A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
iSteve Blog
Nothing Ever Changes

So I’m out of touch for two days; then I look at the papers and find … nothing has changed. From the top story in the NYT early Wednesday morning:

Shooting Accounts Differ as Holder Schedules Visit to Ferguson
By FRANCES ROBLES and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT AUG. 19, 2014

FERGUSON, Mo. — As a county grand jury prepared to hear evidence on Wednesday in the shooting death of a black teenager by a white police officer that touched off 10 days of unrest here, witnesses have given investigators sharply conflicting accounts of the killing.

Some of the accounts seem to agree on how the fatal altercation initially unfolded: with a struggle between the officer, Darren Wilson, and the teenager, Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was inside his patrol car at the time, while Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, was leaning in through an open window.

Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.

Even leaving aside Brown’s preceding crimes in the convenience store, how is this supposed to be one of the Defining Events of Our Time, a Searing Indictment of the National Crisis of the White Racist Power Structure Murdering Black Babies, rather than just another local police blotter item of crazy ass behavior in the ‘hood? I don’t care what race you are, if you are in a dispute with a cop and thrust your head into his police car and then his gun goes off hurting and no do doubt scaring him, it’s highly like additional bad things are going to happen.

This is not to defend everything the cop did, just to say that let’s step back and look at the big picture. Respectable Opinion had decided that this case is the one that they want to exploit for their profound ideological ends. And yet, as with so many of these Moral Lessons for Whites from Tawana Brawley on down, it turns out to be just another piece a crap case.

Partly this is inherent in the dominant High-Low coalition against the Middle. The Democrats need to hold their coalition together by ginning up hatred of Evil White Men. They can use their dominance of the media to put out the bassline message but they need Incidents, ideally involving white men murdering innocent black babies. But, that just doesn’t happen much, our entire system is obsessed with punishing it when it does happen, and the Obamas and Holders and the press are dependent upon potential examples being brought forward to their attention by mobs exacting pogroms upon convenience stores for snitching. And mobs are notable bad at careful evaluation of the evidence.

Hence, the media’s war on whites keeps turning into one fiasco after another.

It’s time to ask tough questions about the ideological power structure in the modern world. If the power players in charge of molding our worldviews keep humiliating themselves and only preserve their facades of competence by changing the subjects — e.g., Eric Holder now wants to investigate an incident involving the Ferguson PD five years ago — or claiming that more investigation is needed so they don’t have to admit their mistakes — hey, Eric, how’s your investigation into bringing double jeopardy charges against George Zimmerman coming after only 13 months — maybe we a different worldview and a different establishment.

• Tags: Ferguson Shooting 
Hide 425 Comments

425 Comments to "Nothing ever changes"

  1. dearieme says:

    @Anonymous

    “It is notable, is it not, that while dozens of concentration camps were American soldiers, only the Soviets discovered “extermination camps.”” Call me a literalist, but wouldn’t the Nazis build the extermination camps in the east because that’s where the Jews were?

  2. Twinkie says:

    @Hacienda

    “Catholic school in Asia, right?”

    No, sir. I was first taught about St. Augustine at a Protestant Sunday school (just Augustine, then) and later by a “Western History” teacher at a public school in Asia.

    On a loosely related note, my Asian history teacher in elementary school was a devout Christian. She taught my class about the foundation myth of my birth country per the history curriculum. Once finished, she then said “Of course, this is all just an unscientific myth. The only real Lord in the world is Jesus Christ, the Son of the True God. That’s what we should all believe.”

    Try to imagine that at a public school in this country. On top of that, she was one mean old disciplinarian. She would beat me and my fellow students mercilessly for the most minor of transgressions.

  3. Twinkie says:

    @Jefferson

    “Maybe Twinkie is Filipino.”

    No, sir. I’m ethnically Northeast Asian, as Oriental as they come. And an American by choice and effort and, by the Grace of God, a father to proud Southern-born children. Dixie forever!

  4. FWIW says:

    @Bliss

    The most attractive Asian women aren’t Chinese.

    They make good second wives. Personally, I prefer Eastern European women .

  5. FWIW says:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/cops-force-article-1.1891603

    Sociologist turned Cop turned toward reality.

    “That said, many police would do well to remember that effective compliance is as much earned as ordered. When I patrolled the streets, I liked to assume that everybody I dealt with could kick my butt. It didn’t matter that this wasn’t true. My goal wasn’t to win a lot of fights so much as to remain undefeated. The wrong words can start fights and get people hurt.

    An older cop told me about “Jedi mind tricks.” Make eye contact; speak to people rather than at them; listen. The right words calm and convince. I got physical only as a last resort. The NYPD calls this verbal judo. Even today, I’m not completely sure how this works, but it usually does.”

  6. Hacienda says:

    @Jefferson

    Maybe Twinkie is Filipino.
    ———

    Hokkien or Fujian Filipino. Tsinoy or Sangley. Amy Chua’s background. Tiger Dad with a pistol.

  7. Sean says:

    ”I don’t care what race you are, if you are in a dispute with a cop and thrust your head into his police car and then his gun goes off hurting and no do doubt scaring him, it’s highly like additional bad things are going to happen.”

    People get their ideas from entertainment, but in the real world:_

    1) Criminals do irrational things, and those with a concealed gun don’t always draw it at the beginning of an incident.
    2) There are many examples of perpetrators with non-survivable wounds who killed after being shot .
    3) Cops fire many shots and often miss with most of them. It is not practicable to stop shooting before someone falls down as all shots could have missed, as shots made in pressure situations very often do.
    4) Serial killer the Original Night Stalker halted after a warning shot, then screamed ‘don’t shoot me’, then pulled a gun and shot the cop who was trying to arrest him, and escaped.

  8. Anonymous says:

    @Steve Sailer

    You do realize Dachau was not a death camp, right? There seems to be some confusion on that point in this thread.

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

  9. Hacienda says:

    Doesn’t take much for St. Louis cops to pull the trigger and distort the narrative:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

    Those are some BAAAD-ASSSS cops. Do NOT F+CK with them!

  10. syon says:

    @Steve Sailer

    Coates is the black Beck.

    That’s a great comparison. I’m going to use that the next time I run into a TNC acolyte.

  11. Cookies says:

    @Steve Sailer

    David Horowitz has now jumped on the secure the borders band wagon.

    Some things have changed.

    Also, for the resident MacDonaldites here, Mickey Kaus has been The Man on Immigration forever. Steve quotes him & links to him regularly. What does that mean?

    (OT, but Kaus is a 40+ bachelor who is totally and obviously heterosexual. They are always interesting characters.)

  12. Cookies says:

    @Steve Sailer

    ” General Eisenhower instructed his troops to write home about what they’d seen so it would be lost to history.”

    I think you mean “not lost to history.”

    I will not accuse you of a Freudian slip, because I don’t really believe in them.

