    And actual patriotic Jews--like Stephen Miller--who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe. So note, that it is Jews who are defining hostility to my people and my nation as part of the Jewish essence, not me.

    And all this anti-gentilism is very public. I'm not reading some Czarist forgery to get my information on Jewish thoughts about me. I'm reading what prominent Jews write for all to read on the pages of the New York Times.

    The reason anti-Catholicism is “dead as doornail” is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream…

    There is that side of Catholicism. But also the save-the-world side. Plenty of Catholic leaders in the US want More Immigrants. They want to share the Milk of American Plenty with the rest of the world. America as teats to the world. Mooooooo.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on–working for–their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    To destroy or to defeat white people/power? Big difference. Perhaps, the main agenda is not destruction but defeat. It’s like the American intention in WWII was not to utterly destroy Germany and Japan. Rather, it was to defeat them and tame them. And then have them serve the US empire.
    Some peoples seek the utter destruction of foes. Nazi Germany sought to totally destroy Russia and wipe it off the map. It was meant to be a Carthaginian Peace. In contrast, not all of politics is on that radical level. When Sparta defeated Athens, it was for hegemony, not metrocide of Athens as people and culture.

    Surely, Jews know that white people are indispensable to Jewish success and power. But they want it defeated and tamed. Only that way will whites obey and serve Jews… like Germany and Japan came to obey and serve the US. It’s like a cowboy doesn’t want to kill the horse. Then, he’d have nothing to ride. But if he wants to ride the horse, the horse has to be ‘broken’ and tamed and made to obey.

    And this is why Jews seem to be pushing for more Diversity and promoting ‘white guilt’. It’s to tame the white horse. It’s a domestication process. It’s like a wild bull is a fearsome beast. It will gore you if you mess with it. It doesn’t serve anything but itself. So, if you want a gentle cow that you can squeeze milk from indefinitely, the ‘bull’ has to be domesticated into a ‘cow’. So, whites need to be cucked.

    From the POV of Jewish Power, this is smart thinking. If Jews just want to assimilate and go along, there is no need for this. But if Jews want the ultimate power and control, then they must keep White Power tamed and saddled. Or white power needs a cow-nose-ring.

    Now, Jews could tame and control Palestinian power in Israel with sheer superiority of numbers.
    But in gentile nations, Jews just don’t have their own numbers. So, they have to play the Diversity Lottery to get the numbers. With enough Diversity, the electoral power of whites will break. Even if many whites vote one way, Diversity votes + white cuck votes will overwhelm white power… like in California and New York. Even Virginia now. And once Diversity totally defeats white power and when whites accept their defeat, they will have no choice but to serve the Jews to have the good life as individuals.

    In a way, what Jews are doing is a ‘playboy or operator move’. It’s not clean. But every decision/direction begins from a premise. If the premise were assimilation, Jews would just try to fit into whiteness. But if the premise is domination(based on sense of higher intelligence and/or historical resentment and revanchism), then what Jews are doing makes good sense.
    People generally feel contempt for those deemed inferior. When Anglos went to Hawaii, did they try to assimilate to the indigenous culture there? No, Anglos felt superior and sought to defeat the natives so that natives would serve the Anglo vision.

    And actual patriotic Jews–like Stephen Miller–who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe.

    Patriotic in a way. Or, it’s just another variation of Jewish Tribalism. It could be that Miller looks into the future and sees Diversity doing more harm than good to Jews. Perhaps he believes that White America is already tamed enough for Jews to have it good. So, why push it even further and (1) fill the nation with non-whites who have less good feelies toward Jews and (2) risk driving white politics into far-right radicalism? Under such circumstances, democracy may even break down, and without Rule of Law, Jewish power becomes mostly useless. After all, it was Rule of Law(greater in US than in most nations) that allowed Jews to rise so high and so fast. Having grown up in California, Miller may believe he’s seen the future, and it’s not good. He may also be suspecting that Jews got high on their own supply. This Diversity thing was supposed to be pushed ONLY TO THE POINT of weakening white power. But it appears some Jews have forgotten it’s a strategy and are upholding it as some kind of religion. If that becomes the case, it will be impossible for Jews to stop mass immigration and Diversity when it becomes more of a liability than an advantage to Jews. This has happened already in some parts of Europe. It’s one thing play with the Diversity fire. Another thing to set the whole forest on fire. Darren Aronofsky, being a Hollywood person, is probably a political Liberal, but his movie MOTHER suggests a part of him is shi**ing bricks too about the future. Sorcerer’s Apprentice stuff.

    And don’t give me “it’s those leftists”. Folks like David Brooks are not “leftist” in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a “conservative”.

    Yeah, he’s the Neil Diamond of punditry. His columns are a variation of “Coming to America”.

    Anyway, what does all this mean for the future? What happens to The Template? Will whites continue to work with Jews? Or will the Narrative run so out of control that things will just fall apart? With blacks, Jews can make money off sports and music, but that’s about it. With Mexicans, Jews can get cheap nannies and fruit pickers. With Asians, they can get some decent managers and engineers but no one with leadership qualities. They’ll be stuck with minions. With Hindus, Jews wil have their hands full. People who believe in elephant-headed eight-armed deities got some tricks up their sleeves.

    Now, more Diversity could break the white spirit, and whites could just serve as good horsey to Jewish power. Or, once broken, the whites could go into Samson mode and do whatever to bring down the whole system. The archaeofuturism of some on the right. Hasten the collapse. WGTOW or whites going their own way.

    Anglos defeated Hindus and used them as cattle for a good spell, but at some point, Hindus decided on disobedience to bring down the whole edifice. What if the meme spreads among whites that “Jews broke us”, and instead of just serving Jews, they decide to subvert the system in so many ways. And why not? With Diversity and affirmative action, too many whites will lose out anyway.

    One guy who wants to mess up the system from within:

    And if The Template goes, what happens next? The Jewish Century needed the White Apollonians. Mercurians may be faster and sharper, but the heavy lifting had to be done by Apollonians. And by heavy lifting, I don’t mean simple stuff like picking fruits. I mean running the elaborate system. Only whites could do this on a scale to make Jewish power/domination possible. In socialist history, Marx provide the vision but gentiles had to run much of the system. In science, Einstein and Oppenheimer were the great prophets of the New Energy, but the military-industrial complex had to be run by a vast white managerial class, of whom Anglos and Germanics were the best. It’s like the movie FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY where Jews supply the vision but gentiles maintain the support system. And when the bomb goes off, Oppenheimer can express his wonder/terror only through mythology(Hindu).

    It’s understandable why Allan Bloom had a special allergy to Germanic philosophy. They threatened The Template that went back to ancient times. Bloom loved the Greeks and the Hebrews because Hellenism and Hebraism developed a symbiotic relationship. Though opposites in many ways, one offered what was missing in the other. It was like the story of short-armed creature and long-armed creature working together to eat the fruit. Greeks gave the world logic and beauty, Jews gave the world depth and vision. So, for the Modern West to develop, gentiles couldn’t do without Jews. Gentile logic had to serve the greater Jewish vision. Gentile goods had to be traded via Jewish middlemen. Even though there were lots of tensions, gentiles kept inviting Jews back because Jews had special talents. Also, even without any Jews around, gentile souls were molded largely by Jewish ideas of Christianity, a religion made by heretical Jews. So, without Jews or Jewishness, gentiles could never feel complete.
    In contrast, the development of neo-pagan German philosophy and art threatened to overturn this Template and filled Germans with the idea that they can self-generate their own prophecy without the Jewish element. Even though 60s radicalism was far-removed from Germanism(and heavily influenced by Jewish elements), Bloom may have sensed something quasi-Germanic in the Romantic hubris that threw caution and tradition to the winds and embarked on a New Vision based on the Daemonic natural energies. To Bloom, Rock music was like new Wagnerianism, an Afro-Anglo paganism that didn’t mind blowing up entire systems, traditions, and meaning just for the rapturous inspiration of the moment-as-eternity, like with Soul Sacrifice by Santana at Woodstock. If the Nazis cut off classical Greek-Roman culture from its symbiotic relation with Hebraism and connected it to Germanic paganism(thus making it all-in-the-Aryan-family with no need for Jews), Bloom saw Rock culture as the severing of Anglo culture from Jewish culture and attaching both to Afro-savage culture. Bloom liked the subtlety and sophistication of Jazz but loathed the out-of-control barbarism of Rock, an attitude also shared by Woody Allen.

    The Template had combined the gentile mind and body with Jewish mind and soul. And in Christianity, there was the centrality of the heart.
    But the new visions coming out of Germany seemed obsessed with the singularity of dark drive, will, or force above all else. And this was also true of German-influenced Jewish thinkers. Marx claimed to be for justice, but his entire focus was on the hands. It was all about labor. Economic materialism was everything. With Nietzsche and Hitler, it was the stomach. The hunger for power, the will to power. With Freud, it was the power of the pud. Mind, soul, and balance of the body were rendered secondary by the new visions that focused so absolutely on a single theory of power and history. Also, such dark theories of history, so often Germanic in origin, said the mind and soul were mere illusions, mere surface waves of deeper currents of power. At the deeper root is the will of the hands, the stomach, the pud. And feminism too has gone from an ideology of the heart to the ideology of the poon. Naomi Wolf even wrote an entire book on the vagina. If de Beauvoir were alive today, her book might have been called the Second Genital.

    So, what happens to The Template when the new theory of power focuses less on the conscious free-will of the mind, soul, and balance of the body(as depicted in Greek sculptures where all the parts of the body are in graceful harmony) and focuses more on the dark will of animal drives, unfettered id, and super-sensory organs: the mouth, eyes/ears, and genitals. Only a few organs have ‘orgasmic’ ability. Only the mouth can enjoy the mmmmmm of ice cream. Only eyes can see beauty. Only ears can hear music. Only genitals can feel orgasm. Because they are such pleasure centers, there is a natural tendency for people to indulge those organs… gluttony, lust, vanity, and escapism. This is why the philosophies and religions have tried to remind people to use the morally cultivated mind to control the body. Don’t just indulge in food, sex, vanity, and good times(via music). Serve the whole body,and make the whole body work in unity, and limit the super-sensory organs to their place and time. Keep them in the cage.

    But as the New Philosophies and Visions, based on rise of (1)natural science that studied mankind as animal-organisms, (2)romanticism that favored emotions and urges over logic & control, and (3) consumerism that tempted super-sensory organs with more food, more music, more idols, more sexual pleasure, and etc., the traditional balance of mind and soul was undermined. And the ensuing chaos, on a global scale, even began to threaten The Template that had arrived at some kind of balance between Hellenism and Hebraism, perhaps the high point in art being the Renaissance when ‘rediscovered’ Hellenic modes were used to represent the stories and meanings of the Bible.