  13. Cookies says:

    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    “Didn’t Frum work for W in his administration? ”

    Yes. W isn’t Jewish, last I recalled. Nor Cheney. The buck stops….somewhere.

    Really, everyone here should read up on New England Protestantism, which gave rise to any number of utopian movements, among them, abolitionism, Radical Republicanism, etc. This is why we are now living in the 2nd Reconstruction. We are all white Southerners now.

    But I think that’s quite beyond you. Keep on hatin’ the Jews. Now that never changes.

  14. Coemgen says:

    @Bliss

    You do realize that blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. are gentiles? You do also realize that very few people who could be branded with the epithet “gentile” have participated in pogroms, expulsions, ghettoization, inquisitions, holocausts, lynchings, etc.? Intergroup grievances are not diversity they are divisiveness. Groups with grievances should learn from Oprah. That is, if they want a safer America.

  15. syon says:

    @Wilkey

    Allied forces liberated several concentration camps. Read your fucking history. It’s even in pop history: Easy Company of the 506th PIR, 101st Airborne, liberated one such camp. It was shown in “Band of Brothers.”

    British and American troops liberated concentration camps. The death camps (the places where people were sent to die) were in the East: Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, etc.

    You may also recall that the Soviets were originally allied with the Third Reich, split Poland, and committed quite a few atrocities of their own (see: the Katyn Forest Massacre, where they murdered over 20,000 Poles). But those atrocities weren’t against Jews, so I guess they don’t matter.

    They very much do matter, dear fellow. Please note, for example, how I referred to Hitler’s 12 million plus victims. Jews only accounted for around five million of Hitler’s victims; the rest were Gentiles :Poles, Gypsies, Russian POWs, etc.

    As for Stalin, the irony of my comment seems to have been lost. Please recall that I noted that Hitler was stopped from exceeding his 12 million death-toll by the man (Stalin) who killed nine million plus people.

  16. syon says:

    @Steve Sailer

    My uncle Al (PFC) visited Dachau in 1945. General Eisenhower instructed his troops to write home about what they’d seen so it would be lost to history.

    Dachau was a concentration camp, not an extermination facility like Treblinka or Belzec. It was a horrible place, but only around 30,000 people died there, as compared to 434,508–600,000 at Belzec, 700,000 – 900,000 at Treblinka, etc. The Nazis preferred to do their mass killings in the East.

  17. @The Undiscovered Jew

    Again with this lie, Jews don’t want more immigration.

    Which is why I emphasized “Jewish elites” and pointed out that your average Jew – or, at least, the ones that I have been friends with – don’t favor immigration.

    As for the Jewish elite, all gentile elites want more immigration.

    Quite true, which is why I pointed out that SWPL types are the ones I’d like to deal with personally.

    How do you explain ethnically Scandinavian American elites like Rove and Norquist pursuing immigration?

    The big difference, and the one that you seem to assiduously avoid, is that Rove and Norquist – dicks that they are – are not promoting open borders for the U.S. while advocating zero immigration to Sweden. American Jewish elite – unlike their backstabbing SWPL brethren – push for open borders in every Western country except Israel. Explain that difference.

    To me, there’s only one explanation. Due to a long history of occasionally getting attacked by whites, Jewish elites don’t trust white-dominated societies in which they live. So, rather than move, they went about trying to change those countries from being white to being multi-everything figuring that it’s safer to be one of many minorities than one of two minorities (blacks and Jews). Of course, they understand how badly open borders works out for those already living in 1st world countries (unless you can buy your way out of the unpleasantness), so they don’t want such a society for their own people and thus advocate a true nation-state for Israel.

    Did Jewish elites have the support of gentile elites. Absolutely. But only Jewish elites seemed to know the real game being played, and that’s why I have an issue with them.

  18. Art Deco says:Website

    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Didn’t Frum work for W in his administration?

    In the public relations apparat. Frum earned a law degree but never practiced. He’s worked as a journeyman writer since 1990. He has some skills as an autodidact, but produce verbiage is what he does. He’s also re-invented himself several times. He was promoting libertarian perspectives ca. 1994, conventional Republican perspectives (with some personal riffs) ca. 2003, then after 2009 attempting a revival of the sort of political temporizing called ‘modern Republican’ in the 1950s (and getting into cat fights with his former employers about matters). The man’s peculiarly unstable for someone well into middle age (or peculiarly opportunistic). Given the life expectancy of a 54 year old man, we’ll see at least two more phases ‘ere he goes, I’ll wager.

  19. Art Deco says:Website

    @Justin Millar

    As for Kristol, he has spent his entire career pushing America into idiotic, fruitless, endless wars.

    The wars have not been idiotic, fruitless, or endless and he writes about an array of topics. Otherwise, an accurate statement.

  20. syon says:

    @Anonymous

    I disagree on this point. Yes, schools do a poor job nowadays when it comes to inculcating the history of Western Civ, but the people who focus on the humanities (and this TNC’s area; he is certainly not a quant guy) do learn about figures like Augustine. For example, I encountered Augustine at least three times in university during my undergraduate days: as part of a mandatory Western Civ survey class, as part of an intro to philosophy class, and as part of a criticism and literary theory survey class.

  21. syon says:

    @Contrarian

    I have to defend Coates on the Saint Augustine issue. He probably intuitively sensed that Augustine is either just name dropped by white people to fill space, or as a helpless argument from authority that doesn’t add anything of substance to the debate.

    How is that defending TNC? The crux of the matter is that TNC did not know who Augustine was, which is rather astonishing.

  22. Art Deco says:Website

    @Steve Sailer

    Libertarian publicists (e.g. the Mercatus Center crew) are open-borders aficionados. I think AEI is generally favorable to a lax immigration regime. The Hoover institution, Heritage, and the Manhattan Institute all employ vociferous immigration skeptics. The Ethics and Public Policy Center addresses the issue very little and ambiguously when it does. The starboard press is generally open to skeptical views among those publications which address the issue (which Midstream does not, Jew-obsessives). The big exceptions would be Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post and John Podhoretz’ Commentary. Your real problem would be business lobbyists (Haley Barbour), politicians responsive to business lobbyists (Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush), and idiosyncratic characters like John McCain. Your problem people are influential, which Wm. Kristol is not.

  23. Lurker says:

    @Anonymous

    But you raise an interesting issue with this technicality. It is notable, is it not, that while dozens of concentration camps were American soldiers, only the Soviets discovered “extermination camps.”

    And in the case of Auschwitz, the Germans destroyed it before they retreated and thus Im not sure what there was to liberate. Yet you can visit today and see intact buildings…

  24. syon says:

    @Jefferson

    Major race riots seems to always happen when a Democrat is in The White House. Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1992, and Hussein Obama in 2014.

    Bill Clinton was not in the White House in 1992; he was sworn into office in 1993. The ’92 LA riots (April 29 – May 4, 1992) occurred while Bush I was in office.

  25. Lurker says:

    @Anonymous

    the nazis had already started to destroy evidence and move corpses westward

    Move corpses? Where is the evidence for this? The story changes so often it’s impossible to keep up! So where are all these corpses now? Where are the mass graves?

    the territory containing the camps was overrun

    Conveniently leaving them behind the Iron Curtain for 45 years.

  26. @anonymous

    He seems to be upfront about his position and trying to be objective about it. IIUC, his position is that Jewish ethnicity/religion/something is a group evolutionary strategy.

    If one is into the notion of group evolutionary strategies black violence seems to be one as well.

    I tend to think of it as a stable behavior pattern that is selected for because it drives out other behavior patterns and is recognizable by those who hold it (members of the group–which solves the problem of how do they associate).

  27. @syon

    The Nazis preferred to do their mass killings in the East.

    They were National Socialists. NSDAP, to be precise, the National Socialist German Workers Party.

    Orwell was correct about words.

  28. george says:

    @YetAnotherFakeName

    “VDARE has jumped off the wagon on the coverage of Ferguson.”

    More than that they did not comment on any of the immigrants selling beer and blunts to blacks in a black neighorhood aspect, the guy doing it in the video was given the upmost deference even though his identy is unknown, he has not made any formal statement in English, and may himself be a slave. Does the little guy have access to his passport? BTW, Brown and Johnson may well have paid fot the blunts, the altercation in the video was likely about them being underage. Which is why the survivor Johnson was not arrested for strong arm robbery. Curiously Ann Coulter did not call for his arrest.

    Additionally official statements supporting officer Wilson are incoherent and contradict evidence in the public domain, and even common sense. That Wilson is from a family of con artists should give one pause in mindlessly accepting press releases.

  29. syon says:

    @Bill

    It’s actually not like that at all. The MacDonaldian White Gentiles don’t want anything from Jews except freedom. The standard POC narrative is not about demanding freedom from Europeans, but demanding reparations from and power over Europeans.

    It’s the perfect mirror image, dear fellow. To cite but one example, KM loves to dilate on how the Ice Age made Nordics natural Kantian Universalists, which makes them easy prey for the Jews, with their tribalist morality.

    Pick up one of the cruder POC narratives, and you will read about how Europeans are Ice People who, lacking in compassion and generosity, cruelly exploit the naturally kind Sun Peoples (Blacks, Amerinds, etc).

    As for freedom, again, read the recent POC literature; it’s all about how Whites cruelly restrict the freedom of POCs by trapping their minds in the “iron cage” of White ideologies.

    Seriously, I would pay real money to see KM and a POC theorist debate one another. It would be comedy gold.

  30. Mr. Anon says:

    “syon says

    “”Essentially Jewish-black coalition against whites.””

    MMM, a bit early, but this one has my vote for stupidest post of the day.”

    Well since you hadn’t posted yet, it certainly was an early call.

    Given the voting patterns of those two groups, what’s stupid about it?

  31. syon says:

    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Still waiting for you to name some prominent and influential Shermans who are also for immigration restriction.

    Depending on your definition of influential, Mickey Kaus and Stephen Steinlight come to mind.

  32. Roach says:Website

    This Coates guy is a caricature of himself, writes poorly, and is obviously not terribly educated. What a joke.

  33. @syon

    TNC doesn’t know who St. Augustine was, never heard of him. Ask him if he’s familiar with Tookie Williams, Biggie Smalls, and Rachel Jeantel.

    See, this is partly a racial matter. TNC is verrry indicative of blacks in general. It’s the “That’s some old dead white dude, you expecting us to know who every single dead white dude is? Come on! That’s not relevant to our lives!”

    Its the best of both worlds. If you question his level of educational expertise, he’ll respond by questioning if you aren’t a racist for asking that question, since apparently there’s a lot whites of the new generations who also have no idea about Augustine. Thus he can remain blissfully ignorant (as well as hip) regarding various figures of Western Civilization.

    Facts are facts and some things are just patently obvious.

  34. @syon

    And they’ve also put their money where their mouths are? They have actually donated money to various anti-immigration organizations?

    Crickets again.

    Again and again, it appears as though such men as Peter Brimelow remain a constant and consistent voice on immigration.

    It is long overdue that such men are given their just due for remaining consistent on the immigration issue, one of the US’s major defining issue of the 21st century (actually since the early/mid 90s or back to the ’86 Amnesty debate, however far back one wants to take it. But it is certainly a major issue in the 21st century.)

  35. Big Bill says:

    @officious intermeddler

    This cop is saying in the Washington Post that he’s entitled to shoot you, taser you, pepper-spray you, strike you with a baton and/or throw you to the ground if you argue, call him names, call him a racist pig, or threaten to sue him.

    Nah. He didn’t say that. Nice try, though! He made his point pretty clearly. If you want a nice peaceable experience, act nice and peaceable. Because (strange as it may seem to you) they ARE the law “on the ground”.

  36. Big Bill says:

    @joey joe joe

    A few weeks ago a big (black) guy was put in a strangle hold and died in New York City (for selling cigarettes)

    There is no “stranglehold”. There is a “chokehold”. I saw the video. The cop didn’t use a chokehold. And the guy wasn’t wrestled to the ground for selling cigarettes but for resisting arrest. SOP. If they want to handcuff you, let them. Sort it out later. If you fight it out, you will lose (usually). Why is this so difficult for folks to understand?

    There is a reason that police forces used to hire big, tough Irishmen as beat cops. They were physically intimidating, and quite willing to fight (if necessary). Back then, people submitted automatically because they KNEW they would get the bad end of the stick.

    Now that we have little scrawny white girls as cops, they are almost compelled to use tasers, guns or group tackles/wrestling matches as a first resort.

  37. Sean says:

    syon, I’ll think you will find that Steinlight does justify his views on the basis of what the Jews’ (his ingroup) interests are, so he can’t be accepting the application of a Kantian universal law for gentile and Jew alike. Jews like Steinlight can say they favour a certain immigration policy because it is in Jewish interests, and even promote Jews marrying only Jews- white gentiles don’t blink an eye. But white gentile society does not accept white gentiles saying they are deciding issues according to what is in the interests of white gentiles. The main reason for that is probably something to do with white gentile psychology.

  38. Anonymous says:

    @dearieme

    “It is notable, is it not, that while dozens of concentration camps were American soldiers, only the Soviets discovered “extermination camps.”” Call me a literalist, but wouldn’t the Nazis build the extermination camps in the east because that’s where the Jews were?

    Weren’t there also Jews in Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland?

  39. Anonymous says:

    @syon

    The Nazis preferred to do their mass killings in the East.

    Why only in the East, which entailed the necessity of transport and greater remoteness from the center of German control?

  40. Anonymous says:

    @Art Deco

    The wars have not been idiotic, fruitless, or endless and he writes about an array of topics. Otherwise, an accurate statement.