    It’s like the covenant between men and women have also broken down. It used to be men and women understood each other’s strengths and weaknesses and arrived as symbiotic cooperation via the family. So, it wasn’t just about me-as-man or me-as-woman. It was about how men and women can work to arrive at some kind of balance, compromise, and give-and-take. But a demented form of neo-Freudianism turned it all into ‘muh dic*’ and ‘muh pooter’. So, a man’s main priority is no longer to find that nice woman, but to pleasure his pud with as many pooters as he can find. He is controlled by the pud than controls the pud. And the woman is the same. She doesn’t guard her pooter to give to the right guy but lets it run wild in search for more fun.

    Now, Freud and Hitler both understood the dangers of chaos. Freud spoke of ego and super-ego too. He was well-aware of the troublesome nature of sexual energies. And Hitler knew that nothing could be done if people were into back-to-nature neo-barbarism, dancing around campfires and eating raw meat. He was all for discipline and order. BUT, because their visions were so fundamentally rooted in the sexual drive or will to power, other considerations came to serve that primal obsession that could, at its essence, only be savage or barbaric. So, despite Freud’s anxieties and warnings, his philosophy turned into ‘boing’. And despite Hitler’s attempt at order and stability, his will to power drove Germany to invade and destroy because the will to power, in its primal state, cannot be satisfied with ‘enough’.

    This is why the authorities completely miss the boat when they catch the communists in HAIL CAESAR. They just got the small fish. Also, those communist writers are not even prophetic types. They are really just closet-capitalists who are miffed because they didn’t see enough of the profit. They are less about the workers than their own pocketbooks. Also, they adhere to an ideology that has already become ossified. Soviet Union was powerful after WWII but had no new ideas.

    The real whale is Marcuse who was working on Something New, something the anti-communist authorities had NO IDEA about in the 50s. While the anti-communists were looking for Soviet spies, the real prophecy was about blend of Marx and Freud in the fertile mind of Marcuse and other new prophets. And this blew up in the 60s with counterculture. And it even affected suburban Jewish communities like in SERIOUS MAN where kids in Jewish school are into Rock and Drugs. Authorities failed to see this danger in the period of HAIL CAESAR because they are bureaucrats, managers, company men. There’s something happening but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones? In contrast, a prophet like Marcuse envisioned what could/should be, and his ideas played a key role in the massive boomer rebellion in the 60s.

    But then, what does this do for The Template in the long run? There was something Newtonian about how Hellenism and Hebraism worked together. But what is truth and meaning in a world that seems run by Chaos Theory? What goes with what, what connects with what, what works with what?

    One thing for sure, history is going to heat up big time in the 21st century. Fukuyama couldn’t have got it more wrong. Something BIG is on the horizon all along the watchtower. And before something good comes along, it’s gonna be hell like never before. Woe unto the morons who smashed The Template.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Another absorbing read by the inimitable Factor!
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Fascinating, as always.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    It’s a heady perch for a former pro-Israel activist at Columbia University,
     
    Yeah. As we all know, being pro-Israel is the mark of Cain in today's society....

    who after college worked as a freelance reporter and wrote for the Israeli daily Haaretz on a Dorot fellowship, a Jewish leadership program.
     
    Are there WASP leadership programs?

    Weiss’ prior positions include associate book review editor at The Wall Street Journal and senior news and politics editor at Tablet, the online Jewish journal.

    … At The Times, Weiss has written pieces on a variety of subjects, including anti-Semitism on the left, cultural appropriation and a humorous take on Tiffany & Co.’s collection of high-end everyday items.
     
    See, she's willing to take on the SJW crowd...when they get uppity and forget who's buttering their bread....

    That’s largely meant for me that I’m very progressive on a lot of social issues, I’m hawkish on foreign policy. If that makes me a neocon to certain people, if that makes me a progressive to others, OK.”
     
    Short version: Invade the world, invite the world.

    As intelligent and sophisticated as many Jews are, there is an element of the shtetl hick, the Beverly Hillbillies, and this is esp true with Eastern European Jews have chips on their shoulders in regard to both Wasps and Germanic Jews.

    They got too rich and too powerful too fast. Their success outpaced their grooming for success.
    In a few generations, they went from the world of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF to the world of MARGIN CALL. When a famished person is shown lots of food, he just gorges and gorges, and he doesn’t know when to stop. Too much too fast leads to indigestion but instead of slowing down, his hunger still remains in overdrive as an article of faith(despite the full stomach), and he blames the indigestion on everything but his ‘rightful’ appetite.

    Anglos, stuck in a small isle, were so hungry for land that they kept expanding to take control of more even when they had more than enough. Imagine how much better US, Canadian, and Australian history would have been if the Anglos didn’t keep on pushing to grab more land in Asia and Africa.
    Russians, having lots of land, never had this insatiable appetite to control more territory all over the world.

    Jews had lots of talent and energy, and they hungered for control, and when they finally got it, they just couldn’t control their appetite. It led to the orgies of violence in the USSR, the inability of Israel to be a normal nation because Zionists seek to control the entire MENA, and the restlessness of US policy in both invade and invite mode. They feel that they were denied righteous domination for so long that, when they finally got it, they can’t get enough of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    >It led to the orgies of violence in the USSR, the inability of Israel to be a normal nation because Zionists seek to control the entire MENA, and the restlessness of US policy in both invade and invite mode. They feel that they were denied righteous domination for so long that, when they finally got it, they can’t get enough of it.

    You are trying to explain the entire history of 20th century as a product of Jewish experience & expectations. Seems very unlikely. For example, empire building (invade the world, invite the world) has been a feature of most civilizations in past 3000 years. You could argue that American empire no longer serves the interests of Americas but to suggest that empire is fundamentally a jewish expression of power (& wouldn't have existed without the jewish elite) would be very wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @anon
    I believe you’ve made the classic Millennial error of evaluating the validity of claims based on how they make people feel as opposed to their raw truth value.

    Uhh. No. That's what Jews do when you criticize them. They don't make any attempt whatsoever to point out how you're wrong. They just scream at you for being an "anti-Semite" and accuse you of being a Muslim with no evidence. As though, even if either of those things were true, it would change anything.

    However that doesn’t make both claims equally wrong or sinister, since the statement is true in the former case and false in the latter.

    OK, so what did I say that was untrue?

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages – that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel

    This is absolutely, 100% true.

    is simply false in most cases.

    Oh really? Because you yourself got all excited about some new perfidious-American woman writing for the New York Times. You pretended that she was different from all the other ones, but, in fact, she is pro-Israel and in favor of immigration policies that are bad for America. Just like all the others.

    Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel,

    That's because some of them ARE pro-Israel.

    As I said. As a Jew, you simply cannot handle criticism. Of any kind. Sure, some of the people there criticize Israel. But as a Jew, you just can't take that, can you? So, anyone who even questions Israel the slightest bit is "anti-Israel" for you.

    Anyway. If you're not able to handle criticism, maybe you should quit criticizing others and working to destroy their countries. You know?

    Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel,

    That’s because some of them ARE pro-Israel.

    Whoa… you’re going with that?

    Alright, then I propose a bold wager, right here right now:
    If you can find and provide a hyperlink here to any pro-Israel article authored by a contributor that has ever been posted on Mondoweiss, I will not comment on this blog ever again! That’s right, you read that correctly. In turn though, if, after combing Mondoweiss, you cannot find one single pro-Israel article, then you agree that you are a liar and pledge yourself to not comment on this blog ever again (using any handle, since you are being anon here).

    (no peeking though. Your comment accepting this wager must be time stamped at least 20 minutes before any comment where you provide any links from Mondoweiss.)

    Deal??

    All you would have to do is find one pro-Israel article at Mondoweiss! Pretty good deal, right? Offer expires at noon tomorrow.

    I will take failure to accept this wager as admission that you were bullshitting that there are pro-Israel writers at Mondoweiss. And since you were bullshitting about that, I must conclude that you were bullshitting about everything else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Whoa… you’re going with that?

    Yeah, I am, although it's sort of a moot point, because I don't remember the last time Steve linked to Mondoweiss. When was that? I'd like a link, please.

    Alright, then I propose a bold wager, right here right now:
    If you can find and provide a hyperlink here to any pro-Israel article authored by a contributor that has ever been posted on Mondoweiss, I will not comment on this blog ever again!


    I'm not taking that bet, because you won't consider anything "pro-Israel" unless it absolutely and unequivocally endorses every single thing Israel does. This is part of your inability to accept criticism.

    Now, if you're serious (which you're not), and you disagree with my characterization, then please clarify what you mean by "pro-Israel". What conditions have to be met for you to consider an article to be "pro-Israel"?

    And since you were bullshitting about that, I must conclude that you were bullshitting about everything else.

    Well, this is actually completely illogical. Is the super 115 IQ thing a lie?

    But let's say that you're right about this. Did you actually mean for this to be a serious statement?

    in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Because that kind of sounds like you're bullshitting, so by your logic, everything you say is bullshit as well. Is that pretty much accurate?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @AnotherDad

    In this case they are actually using “diversity” correctly to mean diversity of thought. Bari Weiss is pro-Israel and anti-#MeToo.
     
    Biz, everyone has their mental universe. You're hyper sensitive to certain scents and when your noise smells a possible mention of Jews or Israel, you pop up like a prairie dog.

    But i'm an American. I wish the Israelis well in preserving their nation, but "diversity of thought" in an American newspaper is not defined by diversity of opinion on Israeli politics, settlements, negotiating position.

    "Diversity of the thought" in an American newspaper ought to include having people actually in favor of preserving the *American* nation.

    “diversity of thought” in an American newspaper is not defined by diversity of opinion on Israeli politics, settlements, negotiating position.

    It is the relevant variable in the context of these perpetual accusations of them being hypocritical in regard to Israel. For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess. I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria. And… crickets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess. I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria. And… crickets.
     
    Wanting to give the Golan Heights to Syria at some indeterminant time in the future is not necessarily inconsistent with not wanting to settle muslim refugees there today.

    How does Mr. Cohen feel about settling them in Israel proper? Or even just settling them in Saudi Arabia or Oman?

    Why should I feel obliged to anyone who wants to settle Syrian refugees here? And why should I not notice that so many people who do just that have names like "Cohen"?
    , @anon
    For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess.

    Well, that actually IS hypocritical. Maybe he's being hypocritical because his name is Cohen, I guess.

    I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria.

    That doesn't really change anything, because right now, they ARE considered part of Israel. Obviously, if they ever go back to Syria, then Syrians can do whatever they want with them. But as it is now, it's considered a part of Israel, so he realizes that it would be bad to let the refugees in. But he does want to send them to America, because it's his goal to make America a worse place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Anon
    The reason anti-Catholicism is “dead as doornail” is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream...

    There is that side of Catholicism. But also the save-the-world side. Plenty of Catholic leaders in the US want More Immigrants. They want to share the Milk of American Plenty with the rest of the world. America as teats to the world. Mooooooo.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on–working for–their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    To destroy or to defeat white people/power? Big difference. Perhaps, the main agenda is not destruction but defeat. It's like the American intention in WWII was not to utterly destroy Germany and Japan. Rather, it was to defeat them and tame them. And then have them serve the US empire.
    Some peoples seek the utter destruction of foes. Nazi Germany sought to totally destroy Russia and wipe it off the map. It was meant to be a Carthaginian Peace. In contrast, not all of politics is on that radical level. When Sparta defeated Athens, it was for hegemony, not metrocide of Athens as people and culture.

    Surely, Jews know that white people are indispensable to Jewish success and power. But they want it defeated and tamed. Only that way will whites obey and serve Jews... like Germany and Japan came to obey and serve the US. It's like a cowboy doesn't want to kill the horse. Then, he'd have nothing to ride. But if he wants to ride the horse, the horse has to be 'broken' and tamed and made to obey.

    And this is why Jews seem to be pushing for more Diversity and promoting 'white guilt'. It's to tame the white horse. It's a domestication process. It's like a wild bull is a fearsome beast. It will gore you if you mess with it. It doesn't serve anything but itself. So, if you want a gentle cow that you can squeeze milk from indefinitely, the 'bull' has to be domesticated into a 'cow'. So, whites need to be cucked.

    From the POV of Jewish Power, this is smart thinking. If Jews just want to assimilate and go along, there is no need for this. But if Jews want the ultimate power and control, then they must keep White Power tamed and saddled. Or white power needs a cow-nose-ring.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2413548.main_image.jpg

    Now, Jews could tame and control Palestinian power in Israel with sheer superiority of numbers.
    But in gentile nations, Jews just don't have their own numbers. So, they have to play the Diversity Lottery to get the numbers. With enough Diversity, the electoral power of whites will break. Even if many whites vote one way, Diversity votes + white cuck votes will overwhelm white power... like in California and New York. Even Virginia now. And once Diversity totally defeats white power and when whites accept their defeat, they will have no choice but to serve the Jews to have the good life as individuals.

    In a way, what Jews are doing is a 'playboy or operator move'. It's not clean. But every decision/direction begins from a premise. If the premise were assimilation, Jews would just try to fit into whiteness. But if the premise is domination(based on sense of higher intelligence and/or historical resentment and revanchism), then what Jews are doing makes good sense.
    People generally feel contempt for those deemed inferior. When Anglos went to Hawaii, did they try to assimilate to the indigenous culture there? No, Anglos felt superior and sought to defeat the natives so that natives would serve the Anglo vision.

    And actual patriotic Jews–like Stephen Miller–who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe.

    Patriotic in a way. Or, it's just another variation of Jewish Tribalism. It could be that Miller looks into the future and sees Diversity doing more harm than good to Jews. Perhaps he believes that White America is already tamed enough for Jews to have it good. So, why push it even further and (1) fill the nation with non-whites who have less good feelies toward Jews and (2) risk driving white politics into far-right radicalism? Under such circumstances, democracy may even break down, and without Rule of Law, Jewish power becomes mostly useless. After all, it was Rule of Law(greater in US than in most nations) that allowed Jews to rise so high and so fast. Having grown up in California, Miller may believe he's seen the future, and it's not good. He may also be suspecting that Jews got high on their own supply. This Diversity thing was supposed to be pushed ONLY TO THE POINT of weakening white power. But it appears some Jews have forgotten it's a strategy and are upholding it as some kind of religion. If that becomes the case, it will be impossible for Jews to stop mass immigration and Diversity when it becomes more of a liability than an advantage to Jews. This has happened already in some parts of Europe. It's one thing play with the Diversity fire. Another thing to set the whole forest on fire. Darren Aronofsky, being a Hollywood person, is probably a political Liberal, but his movie MOTHER suggests a part of him is shi**ing bricks too about the future. Sorcerer's Apprentice stuff.

    And don’t give me “it’s those leftists”. Folks like David Brooks are not “leftist” in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a “conservative”.


    Yeah, he's the Neil Diamond of punditry. His columns are a variation of "Coming to America".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTHdC7k4uY

    Anyway, what does all this mean for the future? What happens to The Template? Will whites continue to work with Jews? Or will the Narrative run so out of control that things will just fall apart? With blacks, Jews can make money off sports and music, but that's about it. With Mexicans, Jews can get cheap nannies and fruit pickers. With Asians, they can get some decent managers and engineers but no one with leadership qualities. They'll be stuck with minions. With Hindus, Jews wil have their hands full. People who believe in elephant-headed eight-armed deities got some tricks up their sleeves.

    Now, more Diversity could break the white spirit, and whites could just serve as good horsey to Jewish power. Or, once broken, the whites could go into Samson mode and do whatever to bring down the whole system. The archaeofuturism of some on the right. Hasten the collapse. WGTOW or whites going their own way.

    Anglos defeated Hindus and used them as cattle for a good spell, but at some point, Hindus decided on disobedience to bring down the whole edifice. What if the meme spreads among whites that "Jews broke us", and instead of just serving Jews, they decide to subvert the system in so many ways. And why not? With Diversity and affirmative action, too many whites will lose out anyway.

    One guy who wants to mess up the system from within: https://youtu.be/DrbIU6_ehgM?t=29s

    And if The Template goes, what happens next? The Jewish Century needed the White Apollonians. Mercurians may be faster and sharper, but the heavy lifting had to be done by Apollonians. And by heavy lifting, I don't mean simple stuff like picking fruits. I mean running the elaborate system. Only whites could do this on a scale to make Jewish power/domination possible. In socialist history, Marx provide the vision but gentiles had to run much of the system. In science, Einstein and Oppenheimer were the great prophets of the New Energy, but the military-industrial complex had to be run by a vast white managerial class, of whom Anglos and Germanics were the best. It's like the movie FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY where Jews supply the vision but gentiles maintain the support system. And when the bomb goes off, Oppenheimer can express his wonder/terror only through mythology(Hindu).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emVaK5MoPBg

    It's understandable why Allan Bloom had a special allergy to Germanic philosophy. They threatened The Template that went back to ancient times. Bloom loved the Greeks and the Hebrews because Hellenism and Hebraism developed a symbiotic relationship. Though opposites in many ways, one offered what was missing in the other. It was like the story of short-armed creature and long-armed creature working together to eat the fruit. Greeks gave the world logic and beauty, Jews gave the world depth and vision. So, for the Modern West to develop, gentiles couldn't do without Jews. Gentile logic had to serve the greater Jewish vision. Gentile goods had to be traded via Jewish middlemen. Even though there were lots of tensions, gentiles kept inviting Jews back because Jews had special talents. Also, even without any Jews around, gentile souls were molded largely by Jewish ideas of Christianity, a religion made by heretical Jews. So, without Jews or Jewishness, gentiles could never feel complete.
    In contrast, the development of neo-pagan German philosophy and art threatened to overturn this Template and filled Germans with the idea that they can self-generate their own prophecy without the Jewish element. Even though 60s radicalism was far-removed from Germanism(and heavily influenced by Jewish elements), Bloom may have sensed something quasi-Germanic in the Romantic hubris that threw caution and tradition to the winds and embarked on a New Vision based on the Daemonic natural energies. To Bloom, Rock music was like new Wagnerianism, an Afro-Anglo paganism that didn't mind blowing up entire systems, traditions, and meaning just for the rapturous inspiration of the moment-as-eternity, like with Soul Sacrifice by Santana at Woodstock. If the Nazis cut off classical Greek-Roman culture from its symbiotic relation with Hebraism and connected it to Germanic paganism(thus making it all-in-the-Aryan-family with no need for Jews), Bloom saw Rock culture as the severing of Anglo culture from Jewish culture and attaching both to Afro-savage culture. Bloom liked the subtlety and sophistication of Jazz but loathed the out-of-control barbarism of Rock, an attitude also shared by Woody Allen.

    The Template had combined the gentile mind and body with Jewish mind and soul. And in Christianity, there was the centrality of the heart.
    But the new visions coming out of Germany seemed obsessed with the singularity of dark drive, will, or force above all else. And this was also true of German-influenced Jewish thinkers. Marx claimed to be for justice, but his entire focus was on the hands. It was all about labor. Economic materialism was everything. With Nietzsche and Hitler, it was the stomach. The hunger for power, the will to power. With Freud, it was the power of the pud. Mind, soul, and balance of the body were rendered secondary by the new visions that focused so absolutely on a single theory of power and history. Also, such dark theories of history, so often Germanic in origin, said the mind and soul were mere illusions, mere surface waves of deeper currents of power. At the deeper root is the will of the hands, the stomach, the pud. And feminism too has gone from an ideology of the heart to the ideology of the poon. Naomi Wolf even wrote an entire book on the vagina. If de Beauvoir were alive today, her book might have been called the Second Genital.

    So, what happens to The Template when the new theory of power focuses less on the conscious free-will of the mind, soul, and balance of the body(as depicted in Greek sculptures where all the parts of the body are in graceful harmony) and focuses more on the dark will of animal drives, unfettered id, and super-sensory organs: the mouth, eyes/ears, and genitals. Only a few organs have 'orgasmic' ability. Only the mouth can enjoy the mmmmmm of ice cream. Only eyes can see beauty. Only ears can hear music. Only genitals can feel orgasm. Because they are such pleasure centers, there is a natural tendency for people to indulge those organs... gluttony, lust, vanity, and escapism. This is why the philosophies and religions have tried to remind people to use the morally cultivated mind to control the body. Don't just indulge in food, sex, vanity, and good times(via music). Serve the whole body,and make the whole body work in unity, and limit the super-sensory organs to their place and time. Keep them in the cage.

    But as the New Philosophies and Visions, based on rise of (1)natural science that studied mankind as animal-organisms, (2)romanticism that favored emotions and urges over logic & control, and (3) consumerism that tempted super-sensory organs with more food, more music, more idols, more sexual pleasure, and etc., the traditional balance of mind and soul was undermined. And the ensuing chaos, on a global scale, even began to threaten The Template that had arrived at some kind of balance between Hellenism and Hebraism, perhaps the high point in art being the Renaissance when 'rediscovered' Hellenic modes were used to represent the stories and meanings of the Bible.