    Idiotic and fruitless for the United States. Not idiotic and fruitless for Israel. Who/whom.

  41. iSteveFan says:

    But that’s not what’s actually happening – USA is becoming a white/brown/black/yellow sort of country.

    Hence, that is why I wrote, “To a group with their history, it is far better for the USA and other Euro nations to have no dominant factions. “ So the fact that the USA is becoming a white/brown/black/yellow sort of country is exactly the desired outcome. No one group will be able to lord it over the others.

  42. Sebastian says:

    It’s the perfect mirror image, dear fellow. To cite but one example, KM loves to dilate on how the Ice Age made Nordics natural Kantian Universalists, which makes them easy prey for the Jews, with their tribalist morality.

    By all means, old bean, feel free to cite the multitude of instances you have found where KM engages in the behavior you describe.

  43. Here’s a famous video of a good (competent, professional) cop dealing with an angry citizen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtcvmu3p6WM

    Arguing, calling names, threatening to sue – the “law” actually says that citizens have the right to do these things in our country. Good cops, like the one in the video, deal with those things stoically as part of the job. By the law “on the ground,” I think you are referring to the unfortunate fact that the real law often doesn’t matter to a lot of bad cops. Unfortunately, the number of bad cops seems to be increasing at a pace that ought to be alarming to people who care about freedom.

  44. Anonymous says:

    @Cookies

    (OT, but Kaus is a 40+ bachelor who is totally and obviously heterosexual. They are always interesting characters.)

    I’m a slightly under 40 unmarried Jewish guy. I wonder if Kaus is not eager to give so much power over his life to a materialistic, demanding middle-aged Jewish woman whose looks are fading as she heads into menopause. Even a “nice” woman, Jewish or not, can destroy a man’s finances if she demands a divorce, and the risk of divorce is higher with the difficult personalities that are the only ones left in the dating market at his age.

  45. Sebastian says:

    Why is it that, no matter what the topic of Steve’s original post, and no matter how interesting that original topic may be, the comments so often seem to peter out with a bunch of anti-semites ranting about the Jews?

    I have never seen any “anti-semites ranting about the Jews” on this site. Neither Steve nor Unz would tolerate such a thing.

    You do see plenty of criticism of Jews of course. That’s hardly surprising given the right-ward tilt of the blogger and his commenters and the significant left-wing bias of American Jews. Only blacks vote Democratic more reliably then do Jews, and in terms of actual issues the blacks tend to be more conservative than their Jewish allies.

    If you’re one of the minority of black conservatives it must be unpleasant to read frank discussions of the damaging behavior of your fellow blacks. And if you’re one of the minority of Jewish conservatives (conservative in the American sense, not the Jewish sense) it is doubtless unpleasant to read frank discussions of the nefarious activities of your fellow Jews. The correct object of your ire is not those people who are guilty only of noticing things, but your fellow blacks (or Jews) who are engaging in destructive behavior.

  46. Anonymous says:

    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    figuring that it’s safer to be one of many minorities than one of two minorities (blacks and Jews)

    There haven’t been only two minorities in the U.S. for hundreds of years. In the early 19th century, there were Native Americans, blacks, and Jews. By the mid-19th century, there were Native Americans, blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Chinese (e.g. railroad workers). And U.S. federal and state law didn’t single out Jews as a minority for special treatment. Jewish-American citizens never experienced government-backed discrimination against them in the U.S. anything like what they and their forbears experienced in Europe.

  47. Sebastian says:

    Frum and Kristol are reasonably sound on American immigration policy. They should be praised for this.

    If they have converted to a sound policy on immigration, good for them. Both have been open borders shills in the past though. Here’s an infamous pro-amnesty piece by Kristol from the height of the Bush-era immigration wars.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/047niylw.asp

  48. @smead nolley

    smead nolley says “Just imagine if millions of blacks had had the benefit of a 3-day seminar where they had to confront their own complicity in their life directions: “I am an asshole!””

    There are no assholes any more, haven’t you heard? We suffer from “Borderline Personality Disorder”. I’m a victim.

  49. Twinkie says:

    @Dude

    “Asian males have their own form of dangerous psychology. A lot of murders have been done by Asian males towards white females. Watch for it on DailyMail.”

    What’s “a lot”?

    Asians, especially East Asians, have some of the lowest rates of arrest and incarceration in the country, substantially lower than even whites. The very low crime rates in East Asia also attest to their low criminality. That does not mean there aren’t (very few) criminals and the insane among them.

    The Virginia Tech shooter, for example, was mentally ill and admired the two white Columbine killers whom he referred as martyrs.

  50. Liberals are pushing for this White House petition for cops to wear body cameras.

    A camera in the Ferguson case would likely disprove liberals’ narrative. Conservatives should support that petition as well.

    If Zimmerman had gotten a wearable camera for his neighborhood patrols, he would still have his normal life.

  51. Twinkie says:

    @Hacienda

    “Hokkien or Fujian Filipino. Tsinoy or Sangley. Amy Chua’s background. Tiger Dad with a pistol.”

    Nay to all.

    I am not much of a “Tiger Dad” since I care more about my children being gentlemen and ladies and rather less about test scores and becoming elites.

    But, yes, my children are all trained in the use of various firearms as well as bushcrafting skills.

  52. Svigor says:

    DPG, I read that article until the guy (might’ve been Downey, inter alia) lied about how the show approached Obama. Sorry, there’s plenty to laugh about there. Plenty of good writing to be had there.

    If you have the balls and are willing to anger your liberal NY friends. SNL didn’t, and wasn’t, doesn’t, and isn’t.

    First, Obama’s one of the most boring pols alive. So, you go after that the way they went after Ford’s clumsiness (Hussein is far more boring than Ford was clumsy): hard. To hyperbole and beyond.

    Second, the man sounds like Steve Urkel grown up. How about Urkel giving Obama lessons in whiteness, or lessons in ebonics, Urkel with a mic in Hussein’s ear, etc.

    Third, he’s the least experienced, least qualified American president in living memory. Nobody else comes close. You go after that the way they went after Ford and his clumsiness (Hussein is far more inexperienced and unqualified than Ford was clumsy): hard. To hyperbole and beyond.

    Fourth, he’s a pretty white “black” guy. There’s an endless supply of funny to be had just showing him trying to be down with the brothas.

    Fifth, his Wookie-Ass Yeti of a wife. There’s an endless supply of funny just having her dominate and intimidate him all the time.

    But he’s a black Democrat. He’s the Messiah. And SNL is New York Liberal. So, they punted. Over and over. And they’ll keep punting. Because they’re New York Liberals. I wonder if they think anyone outside of the “I don’t know anyone who voted for him!” crowd buys their bullshit?