    It's like the covenant between men and women have also broken down. It used to be men and women understood each other's strengths and weaknesses and arrived as symbiotic cooperation via the family. So, it wasn't just about me-as-man or me-as-woman. It was about how men and women can work to arrive at some kind of balance, compromise, and give-and-take. But a demented form of neo-Freudianism turned it all into 'muh dic*' and 'muh pooter'. So, a man's main priority is no longer to find that nice woman, but to pleasure his pud with as many pooters as he can find. He is controlled by the pud than controls the pud. And the woman is the same. She doesn't guard her pooter to give to the right guy but lets it run wild in search for more fun.

    Now, Freud and Hitler both understood the dangers of chaos. Freud spoke of ego and super-ego too. He was well-aware of the troublesome nature of sexual energies. And Hitler knew that nothing could be done if people were into back-to-nature neo-barbarism, dancing around campfires and eating raw meat. He was all for discipline and order. BUT, because their visions were so fundamentally rooted in the sexual drive or will to power, other considerations came to serve that primal obsession that could, at its essence, only be savage or barbaric. So, despite Freud's anxieties and warnings, his philosophy turned into 'boing'. And despite Hitler's attempt at order and stability, his will to power drove Germany to invade and destroy because the will to power, in its primal state, cannot be satisfied with 'enough'.

    This is why the authorities completely miss the boat when they catch the communists in HAIL CAESAR. They just got the small fish. Also, those communist writers are not even prophetic types. They are really just closet-capitalists who are miffed because they didn't see enough of the profit. They are less about the workers than their own pocketbooks. Also, they adhere to an ideology that has already become ossified. Soviet Union was powerful after WWII but had no new ideas.

    The real whale is Marcuse who was working on Something New, something the anti-communist authorities had NO IDEA about in the 50s. While the anti-communists were looking for Soviet spies, the real prophecy was about blend of Marx and Freud in the fertile mind of Marcuse and other new prophets. And this blew up in the 60s with counterculture. And it even affected suburban Jewish communities like in SERIOUS MAN where kids in Jewish school are into Rock and Drugs. Authorities failed to see this danger in the period of HAIL CAESAR because they are bureaucrats, managers, company men. There's something happening but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones? In contrast, a prophet like Marcuse envisioned what could/should be, and his ideas played a key role in the massive boomer rebellion in the 60s.

    But then, what does this do for The Template in the long run? There was something Newtonian about how Hellenism and Hebraism worked together. But what is truth and meaning in a world that seems run by Chaos Theory? What goes with what, what connects with what, what works with what?

    One thing for sure, history is going to heat up big time in the 21st century. Fukuyama couldn't have got it more wrong. Something BIG is on the horizon all along the watchtower. And before something good comes along, it's gonna be hell like never before. Woe unto the morons who smashed The Template.

    Another absorbing read by the inimitable Factor!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Anonymous

    The NYT-Slim is just a mouthpiece for a Mexican Billionaire to get more open borders
     
    Yet again: Carlos Slim does not control the NYT and he never did. He never owned a majority of Class A shares or anything remotely close (17% at his max, and he has since sold off), and more importantly never owned one single Class B share–the share class which actually controls the Board of Directors and hence votes on corporate policy. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns and controls the New York Times and has for a very, very long time.

    This "Carlos Slim Owns the NYT" meme has become so widespread and persistent that it's finally occurred to me that it may be the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign promoted by the Sulzbergers. There's nothing as safe as being hidden.

    Meanwhile, Whiskey, your posts can be entertaining but your knowledge of the world appears to be shrinking.

    I seem to recall that you posted almost the same reply to my own Anonymous comment a week or two ago. At the time I took myself as properly rebuked, but now it seems that you are cutting and pasting, and I become skeptical.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Here’s a rather flip answer: “Protestants” have been taught how to avoid thinking. By contrast, at least some strains of Catholicism and Judaism have promulgated thinking.
    A more serious answer: Protestants have been taught to avoid thinking about things that actually matter.
    An even more serious answer: This is actually a challenging issue. I personally respect anyone who contributes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @biz

    Sure, everyone here is really wearing a Nation of Islam Bowtie or a Keffiyeh. I suppose what you wrote might be true if by “some proportion” you meant “exceedingly few”.
     
    As the famous meme says, on the internet nobody can tell that you are a dog. The number of erstwhile white nationalists posting here who are in reality Muslims is clearly not zero (e.g. rehmahat - lol, although there must be an internet outage in Tehran because he hasn't dropped by lately. And yes, his cover could not be said to be particularly deep). Whether the actual number is closer to 25% or 75% neither you or I know. I have my suspicions about several of the common posters here and if there was a way of verifying I would bet $1000 on my suspicions - turns of phrase that are strange for a native English speaker, and more tellingly, constant defense of Muslims, whatever the situation, which is strange territory for a supposed tradcon. Anyway, again, whether the number is closer to 25% or 75% I don't claim to know, but it is some.

    You forgot to accuse us of being inbred.
     
    Actually, I wouldn't do that, because I am familiar with the actual data, which shows that in the US antisemitism correlates with education. As do other stupid and destructive ideas in our country, like blank-slate-ism. So the typical white American antisemite is not someone in a trailer park. In fact the white working class is one the most philo-semitic demos. Rather it is as I outlined - someone with some education who is rather spastic and thinks it appropriate to hijack a Cleveland Browns forum by talking about how many of the Bolsheviks were Jewish.

    As the famous meme says, on the internet nobody can tell that you are a dog.

    No, but they can tell when you’re a jerk.

    The number of erstwhile white nationalists posting here who are in reality Muslims is clearly not zero (e.g. rehmahat – lol, although there must be an internet outage in Tehran because he hasn’t dropped by lately. And yes, his cover could not be said to be particularly deep). Whether the actual number is closer to 25% or 75% neither you or I know.

    “Clearly not zero” could be “one or two”, from which you leap to infer “25% – 75%”

    I really don’t think there are many muslims at all who post here – I have seen no evidence of that.

    Actually, I wouldn’t do that,…………..

    So you stuck to the old standbys of sexual frustration/perversion and mental illness.

    By the way, is there an ethnic group who often seem to have an odd predeliction for sexual deviancy? So much so, that certain members of that group even attempt to normalize it as something that underlies all human behavior, when really maybe it’s just their own peculiar kink? People like Magnus Hirschfeld, and to a lesser extent the now discredited Sigmund Freud? Why was it that the concept of projection seemed so immediate to people like Freud?

    Moreover, before casually throwing around terms like “anti-semitism”, care to define it? Because – increasingly – it seems to simply mean “people who notice things about Jews”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    No, it means people a Jew doesn't like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @biz
    I believe you've made the classic Millennial error of evaluating the validity of claims based on how they make people feel as opposed to their raw truth value. So yes, calling a fat person fat and a skinny person fat is insulting to both targets. However that doesn't make both claims equally wrong or sinister, since the statement is true in the former case and false in the latter.

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages - that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel - is simply false in most cases. iSteve is a cool guy overall, but he has accused anti-American Jews who write for fucking Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel, and many of the people here believe it without even bothering to click the link at the side to see what Mondoweiss has on their pages.

    The most common charge against Jews in these pages – that they advocate for policies that are destructive for America but constructive for Israel – is simply false in most cases.

    That is a mischaracterization of many of the claims made here, but that is unsurprising, given how dishonest you are being. And even to that (mischaracterized) claim: it is true in many cases, and in many important cases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @biz

    “diversity of thought” in an American newspaper is not defined by diversity of opinion on Israeli politics, settlements, negotiating position.
     
    It is the relevant variable in the context of these perpetual accusations of them being hypocritical in regard to Israel. For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess. I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria. And... crickets.

    For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess. I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria. And… crickets.

    Wanting to give the Golan Heights to Syria at some indeterminant time in the future is not necessarily inconsistent with not wanting to settle muslim refugees there today.

    How does Mr. Cohen feel about settling them in Israel proper? Or even just settling them in Saudi Arabia or Oman?

    Why should I feel obliged to anyone who wants to settle Syrian refugees here? And why should I not notice that so many people who do just that have names like “Cohen”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Rifleman

    The recent hirings of Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, Michelle Goldberg, and Max Boot are bringing the op-ed pages of our national newspapers a much needed infusion of DIVERSITY!
     
    Why leave out other recent NYTimes Jewish hires - Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush.

    The Nice Jewish Boy Glenn is still there despite being exposed as a pervert and harasser.

    Hiring Maggie is a good decision though. She has access (or at least it strongly seems like) to Donald Trump, whom she has covered since he was in real estate. Who wouldn’t want to hire someone who has access to the President?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Anon
    As intelligent and sophisticated as many Jews are, there is an element of the shtetl hick, the Beverly Hillbillies, and this is esp true with Eastern European Jews have chips on their shoulders in regard to both Wasps and Germanic Jews.

    They got too rich and too powerful too fast. Their success outpaced their grooming for success.
    In a few generations, they went from the world of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF to the world of MARGIN CALL. When a famished person is shown lots of food, he just gorges and gorges, and he doesn't know when to stop. Too much too fast leads to indigestion but instead of slowing down, his hunger still remains in overdrive as an article of faith(despite the full stomach), and he blames the indigestion on everything but his 'rightful' appetite.

    Anglos, stuck in a small isle, were so hungry for land that they kept expanding to take control of more even when they had more than enough. Imagine how much better US, Canadian, and Australian history would have been if the Anglos didn't keep on pushing to grab more land in Asia and Africa.
    Russians, having lots of land, never had this insatiable appetite to control more territory all over the world.

    Jews had lots of talent and energy, and they hungered for control, and when they finally got it, they just couldn't control their appetite. It led to the orgies of violence in the USSR, the inability of Israel to be a normal nation because Zionists seek to control the entire MENA, and the restlessness of US policy in both invade and invite mode. They feel that they were denied righteous domination for so long that, when they finally got it, they can't get enough of it.

    >It led to the orgies of violence in the USSR, the inability of Israel to be a normal nation because Zionists seek to control the entire MENA, and the restlessness of US policy in both invade and invite mode. They feel that they were denied righteous domination for so long that, when they finally got it, they can’t get enough of it.

    You are trying to explain the entire history of 20th century as a product of Jewish experience & expectations. Seems very unlikely. For example, empire building (invade the world, invite the world) has been a feature of most civilizations in past 3000 years. You could argue that American empire no longer serves the interests of Americas but to suggest that empire is fundamentally a jewish expression of power (& wouldn’t have existed without the jewish elite) would be very wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Catholics are over-represented on the Court - 5 or 6 out of nine but no one seems to complain about that anymore. Anti-Popery (even more than anti-Semitism) was the dominant religious prejudice of 19th century America and even as late as JFK's election people were worried about Papist influence. They even complained about it in the Declaration of Independence.

    Anti-Semitism seems to be alive an well judging by the comments to this blog but anti-Catholicism seems as dead as a doornail even among right wingers (actually a lot of right wingers are themselves Catholic). What happened?

    Because Jews weren’t present enough to get up to their shenanigans until the late 19th century, largely starting with the poem on the statue of liberty. The papists were already there in large numbers. Things are so bad now that letting papists get up to their shenanigans would be an improvement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Mr. Anon

    As the famous meme says, on the internet nobody can tell that you are a dog.
     
    No, but they can tell when you're a jerk.

    The number of erstwhile white nationalists posting here who are in reality Muslims is clearly not zero (e.g. rehmahat – lol, although there must be an internet outage in Tehran because he hasn’t dropped by lately. And yes, his cover could not be said to be particularly deep). Whether the actual number is closer to 25% or 75% neither you or I know.
     
    "Clearly not zero" could be "one or two", from which you leap to infer "25% - 75%"

    I really don't think there are many muslims at all who post here - I have seen no evidence of that.


    Actually, I wouldn’t do that,..............
     
    So you stuck to the old standbys of sexual frustration/perversion and mental illness.

    By the way, is there an ethnic group who often seem to have an odd predeliction for sexual deviancy? So much so, that certain members of that group even attempt to normalize it as something that underlies all human behavior, when really maybe it's just their own peculiar kink? People like Magnus Hirschfeld, and to a lesser extent the now discredited Sigmund Freud? Why was it that the concept of projection seemed so immediate to people like Freud?

    Moreover, before casually throwing around terms like "anti-semitism", care to define it? Because - increasingly - it seems to simply mean "people who notice things about Jews".

    No, it means people a Jew doesn’t like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz

    Mondoweiss of being simultaneously pro-Israel,

    That’s because some of them ARE pro-Israel.
     
    Whoa... you're going with that?

    Alright, then I propose a bold wager, right here right now:
    If you can find and provide a hyperlink here to any pro-Israel article authored by a contributor that has ever been posted on Mondoweiss, I will not comment on this blog ever again! That's right, you read that correctly. In turn though, if, after combing Mondoweiss, you cannot find one single pro-Israel article, then you agree that you are a liar and pledge yourself to not comment on this blog ever again (using any handle, since you are being anon here).

    (no peeking though. Your comment accepting this wager must be time stamped at least 20 minutes before any comment where you provide any links from Mondoweiss.)

    Deal??

    All you would have to do is find one pro-Israel article at Mondoweiss! Pretty good deal, right? Offer expires at noon tomorrow.

    I will take failure to accept this wager as admission that you were bullshitting that there are pro-Israel writers at Mondoweiss. And since you were bullshitting about that, I must conclude that you were bullshitting about everything else.

    Whoa… you’re going with that?

    Yeah, I am, although it’s sort of a moot point, because I don’t remember the last time Steve linked to Mondoweiss. When was that? I’d like a link, please.

    Alright, then I propose a bold wager, right here right now:
    If you can find and provide a hyperlink here to any pro-Israel article authored by a contributor that has ever been posted on Mondoweiss, I will not comment on this blog ever again!

    I’m not taking that bet, because you won’t consider anything “pro-Israel” unless it absolutely and unequivocally endorses every single thing Israel does. This is part of your inability to accept criticism.

    Now, if you’re serious (which you’re not), and you disagree with my characterization, then please clarify what you mean by “pro-Israel”. What conditions have to be met for you to consider an article to be “pro-Israel”?

    And since you were bullshitting about that, I must conclude that you were bullshitting about everything else.

    Well, this is actually completely illogical. Is the super 115 IQ thing a lie?

    But let’s say that you’re right about this. Did you actually mean for this to be a serious statement?

    in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Because that kind of sounds like you’re bullshitting, so by your logic, everything you say is bullshit as well. Is that pretty much accurate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/first-the-bds-mob-came-for-the-indiana-pizza-bakers-but-i-did-not-speak-up/?highlight=mondoweiss
    , @biz
    Pro-Israel = anything with any positive take whatsoever about Israel's culture, government, historical conduct, existence as a Jewish state, public transportation, national parks, quality of falafel, trash-free beaches, music clubs, symphony orchestras, or anything.

    That's a pretty generous definition there. So go ahead - wager aside even, find me an article written by a contributor at Mondoweiss that fits that description. Or admit that you were bullshitting.

    Or if you want to go full wager, you have until noon Eastern.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz

    “diversity of thought” in an American newspaper is not defined by diversity of opinion on Israeli politics, settlements, negotiating position.
     
    It is the relevant variable in the context of these perpetual accusations of them being hypocritical in regard to Israel. For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess. I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria. And... crickets.

    For example isteve accused Roger Cohen for being hypocritical for not wanting to settle Syrian refugees in the Golan Heights but wanting to settle them in the US, and then everyone here had a big hurr hurr about it, because his name his Cohen I guess.

    Well, that actually IS hypocritical. Maybe he’s being hypocritical because his name is Cohen, I guess.

    I and others pointed out that Roger Cohen has written in favor of Israel just flat out giving the Golan Heights to Syria.

    That doesn’t really change anything, because right now, they ARE considered part of Israel. Obviously, if they ever go back to Syria, then Syrians can do whatever they want with them. But as it is now, it’s considered a part of Israel, so he realizes that it would be bad to let the refugees in. But he does want to send them to America, because it’s his goal to make America a worse place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @anon
    Whoa… you’re going with that?

    Yeah, I am, although it's sort of a moot point, because I don't remember the last time Steve linked to Mondoweiss. When was that? I'd like a link, please.

    Alright, then I propose a bold wager, right here right now:
    If you can find and provide a hyperlink here to any pro-Israel article authored by a contributor that has ever been posted on Mondoweiss, I will not comment on this blog ever again!


    I'm not taking that bet, because you won't consider anything "pro-Israel" unless it absolutely and unequivocally endorses every single thing Israel does. This is part of your inability to accept criticism.

    Now, if you're serious (which you're not), and you disagree with my characterization, then please clarify what you mean by "pro-Israel". What conditions have to be met for you to consider an article to be "pro-Israel"?

    And since you were bullshitting about that, I must conclude that you were bullshitting about everything else.

    Well, this is actually completely illogical. Is the super 115 IQ thing a lie?

    But let's say that you're right about this. Did you actually mean for this to be a serious statement?

    in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Because that kind of sounds like you're bullshitting, so by your logic, everything you say is bullshit as well. Is that pretty much accurate?
    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    OK, so that was like three years ago. And they're still holding a grudge.

    If the past is any indication, then a thousand years from now, they'll still be celebrating a holiday about the time they defeated you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Steve Sailer
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/first-the-bds-mob-came-for-the-indiana-pizza-bakers-but-i-did-not-speak-up/?highlight=mondoweiss

    OK, so that was like three years ago. And they’re still holding a grudge.

    If the past is any indication, then a thousand years from now, they’ll still be celebrating a holiday about the time they defeated you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Anon
    The reason anti-Catholicism is “dead as doornail” is first off, the over decline in religious adherence/observance. But even more importantly that white Catholics seem to be integrated into the American mainstream...

    There is that side of Catholicism. But also the save-the-world side. Plenty of Catholic leaders in the US want More Immigrants. They want to share the Milk of American Plenty with the rest of the world. America as teats to the world. Mooooooo.

    In contrast, establishment Jews, in the establishment media are openly and routinely expressing contempt for white gentiles and cheering on–working for–their displacement and the destruction of their nation, even while living very comfortably precisely because they are doing their elite parasite thing on top of a big rich white gentile nation.

    To destroy or to defeat white people/power? Big difference. Perhaps, the main agenda is not destruction but defeat. It's like the American intention in WWII was not to utterly destroy Germany and Japan. Rather, it was to defeat them and tame them. And then have them serve the US empire.
    Some peoples seek the utter destruction of foes. Nazi Germany sought to totally destroy Russia and wipe it off the map. It was meant to be a Carthaginian Peace. In contrast, not all of politics is on that radical level. When Sparta defeated Athens, it was for hegemony, not metrocide of Athens as people and culture.

    Surely, Jews know that white people are indispensable to Jewish success and power. But they want it defeated and tamed. Only that way will whites obey and serve Jews... like Germany and Japan came to obey and serve the US. It's like a cowboy doesn't want to kill the horse. Then, he'd have nothing to ride. But if he wants to ride the horse, the horse has to be 'broken' and tamed and made to obey.

    And this is why Jews seem to be pushing for more Diversity and promoting 'white guilt'. It's to tame the white horse. It's a domestication process. It's like a wild bull is a fearsome beast. It will gore you if you mess with it. It doesn't serve anything but itself. So, if you want a gentle cow that you can squeeze milk from indefinitely, the 'bull' has to be domesticated into a 'cow'. So, whites need to be cucked.

    From the POV of Jewish Power, this is smart thinking. If Jews just want to assimilate and go along, there is no need for this. But if Jews want the ultimate power and control, then they must keep White Power tamed and saddled. Or white power needs a cow-nose-ring.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2413548.main_image.jpg

    Now, Jews could tame and control Palestinian power in Israel with sheer superiority of numbers.
    But in gentile nations, Jews just don't have their own numbers. So, they have to play the Diversity Lottery to get the numbers. With enough Diversity, the electoral power of whites will break. Even if many whites vote one way, Diversity votes + white cuck votes will overwhelm white power... like in California and New York. Even Virginia now. And once Diversity totally defeats white power and when whites accept their defeat, they will have no choice but to serve the Jews to have the good life as individuals.

    In a way, what Jews are doing is a 'playboy or operator move'. It's not clean. But every decision/direction begins from a premise. If the premise were assimilation, Jews would just try to fit into whiteness. But if the premise is domination(based on sense of higher intelligence and/or historical resentment and revanchism), then what Jews are doing makes good sense.
    People generally feel contempt for those deemed inferior. When Anglos went to Hawaii, did they try to assimilate to the indigenous culture there? No, Anglos felt superior and sought to defeat the natives so that natives would serve the Anglo vision.

    And actual patriotic Jews–like Stephen Miller–who are committed to and interested in preserving the American nation, are publicly accused of basically being race traitors to the tribe.