  53. Brutusale says:

    @FWIW

    A variation on the same talk the head of the security staff used to give the bouncers at the club I worked at while in college, which in turn was essentially Dalton’s “Be Nice” speech in Road House. As we see from the result of the interaction of Mr. Brown and Officer Wilson, Dalton’s dictum that nobody ever wins a fight was proven in spades.

    As Officer Wilson and I can both attest, eye contact and pleasant demeanor don’t count for much when you’re dealing with the pharmaceutically imbalanced.

  54. Bill says:

    @The Undiscovered Jew

    Uh. What is the substantive difference between this paraphrase:Neuringer noted Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigrationand this paraphrase:

    Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry

    What’s the issue, exactly? It’s conceivable, I guess, that the context in Neuringer’s thesis somehow makes MacDonald’s paraphrase incorrect, but the two paraphrases sitting side by side look basically the same to me.

    TUJ seems fond of these weirdly tendentious criticisms of MacDonald’s work. I foolishly clicked through on a TUJ link provided in a previous thread to a 39 page paper accusing MacDonald of dishonesty. I only read about half of it, but the critiques were just pathetic, a mixture of nitpicking and willful misreading of perfectly clear text.

  55. syon says:

    @Mr. Anon

    Well since you hadn’t posted yet, it certainly was an early call.

    Given the voting patterns of those two groups, what’s stupid about it?

    Blacks vote in terms of their interests. In other words, they vote in favor of big government;if Jews suddenly started voting 90% libertarian, the Black vote and the Jewish voted would rapidly diverge. Blacks would not suddenly start espousing the virtues of Ayn Rand.

  56. Bill says:

    @syon

    No, like I said, it’s actually not like that at all.

    The MacDonaldian White Gentiles don’t want anything from Jews except freedom. They don’t demand reparations or power or supremacy over Jews. The standard POC narrative is not about demanding freedom from Europeans, but demanding reparations from and power over Europeans.

    The MacDonaldian White Gentiles might be considered similar to some flavors of Nation of Islam style Black Nationalism, in that both aspire to separatism and self-determination as their vision of freedom. The standard POC narrative is quite different from both of these.

  57. Jake says:

    @Justin Millar

    Right, and that informs Frum’s position on immigration. He believes that extreme immigration policies like amnesty will end up inflaming the Tea Party extremists and racists and weakening the sort of neocon politics he favors.

    Of course this is accurate and more reasonable than the views of people who think lax immigration will make and leave everything hunky dory, but it’s still not a principled opposition to immigration.

  58. It’s time anti-semites to admit the “Jews opened the West’s” borders is a lie started by Kevin MacDonald who has been caught fabricating quotes from his own source documentation

    It’s time to admit that everything you say about MacDonald is a lie.

  59. He’s lied about studies of ethnocentrism where the study showed Jews were among the least ethnocentric groups as proof Jews are among the most ethnocentric….

    No, that ridiculously long article you copied and pasted from in another thread said that MacDonald’s cite was accurate, but for some reason the author (and you) want MacDonald to cite more of Altemeyer’s written work. Why? I couldn’t find it in that article, and YOU certainly have no idea, since you have no interest in actually reading the work in question.

    …and claiming Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together as being anti-Semitic.

    Claiming it was anti-Semitic? Where in the world did he do that? It doesn’t even make sense. He might have said something about it that made the book sound anti-Semitic to you, but that’s something very different.

  60. @Rose

    A recent poll cited that Jews have more favorable feelings toward Muslims than Christians

    That was true of Atheists, but not of Jews. The poll found Jews rate Christians much more favorably than Muslims. (Average together Jews’ attitudes toward Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals.)

    Jews and Atheists are the only religious groups that are primarily urbanites. If we control for urbanite vs. ruralite, much of the differences between groups disappears.

    Gentile urbanites are just as big fans of Richard Dawkins, and judging from my FB newsfeed, are mostly on the side of the protestors in Ferguson. That’s particularly true for Gentiles born in Europe, who don’t understand Americans’ “obsession” with guns.

  61. Cookies says:

    I sense that the Foley beheading has sucked all the oxygen out of Ferguson. Journalists respond to one of their own attacked, as we all do.

  62. Svigor says:

    Again with this lie, Jews don’t want more immigration.

    Yeah, sure they don’t:

    Jewish vs. Euro-American Voting Patterns
    By Their Deeds Ye Shall Know Them!

    Short version: all Jewish pols vote for open borders. 100%. Heathen (“gentile”) pols only vote for them 50% of the time.

    As for the Jewish elite, all gentile elites want more immigration.

    See above.

    It’s sloppy thinking of the Kevin MacDonald “everything would be wonderful were it not for the-

    This is sloppy arguing of the syon “gosh, I’ll just use a straw man and hope no one will notice” school.

    Along those lines, it’s quite entertaining to read KM and swap White Man for Jew. It reads like a Nation of Islam screed.

    Funny, because when I read TUJ blame the (less leftist) Anglo-Saxons for the (far more leftist) Jews, I’m reminded of how Sowell blames the (less pathological) Scots-Irish for the (much more pathological) blacks.

    More to the point, there are far more political similarities between Jews and blacks, than between whites and blacks. I can go on at length about them, if you like. Jews sure vote like blacks.

    It’s time anti-semites to admit the “Jews opened the West’s” borders is a l-

    Yeah, sure:

    Jewish vs. Euro-American Voting Patterns
    By Their Deeds Ye Shall Know Them!

    Short version: all Jewish pols vote for open borders. 100%. Heathen (“gentile”) pols only vote for them 50% of the time.

    Again with this lie, Jews don’t want more immigration.

    Which is why I emphasized “Jewish elites” and pointed out that your average Jew – or, at least, the ones that I have been friends with – don’t favor immigration.

    Sure, they’re just 100% content with Jewish pols voting 100% in favor of open borders. If that doesn’t say they don’t want more immigration, what does?

    To me, there’s only one explanation. Due to a long history of occasionally getting attacked by whites in retaliation for their constant racism and exploitation against whites in white countries where Jews were never invited, Jewish elites don’t trust white-dominated societies in which they live.

    FIFY

    It’s the perfect mirror image, dear fellow. To cite but one example, KM loves to dilate on how the Ice Age made Nordics natural Kantian Universalists, which makes them easy prey for the Jews, with their tribalist morality.

    Pick up one of the cruder POC narratives, and you will read about how Europeans are Ice People who, lacking in compassion and generosity, cruelly exploit the naturally kind Sun Peoples (Blacks, Amerinds, etc).

    The difference being, the first has the ring of truth, while the second is absurd. Oh, and whites create societies that Jews flock to, and scream bloody murder at the idea of being prevented from flocking to. And whites create societies that blacks flock to, and scream bloody murder at the idea of being prevented from flocking to. And the Jews/blacks who flock to those societies are better off than Jews/blacks are in the ones they create for themselves. And the same Jews/blacks jealously guard their own ethno-states from any kind of reciprocal situation. Jews and blacks have an awful lot in common. Even Steve would agree that Jews and blacks = fringe America, while whites = core America.

  63. Anonymous says:

    @syon

    Blacks vote in terms of their interests. In other words, they vote in favor of big government;

    Blacks (like Jews) vote in favor of Angl0-European disembowelment. Hence blacks’ seemingly masochistic silence on mass immigration.

    If the big government represents and defends Angl0-European interests, blacks will not favor it. Jews also like an empire, or “big government,” if and whenever they are who control it.

    if Jews suddenly started voting 90% libertarian, the Black vote and the Jewish voted would rapidly diverge.

    Well, Jews haven’t suddenly started voting libertarian. If they ever did, it would merely reflect the fact that U.S. Big Government was no longer acting to disempower Anglo-Europeans, and that, relatively speaking, libertarian leaders were. The crucial question is always: Is it good for the Jews?

  64. Svigor says:

    Blacks vote in terms of their interests. In other words, they vote in favor of big government;if Jews suddenly started voting 90% libertarian, the Black vote and the Jewish voted would rapidly diverge. Blacks would not suddenly start espousing the virtues of Ayn Rand.

    Agreed: if Jews and blacks stopped showing so very many political similarities, Jews and blacks would no longer appear so politically similar.

  65. Svigor says:

    Keep on hatin’ the Jews. Now that never changes.

    Not so. My critical focus on Jews will end when they stop being Jewish supremacists. There are several ways they can do this. American Jews can stop their hypocritical, Jewish Supremacist support for Jewish Supremacist Israel, and start being genuine leftists, instead of racist-in-sheep’s-clothing faux leftists like they are now. Israeli Jews can end their cowardly silence on this issue and start supporting the right of white heathens (“gentiles”) to have for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel. American Jews can do the same. Any one of these would probably be enough for me, if done by the aggregate in question (a few exceptions won’t do).

    I’ll throw a party if that happens. The idea that Jews are hated no matter what they do is an enabling mechanism they’ve developed that allows them to engage in skullduggery without introspection or guilt. It’s a fig leaf.

  66. Svigor says:

    “Ta-Nehisi is amazing in the way he thinks out loud and invites people in,” says James Bennet, the Atlantic’s editor in chief. “He’s carrying out his extraordinary intellectual development in public. He’s very direct about what he doesn’t know.”

    Ta-whatshisface is an autodidact, and that’s so cute.
    Glenn Beck is an autodidact, and that makes him an idiot.

    Coates is the black Beck

    Steve ninja-ed me.

    The thing that sticks in my craw most about American Jews being on Team Black is how they turn around and do the exact opposite when it comes to their country where they’re the majority and they’re in charge and it’s their country at risk.

    And supposedly liberal American Jews are just fine with this. They’re fine with washing the feet of blacks when they riot and loot and it’s somebody else’s stuff being stolen or burned, and they’re fine with bombarding Palestinian neighborhoods with artillery fire, killing thousands of civilians, when they riot and loot.

    And liberal whites are fine with all of this, too, apparently, because they’re too afraid of Jews to speak up.

    The whole thing is disgusting.

    There is a high intermarriage rate between Jews in the USA and USA blacks and Israeli Jews and blacks from Africa.

    Nonsense.

    There hasn’t been much of a Jewish-black coalition since the 1960s.

    Full spectrum control of the media narrative means one doesnt have to get ones hands dirty. Just plug in the correct media narrative, sit back and watch the sparks fly.

    Yeah, I was going to say something similar. Jews have pretty well Judaized SWPLs at this point. They work mostly on autopilot, and can be relied upon to “do the right thing” without much guidance.

    Low IQ + high testosterone means it is extremely hard for a lot of Black males not to Chimp Out in front of a police officer.

    I think culture is significant here. In fact, it might be the most important factor. I’ve never heard of slaveholders having these problems. In fact, the general impression I get is that blacks were much easier to deal with at the time. Not an endorsement of slavery, obviously, just pointing out that culture and expectations mean a lot. Back then, blacks had it in their heads to submit. Now, they don’t.

    Video of Brown’s body and narrative by an actual witness. The corpse is not near the police car

    How is that relevant?

    and officer Wilson does not appear to have been injured in any way, or even in a fight.

    Does Brown appear to have been injured in any way, or even have been in a fight? Maybe he’s just sleepy.

    Eric Holder’ may have threatened to look into civil rights violations against George Zimmerman, but I believe a tacit agreement was reached. Zimmerman will not face further harrassment by the Justice Department, but in return, the Left gets to keep promoting its original version of the incident: that Saint Trayvon of the Hoodie was martyred by the evil gun-toting, stand-your -grounding, race-profiling, wannabe-cop who shot him for Walking While Black. I say that because that’s the version I continue to hear.

    I was reading a thread on Conservative Treehouse last night. A commenter suggested that the still-ongoing federal investigation into the Zimmerman Affair is a fig leaf for a DOJ snivel-rights witch hunt into Sanford PD. And that the same thing is now going to happen to the Ferguson PD.

    Frankly, when reading a news story on Yahoo, I am periodically shocked by how often the readers have begun to sound like they are reading Steve’s blog…I am sure other commentators here have had the same experience. True this is not always the case on every article, but it happens frequently enough for me to notice.

    I think a big part of it is Drudge. Drudge readers have been heavily infected with racism, and now inject it into a lot of the stories highlighted by Drudge.

    The officer was almost knocked unconscious by Brown leaving him dazed, according to police, during the incident on August 9.

    Ferguson officer Darren Wilson had ‘severe facial injuries’ after being beaten by Michael Brown, a police source said on Wednesday…

    How long before The Narrative changes to argue that Wilson’s mental state proves that he shot Brown in error, his primitive racist lizard brain took over and just shot an innocent black man, etc? I bet many are tempted…

    Interest group politics being a racket, to what extent is this uproar a patronage operation? The objective here being proportionate racial representation in departments like the Ferguson PD, ie. more jobs for our people, less for yours.

    Well, the whole thing is a racket from start to finish. How much of that is geared toward patronage payoffs is anyone’s guess. Depends on who we’re talking about.

    I think you’re right, but I bet a high number of these White sheep are simply posing to show their non-racism.

    You know, it just occurred to me, but maybe WNs, hard-core conservatives, ethnopatriots, etc., have a hard time understanding that most of the white support for dieversity is a mile wide and an inch deep because of projection; they feel passionately that dieversity is annihilation, so they figure the average idiot white must feel passionately about their love of diversity. It probably helps that whites put on a good front.

    The distinction is, idiot whites get rewarded for their profession of faith and fealty, and WNs get punished for theirs. So, the latter are obviously genuine, and the former aren’t.

    Either way, I’m pretty sure about idiot whites and their faith and fealty being, for the most part, a mile wide, and an inch deep. The vast majority of these people won’t lift a finger to help dieversity, should dieversity find itself in trouble. In fact, great many will take the opportunity to do a long exhale.