    Patriotic in a way. Or, it's just another variation of Jewish Tribalism. It could be that Miller looks into the future and sees Diversity doing more harm than good to Jews. Perhaps he believes that White America is already tamed enough for Jews to have it good. So, why push it even further and (1) fill the nation with non-whites who have less good feelies toward Jews and (2) risk driving white politics into far-right radicalism? Under such circumstances, democracy may even break down, and without Rule of Law, Jewish power becomes mostly useless. After all, it was Rule of Law(greater in US than in most nations) that allowed Jews to rise so high and so fast. Having grown up in California, Miller may believe he's seen the future, and it's not good. He may also be suspecting that Jews got high on their own supply. This Diversity thing was supposed to be pushed ONLY TO THE POINT of weakening white power. But it appears some Jews have forgotten it's a strategy and are upholding it as some kind of religion. If that becomes the case, it will be impossible for Jews to stop mass immigration and Diversity when it becomes more of a liability than an advantage to Jews. This has happened already in some parts of Europe. It's one thing play with the Diversity fire. Another thing to set the whole forest on fire. Darren Aronofsky, being a Hollywood person, is probably a political Liberal, but his movie MOTHER suggests a part of him is shi**ing bricks too about the future. Sorcerer's Apprentice stuff.

    And don’t give me “it’s those leftists”. Folks like David Brooks are not “leftist” in any normal sense. Brooks is a namby pamby middle of the roader, who styles himself as a “conservative”.


    Yeah, he's the Neil Diamond of punditry. His columns are a variation of "Coming to America".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTHdC7k4uY

    Anyway, what does all this mean for the future? What happens to The Template? Will whites continue to work with Jews? Or will the Narrative run so out of control that things will just fall apart? With blacks, Jews can make money off sports and music, but that's about it. With Mexicans, Jews can get cheap nannies and fruit pickers. With Asians, they can get some decent managers and engineers but no one with leadership qualities. They'll be stuck with minions. With Hindus, Jews wil have their hands full. People who believe in elephant-headed eight-armed deities got some tricks up their sleeves.

    Now, more Diversity could break the white spirit, and whites could just serve as good horsey to Jewish power. Or, once broken, the whites could go into Samson mode and do whatever to bring down the whole system. The archaeofuturism of some on the right. Hasten the collapse. WGTOW or whites going their own way.

    Anglos defeated Hindus and used them as cattle for a good spell, but at some point, Hindus decided on disobedience to bring down the whole edifice. What if the meme spreads among whites that "Jews broke us", and instead of just serving Jews, they decide to subvert the system in so many ways. And why not? With Diversity and affirmative action, too many whites will lose out anyway.

    One guy who wants to mess up the system from within: https://youtu.be/DrbIU6_ehgM?t=29s

    And if The Template goes, what happens next? The Jewish Century needed the White Apollonians. Mercurians may be faster and sharper, but the heavy lifting had to be done by Apollonians. And by heavy lifting, I don't mean simple stuff like picking fruits. I mean running the elaborate system. Only whites could do this on a scale to make Jewish power/domination possible. In socialist history, Marx provide the vision but gentiles had to run much of the system. In science, Einstein and Oppenheimer were the great prophets of the New Energy, but the military-industrial complex had to be run by a vast white managerial class, of whom Anglos and Germanics were the best. It's like the movie FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY where Jews supply the vision but gentiles maintain the support system. And when the bomb goes off, Oppenheimer can express his wonder/terror only through mythology(Hindu).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emVaK5MoPBg

    It's understandable why Allan Bloom had a special allergy to Germanic philosophy. They threatened The Template that went back to ancient times. Bloom loved the Greeks and the Hebrews because Hellenism and Hebraism developed a symbiotic relationship. Though opposites in many ways, one offered what was missing in the other. It was like the story of short-armed creature and long-armed creature working together to eat the fruit. Greeks gave the world logic and beauty, Jews gave the world depth and vision. So, for the Modern West to develop, gentiles couldn't do without Jews. Gentile logic had to serve the greater Jewish vision. Gentile goods had to be traded via Jewish middlemen. Even though there were lots of tensions, gentiles kept inviting Jews back because Jews had special talents. Also, even without any Jews around, gentile souls were molded largely by Jewish ideas of Christianity, a religion made by heretical Jews. So, without Jews or Jewishness, gentiles could never feel complete.
    In contrast, the development of neo-pagan German philosophy and art threatened to overturn this Template and filled Germans with the idea that they can self-generate their own prophecy without the Jewish element. Even though 60s radicalism was far-removed from Germanism(and heavily influenced by Jewish elements), Bloom may have sensed something quasi-Germanic in the Romantic hubris that threw caution and tradition to the winds and embarked on a New Vision based on the Daemonic natural energies. To Bloom, Rock music was like new Wagnerianism, an Afro-Anglo paganism that didn't mind blowing up entire systems, traditions, and meaning just for the rapturous inspiration of the moment-as-eternity, like with Soul Sacrifice by Santana at Woodstock. If the Nazis cut off classical Greek-Roman culture from its symbiotic relation with Hebraism and connected it to Germanic paganism(thus making it all-in-the-Aryan-family with no need for Jews), Bloom saw Rock culture as the severing of Anglo culture from Jewish culture and attaching both to Afro-savage culture. Bloom liked the subtlety and sophistication of Jazz but loathed the out-of-control barbarism of Rock, an attitude also shared by Woody Allen.

    The Template had combined the gentile mind and body with Jewish mind and soul. And in Christianity, there was the centrality of the heart.
    But the new visions coming out of Germany seemed obsessed with the singularity of dark drive, will, or force above all else. And this was also true of German-influenced Jewish thinkers. Marx claimed to be for justice, but his entire focus was on the hands. It was all about labor. Economic materialism was everything. With Nietzsche and Hitler, it was the stomach. The hunger for power, the will to power. With Freud, it was the power of the pud. Mind, soul, and balance of the body were rendered secondary by the new visions that focused so absolutely on a single theory of power and history. Also, such dark theories of history, so often Germanic in origin, said the mind and soul were mere illusions, mere surface waves of deeper currents of power. At the deeper root is the will of the hands, the stomach, the pud. And feminism too has gone from an ideology of the heart to the ideology of the poon. Naomi Wolf even wrote an entire book on the vagina. If de Beauvoir were alive today, her book might have been called the Second Genital.

    So, what happens to The Template when the new theory of power focuses less on the conscious free-will of the mind, soul, and balance of the body(as depicted in Greek sculptures where all the parts of the body are in graceful harmony) and focuses more on the dark will of animal drives, unfettered id, and super-sensory organs: the mouth, eyes/ears, and genitals. Only a few organs have 'orgasmic' ability. Only the mouth can enjoy the mmmmmm of ice cream. Only eyes can see beauty. Only ears can hear music. Only genitals can feel orgasm. Because they are such pleasure centers, there is a natural tendency for people to indulge those organs... gluttony, lust, vanity, and escapism. This is why the philosophies and religions have tried to remind people to use the morally cultivated mind to control the body. Don't just indulge in food, sex, vanity, and good times(via music). Serve the whole body,and make the whole body work in unity, and limit the super-sensory organs to their place and time. Keep them in the cage.

    But as the New Philosophies and Visions, based on rise of (1)natural science that studied mankind as animal-organisms, (2)romanticism that favored emotions and urges over logic & control, and (3) consumerism that tempted super-sensory organs with more food, more music, more idols, more sexual pleasure, and etc., the traditional balance of mind and soul was undermined. And the ensuing chaos, on a global scale, even began to threaten The Template that had arrived at some kind of balance between Hellenism and Hebraism, perhaps the high point in art being the Renaissance when 'rediscovered' Hellenic modes were used to represent the stories and meanings of the Bible.

    It's like the covenant between men and women have also broken down. It used to be men and women understood each other's strengths and weaknesses and arrived as symbiotic cooperation via the family. So, it wasn't just about me-as-man or me-as-woman. It was about how men and women can work to arrive at some kind of balance, compromise, and give-and-take. But a demented form of neo-Freudianism turned it all into 'muh dic*' and 'muh pooter'. So, a man's main priority is no longer to find that nice woman, but to pleasure his pud with as many pooters as he can find. He is controlled by the pud than controls the pud. And the woman is the same. She doesn't guard her pooter to give to the right guy but lets it run wild in search for more fun.

    Now, Freud and Hitler both understood the dangers of chaos. Freud spoke of ego and super-ego too. He was well-aware of the troublesome nature of sexual energies. And Hitler knew that nothing could be done if people were into back-to-nature neo-barbarism, dancing around campfires and eating raw meat. He was all for discipline and order. BUT, because their visions were so fundamentally rooted in the sexual drive or will to power, other considerations came to serve that primal obsession that could, at its essence, only be savage or barbaric. So, despite Freud's anxieties and warnings, his philosophy turned into 'boing'. And despite Hitler's attempt at order and stability, his will to power drove Germany to invade and destroy because the will to power, in its primal state, cannot be satisfied with 'enough'.

    This is why the authorities completely miss the boat when they catch the communists in HAIL CAESAR. They just got the small fish. Also, those communist writers are not even prophetic types. They are really just closet-capitalists who are miffed because they didn't see enough of the profit. They are less about the workers than their own pocketbooks. Also, they adhere to an ideology that has already become ossified. Soviet Union was powerful after WWII but had no new ideas.

    The real whale is Marcuse who was working on Something New, something the anti-communist authorities had NO IDEA about in the 50s. While the anti-communists were looking for Soviet spies, the real prophecy was about blend of Marx and Freud in the fertile mind of Marcuse and other new prophets. And this blew up in the 60s with counterculture. And it even affected suburban Jewish communities like in SERIOUS MAN where kids in Jewish school are into Rock and Drugs. Authorities failed to see this danger in the period of HAIL CAESAR because they are bureaucrats, managers, company men. There's something happening but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones? In contrast, a prophet like Marcuse envisioned what could/should be, and his ideas played a key role in the massive boomer rebellion in the 60s.

    But then, what does this do for The Template in the long run? There was something Newtonian about how Hellenism and Hebraism worked together. But what is truth and meaning in a world that seems run by Chaos Theory? What goes with what, what connects with what, what works with what?

    One thing for sure, history is going to heat up big time in the 21st century. Fukuyama couldn't have got it more wrong. Something BIG is on the horizon all along the watchtower. And before something good comes along, it's gonna be hell like never before. Woe unto the morons who smashed The Template.

    Fascinating, as always.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @anon
    Whoa… you’re going with that?

    Yeah, I am, although it's sort of a moot point, because I don't remember the last time Steve linked to Mondoweiss. When was that? I'd like a link, please.

    Alright, then I propose a bold wager, right here right now:
    If you can find and provide a hyperlink here to any pro-Israel article authored by a contributor that has ever been posted on Mondoweiss, I will not comment on this blog ever again!


    I'm not taking that bet, because you won't consider anything "pro-Israel" unless it absolutely and unequivocally endorses every single thing Israel does. This is part of your inability to accept criticism.