    How does turning the U.S into a predominantly Nonwhite country make it safer for Jews and their children ? Every poll I have ever seen says a majority of People Of Color have a negative opinion of the Jews, the percentage is even higher than White Gentiles who have a negative opinion of Jews.

    Pretty sure we’ve been over this, son, but just in case, I’ll run you through it. Which is more likely for a second Holocaust:

    Country A: 95% German, 5% Jewish.
    Country B: 8% Amerind, 8% East Asian, 8% Southeast Asian, 8% Central Asian, 8% Southwest Asian, 8% South Asian, 8% Northern European, 8% Southern European, 8% East African, 8% West African, 8% South American, 8% Jewish, 4% Other.

    Which is more capable of THE HOLOCAUST!!! part deux? Which is more capable of even noticing there is such a thing as a Jew among the riot?

    Since Jews look closer to White people in phenotype than they do to People Of Color, they are not exempt from being victims of interracial violence. Remember when the Jew Matt Yglesias for example, was a victim of the polar bear hunting game in Washington D.C.

    Remember the scene in The Princess Bride where Wesley poisons both himself, and the Italian, because he can take it, and the Italian can’t? Money and political cunning are a great way to immunize yourself to the negative impact of “PoC.”

    P.S., how can you remember things discussed here years ago like Yglesias’ attack, but you can’t remember the basics of the JQ discussed here all the time, and recently?

  67. Svigor says:

    Can I just call him Tennessee Coates?

    We, as whites, as white nationalists

    Lulz

    1.The corpse is not near the police car which means he was not shot while his head was in the car. An entry wound on top of Brown’s head was explained by police as occuring when Brown and Wilson fought in the patrol car.

    Citation needed. Nonsense until proven otherwise.

    2. Officer Wilson does not appear to have been injured in any way, or even in a fight as is described by souces posted on Drudge.

    I’ve never seen the video, but I’m willing to bet Brown does not appear to have been injured in any way, or even in a fight, either. He’s probably just sleeping.

    3. Officer Wilson does not appear to have an injury to his eye socket or he would be going to hospital or atleast holding an ice pack on it.

    He’s probably just a lot more man than you.

    Oddly reporting of officer Wilson’s orbital socket fracture is a week after the incident instead of immediately as I would expect.

    And since there are no black doctors, we’ll never know the truth.

    I do carry (legally, of course), but I am under no illusion that my travails would be over the moment I put down a violent aggressor who happens to be black. I have no doubt that I would be instantly portrayed as a trigger happy yellow racist intent on murdering blacks.

    Just get on your knees and thank God you’re yellow. I live in fear of the day I have to defend myself or a loved one against a non-white. With my posting history, my goose is cooked. I plan to front-load any (God forbid) incident with clear communication of intent, in an effort to prevent having to drop anyone (God forbid).

    So, on top of carrying, I now record. Yes, I carry an electronic recorder, which is on whenever I carry (which is just about all the time except in the prohibited areas). My particular locality is one party recording (meaning, as long as I am there, I can record). And, yes, it’s so very sad that we have come to this.

    While you’re down there, thank God you live in a one-party recording jurisdiction. That said, recording is a good idea. I doubt it’d be enough in my case. I’d need 360-degree video.

    Pogroms were essentially popular uprisings against the ruling class.

    ANTI-SEMITISM!!!

    What’s with the “Hussein Obama”? People are trying to have an intelligent conversation here and you’re turning it into a drunken rant in the parking lot of Hooters.

    I prefer just Hussein, or President Hussein.

    These type of situations VDARE should simply wait a week until all the information comes out and then write a big article with the facts.

    Better to jump out ahead with a prediction and show HBD’s predictive power.

    Hussein is his legal middle name. So don’t blame me, blame his Kenyan Muslim father.

    I thought his flake of a white mother named him.

    Jews also fought on the side of the Confederacy and served in Jefferson Davis’s cabinet.

    Alabaman born and bred baseball media guy Mel Allen, of course, was Jewish as another prominent example.

    Syon will be along any minute now to tell us all what white trash bastards they were.

    Yes, the economy is contracting and we can look forward to conflict over access to resources. These is just no money left for racial spoils.

    And, it is going to get ugly. More ugly than you can imagine.

    Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder. No justice, no peace, I says.

    You should ask Whiskey. He has some-

    TL;DR.

    Weird that The Fung Brothers stereotype White people as being irresponsible out of control spenders who are not conservative with their money, that stereotype is usually associated with Blacks.

    After all look at all of the Black rappers and Black sports athletes who go from the 1 percent back to the Black underclass.

    Yellows know powerful whites (and “whites”) will applaud them for insulting whites, and punish them for insulting blacks.

    the embarrassingly misinterpreted and abused and taken out of context “turn the other cheek” dictum.

    FIFY.

    As you pointed out in your excellent post jews cannot forget forget the pogroms, expulsions, ghettoization, Inquisition, Holocaust inflicted on them by white gentiles.

    They can’t remember their constant racism against, and exploitation of the heathen (“gentile”) masses that always preceded these blowback events. Or their constant penchant for subverting or taking over other people’s countries. Or that they were seldom invited in the first place. It’s our job to remind them.

    1. Why is it that, no matter what the topic of Steve’s original post, and no matter how interesting that original topic may be, the comments so often seem to peter out with a bunch of anti-semites ranting about the Jews? Isn’t there some way of separating the comments into those about the topic at hand and those about the Jews? That way, the Jew-haters could spend all of their time reading and writing about the only subject that seems to interest them, and the rest of us could save time and enjoy greater variety.

    Why is it that you can’t learn to deal? I mean, clearly the “rants” and the “hate” are in your head, not in the thread. Now, anti-black rants and hate, this blog gets a lot closer to those on a regular basis…

    No, sir. I’m ethnically Northeast Asian, as Oriental as they come. And an American by choice and effort and, by the Grace of God, a father to proud Southern-born children. Dixie forever!

    If you’ll bear a rifle I’ll stay mum.

    An older cop told me about “Jedi mind tricks.” Make eye contact; speak to people rather than at them; listen. The right words calm and convince. I got physical only as a last resort. The NYPD calls this verbal judo. Even today, I’m not completely sure how this works, but it usually does.”

    Funny, this is part of my skreet skrategy.

  68. Still waiting for you to name some prominent and influential Shermans who are also for immigration restriction.

    Matt Drudge, Frum, Kristol, Levin, Michael Savage, the three Orthodox Jewish writers at Breitbart.com Ben Shapiro, Joel Pollak and Daniel Horowitz, Dan Stein, Ira Mehlman, Dianne West.

    If it were in Jewish interests to support immigration, why are Orthodox Jews like Shapiro opposed to immigration since Orthodox are more attuned to what’s “Good for the Jews”? Shouldn’t Orthodox be even more open borders than secular Jews since they’re obviously more ethnocentric than Reform?

    American Jewish elite – unlike their backstabbing SWPL brethren – push for open borders in every Western country except Israel. Explain that difference.

    I’ve never heard other ethnic whites talk much about immigration to their ancestral nations.

    Have Pelosi, Rudy Giuliani, Mario Cuomo or Andrew Cuomo called for Italy to further let in more legal immigrants and amnesty their illegal boat refugees?

    How often did Ted Kennedy, the Chamber of Commerce’s Tom Donahue call for more immigration for Ireland?

    But of course none of those ethnic whites are Jews, so this is never mentioned by anti-semites.

  69. But the most fascinating part is how Ta’ Hennessy (pronounced Tah-Nuh-Hah-See), being an ultimate connoisseur of the All Black Thangs Considered dominium, failed to recognize that J. Gober wasn’t just name-dropping some another dead white man, but invoking a 4th-century African fellow – a Doctor of the Church,whose teeny-weeny contribution to the world – as we knew it – consists of drawing the doctrinal blueprint on which the next thousand years of Western Europe has been built!
    Black Power Hipstorian obviously had skipped that classroom lesson. Repeatedly.

  70. No, that ridiculously long article you copied and pasted from in another thread said that MacDonald’s cite was accurate, but for some reason the author (and you) want MacDonald to cite more of Altemeyer’s written work.

    It was completely innacurate and I’ve never seen any of you fellows explain how it was anything other than a lie. Once more:

    1) MacDonald in CofC quotes Altemeyer’s study as evidence Jews are hyper-ethnocentric

    2) Direct quotes from Altemeyer’s study show Jews scored lower than most other groups (and tied Anglicans and Unitarians for lowest on the measure) on MacDonald’s chosen metric for ethnocentrism.

    Ben, explain how this is anything except a lie by MacDonald:

    Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    neatly fudges one massively in convenient detail: according to Altemeyer, Jews as a group consistently score lower on the RWA scale than do members of any other religious group.

    Over the years, there have been consistent differences in the RWA Scale scores of students affiliated with different religions. Those with no affiliation (who are mostly agnostics and atheists, about 75% of whom in 1979 stated that they were raised in no religion whatsoever) scored significantly lower than all the others, while Jews also tended to score low. … Catholics and Protestants in turn scored higher than these groups. …The results described above seem to indicate that authoritarianism and religious variables mutually determine one another. In the first place, it seems clear that different religions produce different levels of authoritarianism in their membership. People raised in no religious system tend to be less authoritarian than those raised in Judaism or Christianity, Jews tend to be less authoritarian than Christians, and there are at least some reliable differences within Protestantism among Manitoba students.
    60

    58
    Altemeyer, “Reducing Prejudice in Right
    -
    Wing Authoritarians,” 137.
    59
    MacDonald,
    The Culture of
    Critique
    , 190.

    Even worse, from MacDonald‟s perspective, was the richer data on religious affiliation , orthodoxy and authoritarianism presented by Altemeyer in Enemies of Freedom, a volume MacDonald also cites. Even within the set of High RWA “true believers” characteristic of all religions (but underrepresented among Jews by comparison with other religions), clear differences among the groups emerge.

    [A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

  71. Svigor says:

    Really, the biggest difference between Blacks and Jews seems to be cognitive ability. In most other ways, they’re similar.

    Blacks and Jews both vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
    Blacks and Jews both love the American political status quo.
    Blacks and Jews both tend to have “flexible” approaches to rules, laws, and behavioral norms.
    Blacks and Jews were both the primary constituents of the “Freedom Rides.”
    Blacks and Jews were both the primary founders of the NAACP.

    [MORE]

    Blacks and Jews both love quasi-pinko shakedown operations like SPLC and NAACP.
    Blacks and Jews both have charismatic messianic religious tendencies.
    Blacks and Jews both love to blame Whites for all the world’s ills.
    Blacks and Jews both hate nature and the countryside.
    Blacks and Jews both prefer the concrete jungle.
    Blacks and Jews are both famous for their ghettoes.
    Blacks and Jews are both world champs of shifting blame away from their own group.
    Blacks and Jews both have delusions of “Deliverance” and hate rural people.
    Blacks and Jews are both far better off around Whites, than on their own.
    Blacks and Jews both love to play their violins while blaming their greatest tragedies on YT.
    Blacks and Jews both love Black culture.
    Blacks and Jews both love Chinese food.
    Blacks and Jews both love the entertainment biz.
    Blacks and Jews both love to worship Black affleets.
    Blacks and Jews both love big gubbmint.
    Blacks and Jews both celebrate the demographic demise of YT.
    Blacks and Jews both insist on having their “right” to live wherever YT may be found.
    Blacks and Jews share the curious habit of blaming YT for everything, yet turning into raving psychos at the suggestion that YT be allowed to separate.
    Blacks and Jews both have ethnostates in the eastern hemisphere, but go nuts at the idea of YT having an ethnostate, anywhere.
    Blacks and Jews both have an inferiority complex when it comes to YT.
    Blacks and Jews both have serious ethnic/racial paranoia issues.
    Blacks and Jews both have strong ethnic identities as victims.
    Blacks and Jews both identify as Black/Jewish first, and American second.
    Blacks and Jews have similar relationships with intellectual honesty.
    Blacks and Jews both criticize YT as a group on a regular basis, then switch to “I beez an individdle” when the shoe’s on the other foot.
    Blacks and Jews both see America as sinister, despite the fact that America is the best thing to ever happen to either group.
    Blacks criticize YT for slavery, when YT is exceptional only for ending it; Jews criticize YT for THE HOLOCAUST!!!, even though America and Britain ended it.
    Blacks and Jews both hate YT.
    Blacks and Jews are both uninterested in the record-breaking statistics of the Rwandan Genocide.

  72. Lately, according to his own blogg confessions, Monsieur Ta-Nehisi has been immersing himself into Langue Française 24/7. So far he learned the essential vocabulary for everyday conversation with a friends, neighbors and occasionally some multingual Hindu shopkeepers;

    For exemple, “Délater, tu te fais latter” translates as “Snitches get stitches“, while “Fais comme si de rien n’était” conveniently delivers “Act like you don’t know shit“message.
    Some other,with a more of a community organizing flair, phrases such as - “Ces enfoirés se la jouent trop Starsky et Hutch, sans déconner!” (“No shit! These clowns think they’re Starsky and Hutch!”) , or crowd-pleasing “Nique la police!” (“Fuck the police!’) will definitely bring a smile on a face of any law enforcement officer in Northern America*.(*Excluding being administered in Quebec where serious side effects have been reported)

    Ta is doing it so hard that it’s just a matter of time when his jeff cap will be permanently replaced with a beret. My humble prediction is that it would eventually happen in year 2021. during the inaugural ceremony in which the new U.S. ambassador to Paris, His Excellency T-N. Coates has delivered the copies of