    Now, if you're serious (which you're not), and you disagree with my characterization, then please clarify what you mean by "pro-Israel". What conditions have to be met for you to consider an article to be "pro-Israel"?

    And since you were bullshitting about that, I must conclude that you were bullshitting about everything else.

    Well, this is actually completely illogical. Is the super 115 IQ thing a lie?

    But let's say that you're right about this. Did you actually mean for this to be a serious statement?

    in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Because that kind of sounds like you're bullshitting, so by your logic, everything you say is bullshit as well. Is that pretty much accurate?

    Pro-Israel = anything with any positive take whatsoever about Israel’s culture, government, historical conduct, existence as a Jewish state, public transportation, national parks, quality of falafel, trash-free beaches, music clubs, symphony orchestras, or anything.

    That’s a pretty generous definition there. So go ahead – wager aside even, find me an article written by a contributor at Mondoweiss that fits that description. Or admit that you were bullshitting.

    Or if you want to go full wager, you have until noon Eastern.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I'll look.

    Before I waste too much time, though, I'm going to need you to back up this statement, that you made the other day:

    trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.


    So, on the subject of third-world immigration to the United States, I need to see your evidence that Bari Weiss is 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Go ahead. Get to work. Show me. Because otherwise, I'll have to sssume that you're bullshitting, and that, as the stereotypes would predict, you have no intention of ever fulfilling the bet, should you happen to lose.

    So go ahead. Show me that Bari Weiss is 170 degrees different than Roger Cohen or Charles Blow on this topic, and we can then move on to the crucial topic of how pro-Israel a site that Steve hasn't linked to for almost three years really is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz
    Pro-Israel = anything with any positive take whatsoever about Israel's culture, government, historical conduct, existence as a Jewish state, public transportation, national parks, quality of falafel, trash-free beaches, music clubs, symphony orchestras, or anything.

    That's a pretty generous definition there. So go ahead - wager aside even, find me an article written by a contributor at Mondoweiss that fits that description. Or admit that you were bullshitting.

    Or if you want to go full wager, you have until noon Eastern.

    I’ll look.

    Before I waste too much time, though, I’m going to need you to back up this statement, that you made the other day:

    trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    So, on the subject of third-world immigration to the United States, I need to see your evidence that Bari Weiss is 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Go ahead. Get to work. Show me. Because otherwise, I’ll have to sssume that you’re bullshitting, and that, as the stereotypes would predict, you have no intention of ever fulfilling the bet, should you happen to lose.

    So go ahead. Show me that Bari Weiss is 170 degrees different than Roger Cohen or Charles Blow on this topic, and we can then move on to the crucial topic of how pro-Israel a site that Steve hasn’t linked to for almost three years really is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    It doesn't work that way dick.

    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim - that Mondoweiss has pro-Israel contributors. You claimed exactly that. And the relevance of that site to this whole discussion, which I stated clearly upthread, is not that isteve linked to it in the past, but it is rather that just recently many here accused an anti-American Jewish Leftist of being pro-Israel, based on nothing other than the person's supposed Jewish heritage, even though he writes for Mondoweiss, so the accusation of being pro-Israel was clearly absurd.

    I 0n the other hand in no way made a specific claim about Bari Weiss' position on the specific topic of immigration. I made a general claim about her positions on a variety of current issues which are indeed at great odds with the standard contemporary NY Times editorial line, which is true.

    So I am not under any obligation to provide evidence for something very specific which I didn't claim in the first place. You, on the other hand, made a specific claim which is completely false which you just decided to pull out of your ass for some reason.

    But I'll even generously offer a re-worked wager:
    You find what you judge to be the most pro-Israel article ever written at Mondoweiss (good luck!) and link to it. I will find an OpEd written by Bari Weiss and link to it. An impartial judge - namely iSteve if he agrees to do it - will assess which of the two claims: a) your claim that anyone who writes for Mondoweiss could be said to be pro-Israel, or b) my claim that Bari Weiss' opinions differ greatly from those of the other NY Times OpEd writers, is more valid, or less invalid if you want to put it that way. The person judged to have had the less valid or more invalid of those two claims agrees never to comment here again. Are you in?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @anon
    I'll look.

    Before I waste too much time, though, I'm going to need you to back up this statement, that you made the other day:

    trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.


    So, on the subject of third-world immigration to the United States, I need to see your evidence that Bari Weiss is 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Go ahead. Get to work. Show me. Because otherwise, I'll have to sssume that you're bullshitting, and that, as the stereotypes would predict, you have no intention of ever fulfilling the bet, should you happen to lose.

    So go ahead. Show me that Bari Weiss is 170 degrees different than Roger Cohen or Charles Blow on this topic, and we can then move on to the crucial topic of how pro-Israel a site that Steve hasn't linked to for almost three years really is.

    It doesn’t work that way dick.

    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim – that Mondoweiss has pro-Israel contributors. You claimed exactly that. And the relevance of that site to this whole discussion, which I stated clearly upthread, is not that isteve linked to it in the past, but it is rather that just recently many here accused an anti-American Jewish Leftist of being pro-Israel, based on nothing other than the person’s supposed Jewish heritage, even though he writes for Mondoweiss, so the accusation of being pro-Israel was clearly absurd.

    I 0n the other hand in no way made a specific claim about Bari Weiss’ position on the specific topic of immigration. I made a general claim about her positions on a variety of current issues which are indeed at great odds with the standard contemporary NY Times editorial line, which is true.

    So I am not under any obligation to provide evidence for something very specific which I didn’t claim in the first place. You, on the other hand, made a specific claim which is completely false which you just decided to pull out of your ass for some reason.

    But I’ll even generously offer a re-worked wager:
    You find what you judge to be the most pro-Israel article ever written at Mondoweiss (good luck!) and link to it. I will find an OpEd written by Bari Weiss and link to it. An impartial judge – namely iSteve if he agrees to do it – will assess which of the two claims: a) your claim that anyone who writes for Mondoweiss could be said to be pro-Israel, or b) my claim that Bari Weiss’ opinions differ greatly from those of the other NY Times OpEd writers, is more valid, or less invalid if you want to put it that way. The person judged to have had the less valid or more invalid of those two claims agrees never to comment here again. Are you in?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    It doesn’t work that way dick.

    Considering that it's my choice of whether or not to take your bet, I would argue that it does, actually.

    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim – that Mondoweiss has pro-Israel contributors.


    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim as well - that Bari Weiss has a set of opinions 170 degrees apart from Roger Cohen and Charles Blow. You did that two days ago. And two days ago, I asked you to back it up. And you didn't.

    And since you are the one who came up with the rule that, if you're full of shit about one thing, you must be full of shit about everything, then I have no choice but to demand to see your proof.

    Because otherwise, your promise to leave if I win is just more of your bullshit.

    Now, unless you'd like to take back your statement about BSing, I would advise you to start looking for evidence to back it up. Or else I will have no choice but to believe that you are lying about everything, by your own rules.

    I 0n the other hand in no way made a specific claim about Bari Weiss’ position on the specific topic of immigration.


    As a matter of fact, you did.

    but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Immigration is certainly a topic within the bounds of non-aspie thought. So, therefore, her opinions are around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    So I am not under any obligation to provide evidence for something very specific which I didn’t claim in the first place.

    You are obviously not under any obligation to do anything. Neither am I.

    But are you admitting that you lied about her opinions being 170 degrees away from Cohen?

    If so, why do you think you lied? Do you think it was your genes or your environment that made you do that?

    But I’ll even generously offer a re-worked wager:
    You find what you judge to be the most pro-Israel article ever written at Mondoweiss (good luck!) and link to it. I will find an OpEd written by Bari Weiss and link to it. An impartial judge – namely iSteve if he agrees to do it – will assess which of the two claims: a) your claim that anyone who writes for Mondoweiss could be said to be pro-Israel, or b) my claim that Bari Weiss’ opinions differ greatly from those of the other NY Times OpEd writers, is more valid, or less invalid if you want to put it that way.


    Hmm. Nope. You have to go first. I asked you two days ago, remember?

    And there wouldn't be any point in me taking the time to do all that if it turns out that you're a pathological liar. So you have to go first. And it has to be on the topic of immigration to the United States, since that is the most important non-aspie topic.

    The person judged to have had the less valid or more invalid of those two claims agrees never to comment here again. Are you in?

    No, I'm not in until you prove that you were telling the truth about her 170 degree difference. Because if you were lying then, then there's no reason to believe you'd be telling the truth now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz
    It doesn't work that way dick.

    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim - that Mondoweiss has pro-Israel contributors. You claimed exactly that. And the relevance of that site to this whole discussion, which I stated clearly upthread, is not that isteve linked to it in the past, but it is rather that just recently many here accused an anti-American Jewish Leftist of being pro-Israel, based on nothing other than the person's supposed Jewish heritage, even though he writes for Mondoweiss, so the accusation of being pro-Israel was clearly absurd.

    I 0n the other hand in no way made a specific claim about Bari Weiss' position on the specific topic of immigration. I made a general claim about her positions on a variety of current issues which are indeed at great odds with the standard contemporary NY Times editorial line, which is true.

    So I am not under any obligation to provide evidence for something very specific which I didn't claim in the first place. You, on the other hand, made a specific claim which is completely false which you just decided to pull out of your ass for some reason.

    But I'll even generously offer a re-worked wager:
    You find what you judge to be the most pro-Israel article ever written at Mondoweiss (good luck!) and link to it. I will find an OpEd written by Bari Weiss and link to it. An impartial judge - namely iSteve if he agrees to do it - will assess which of the two claims: a) your claim that anyone who writes for Mondoweiss could be said to be pro-Israel, or b) my claim that Bari Weiss' opinions differ greatly from those of the other NY Times OpEd writers, is more valid, or less invalid if you want to put it that way. The person judged to have had the less valid or more invalid of those two claims agrees never to comment here again. Are you in?

    It doesn’t work that way dick.

    Considering that it’s my choice of whether or not to take your bet, I would argue that it does, actually.

    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim – that Mondoweiss has pro-Israel contributors.

    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim as well – that Bari Weiss has a set of opinions 170 degrees apart from Roger Cohen and Charles Blow. You did that two days ago. And two days ago, I asked you to back it up. And you didn’t.

    And since you are the one who came up with the rule that, if you’re full of shit about one thing, you must be full of shit about everything, then I have no choice but to demand to see your proof.

    Because otherwise, your promise to leave if I win is just more of your bullshit.

    Now, unless you’d like to take back your statement about BSing, I would advise you to start looking for evidence to back it up. Or else I will have no choice but to believe that you are lying about everything, by your own rules.

    I 0n the other hand in no way made a specific claim about Bari Weiss’ position on the specific topic of immigration.

    As a matter of fact, you did.

    but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Immigration is certainly a topic within the bounds of non-aspie thought. So, therefore, her opinions are around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    So I am not under any obligation to provide evidence for something very specific which I didn’t claim in the first place.

    You are obviously not under any obligation to do anything. Neither am I.

    But are you admitting that you lied about her opinions being 170 degrees away from Cohen?

    If so, why do you think you lied? Do you think it was your genes or your environment that made you do that?

    But I’ll even generously offer a re-worked wager:
    You find what you judge to be the most pro-Israel article ever written at Mondoweiss (good luck!) and link to it. I will find an OpEd written by Bari Weiss and link to it. An impartial judge – namely iSteve if he agrees to do it – will assess which of the two claims: a) your claim that anyone who writes for Mondoweiss could be said to be pro-Israel, or b) my claim that Bari Weiss’ opinions differ greatly from those of the other NY Times OpEd writers, is more valid, or less invalid if you want to put it that way.

    Hmm. Nope. You have to go first. I asked you two days ago, remember?

    And there wouldn’t be any point in me taking the time to do all that if it turns out that you’re a pathological liar. So you have to go first. And it has to be on the topic of immigration to the United States, since that is the most important non-aspie topic.

    The person judged to have had the less valid or more invalid of those two claims agrees never to comment here again. Are you in?

    No, I’m not in until you prove that you were telling the truth about her 170 degree difference. Because if you were lying then, then there’s no reason to believe you’d be telling the truth now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    If you're so convinved that I'm lying and you're telling the truth, then take the wager. You can't lose if you were telling the truth, right? It should be trivial to pull up pro-Israel content at Mondoweiss. In fact here, I'll sweeten it yet again (last time though)

    You produce a link to whatever you think is the most "pro-Israel" article ever posted on Mondoweiss (snort!). I'll give a link to something that Bari Weiss has written in the past on immigration. Isteve will decide whether it is more ridiculous to claim that some people who write for Mondoweiss are pro-Israel or to claim that Bari Weiss' views on immigration are different than Roger Cohen's. The person whose claim is judged to be more ridiculous agrees never to comment here again, with isteve enforcing via IP addresses or whatever. Are you in or are you in??

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @anon
    It doesn’t work that way dick.

    Considering that it's my choice of whether or not to take your bet, I would argue that it does, actually.

    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim – that Mondoweiss has pro-Israel contributors.


    You made a very specific and easily falsifiable claim as well - that Bari Weiss has a set of opinions 170 degrees apart from Roger Cohen and Charles Blow. You did that two days ago. And two days ago, I asked you to back it up. And you didn't.

    And since you are the one who came up with the rule that, if you're full of shit about one thing, you must be full of shit about everything, then I have no choice but to demand to see your proof.

    Because otherwise, your promise to leave if I win is just more of your bullshit.

    Now, unless you'd like to take back your statement about BSing, I would advise you to start looking for evidence to back it up. Or else I will have no choice but to believe that you are lying about everything, by your own rules.

    I 0n the other hand in no way made a specific claim about Bari Weiss’ position on the specific topic of immigration.


    As a matter of fact, you did.

    but trust me that within the bounds of non-aspie thought Bari Weiss is around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    Immigration is certainly a topic within the bounds of non-aspie thought. So, therefore, her opinions are around 170 degrees away from Roger Cohen or Charles Blow.

    So I am not under any obligation to provide evidence for something very specific which I didn’t claim in the first place.

    You are obviously not under any obligation to do anything. Neither am I.

    But are you admitting that you lied about her opinions being 170 degrees away from Cohen?

    If so, why do you think you lied? Do you think it was your genes or your environment that made you do that?

    But I’ll even generously offer a re-worked wager:
    You find what you judge to be the most pro-Israel article ever written at Mondoweiss (good luck!) and link to it. I will find an OpEd written by Bari Weiss and link to it. An impartial judge – namely iSteve if he agrees to do it – will assess which of the two claims: a) your claim that anyone who writes for Mondoweiss could be said to be pro-Israel, or b) my claim that Bari Weiss’ opinions differ greatly from those of the other NY Times OpEd writers, is more valid, or less invalid if you want to put it that way.


    Hmm. Nope. You have to go first. I asked you two days ago, remember?

    And there wouldn't be any point in me taking the time to do all that if it turns out that you're a pathological liar. So you have to go first. And it has to be on the topic of immigration to the United States, since that is the most important non-aspie topic.

    The person judged to have had the less valid or more invalid of those two claims agrees never to comment here again. Are you in?

    No, I'm not in until you prove that you were telling the truth about her 170 degree difference. Because if you were lying then, then there's no reason to believe you'd be telling the truth now.

    If you’re so convinved that I’m lying and you’re telling the truth, then take the wager. You can’t lose if you were telling the truth, right? It should be trivial to pull up pro-Israel content at Mondoweiss. In fact here, I’ll sweeten it yet again (last time though)

    You produce a link to whatever you think is the most “pro-Israel” article ever posted on Mondoweiss (snort!). I’ll give a link to something that Bari Weiss has written in the past on immigration. Isteve will decide whether it is more ridiculous to claim that some people who write for Mondoweiss are pro-Israel or to claim that Bari Weiss’ views on immigration are different than Roger Cohen’s. The person whose claim is judged to be more ridiculous agrees never to comment here again, with isteve enforcing via IP addresses or whatever. Are you in or are you in??

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    If you’re so convinved that I’m lying and you’re telling the truth, then take the wager.

    I am 100% convinced that you're lying, because I have read what she's written about immigration. I just want you to admit it. Go on. Show us how honest you can be.

    You can’t lose if you were telling the truth, right?

    I also couldn't really win, since you wouldn't hold up your end of the bet.

    It should be trivial to pull up pro-Israel content at Mondoweiss.

    It should be trivial for you to pull up content from Bari Weiss that is 170 degrees opposed to Roger Cohen on immigration to the United States, but here you are, on your third day of avoiding that challenge.

    In fact here, I’ll sweeten it yet again (last time though)

    The only way to "sweeten" it would be for you to actually prove you're honest. Because, otherwise, you could just make up whatever kind of deal you want, since you would obviously have no intention of ever carrying out your end anyway.

    Are you in or are you in??

    I already told you. I will be "in" once you put up your article that proves you were telling the truth about Bari Weiss.

    Go ahead. Do it, if you can. You want this bet so badly, right? So do it. Quit stalling.

    You might as well anyway, since Steve hasn't even agreed to be our arbiter. So go ahead. What are you waiting for?

    My goodness, you're a weasel. You didn't answer me about whether this is because of your genes or your environment, by the way.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @biz
    If you're so convinved that I'm lying and you're telling the truth, then take the wager. You can't lose if you were telling the truth, right? It should be trivial to pull up pro-Israel content at Mondoweiss. In fact here, I'll sweeten it yet again (last time though)

    You produce a link to whatever you think is the most "pro-Israel" article ever posted on Mondoweiss (snort!). I'll give a link to something that Bari Weiss has written in the past on immigration. Isteve will decide whether it is more ridiculous to claim that some people who write for Mondoweiss are pro-Israel or to claim that Bari Weiss' views on immigration are different than Roger Cohen's. The person whose claim is judged to be more ridiculous agrees never to comment here again, with isteve enforcing via IP addresses or whatever. Are you in or are you in??

    If you’re so convinved that I’m lying and you’re telling the truth, then take the wager.

    I am 100% convinced that you’re lying, because I have read what she’s written about immigration. I just want you to admit it. Go on. Show us how honest you can be.

    You can’t lose if you were telling the truth, right?

    I also couldn’t really win, since you wouldn’t hold up your end of the bet.

    It should be trivial to pull up pro-Israel content at Mondoweiss.

    It should be trivial for you to pull up content from Bari Weiss that is 170 degrees opposed to Roger Cohen on immigration to the United States, but here you are, on your third day of avoiding that challenge.

    In fact here, I’ll sweeten it yet again (last time though)

    The only way to “sweeten” it would be for you to actually prove you’re honest. Because, otherwise, you could just make up whatever kind of deal you want, since you would obviously have no intention of ever carrying out your end anyway.

    Are you in or are you in??

    I already told you. I will be “in” once you put up your article that proves you were telling the truth about Bari Weiss.

    Go ahead. Do it, if you can. You want this bet so badly, right? So do it. Quit stalling.

    You might as well anyway, since Steve hasn’t even agreed to be our arbiter. So go ahead. What are you waiting for?

    My goodness, you’re a weasel. You didn’t answer me about whether this is because of your genes or your environment, by the way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Jews say thoughts from Jews qualify as diversity. Jews say Whites with origins across Europe are inherently un-diverse. Jews say Levantine Jews + Levantine Jews + Levantine Jews + Half-European/Half-Levantine Jews + Levantine Jews = diversity (Israel).

    It seems complicated, but it’s really simple when you boil it down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. Look at what’s happening in Goolag. Employees there are in a hot civil war, with SJW trying to purge White men especially Jews

    I am reminded of the immortal words of Maria Conchita Alonso, who said, “that was a lieeee.”

    Or Hollywood, where as Larry David noted, its mostly White Jewish guys (as opposed to the reincarnation of Sammy Davis Jr. man!) who are getting the Purge.

    “Synagogue bombed; Jews hardest hit.”

    Diversity is a weapon. It was stupidity among the most vulnerable — professional class urban Jews — to think it would not be used against them and very successfully to get their jobs.

    Jews are the last to lose their jobs to Diversity.

    Could it be, instead, that the cream tends to rise to the top?

    Good thing the Jews keep the cream out of Israel; Chinese would be running the place otherwise.

    The commenters here are not representative of American thought though. Surveys have shown that antisemitism is one of the least common prejudices in America, especially among whites. The people here who display it are in some proportion Muslims and various others posing as white Americans and in some other proportion spazzes who had some weird formative experience like the neighbor’s radio happen to be playing a Steven Walt interview on Pacifica while they were getting their first tugjob and some unfortunate neural connections were formed.

    Argumentum ad hominem is for rubes.

    I don’t know what it is. They seem to have zero self-awareness. I realize that not all of them are like this, but jeez. The ones on the internet sure seem to be.

    This seems to be a congenital trait, strongly reinforced by Jewish culture. It’s absolutely true of Jews in the ethnic, group sense. I suppose it’s also true in the individual sense, but that’s just a guess.

    Wanting to give the Golan Heights to Syria at some indeterminant time in the future is not necessarily inconsistent with not wanting to settle muslim refugees there today.

    And poisoning someone with immunity is quite different than poisoning someone without. I.e., Israel won’t be giving the Golan Heights away, regardless of what Cohen says, while US immigration policy is in play.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored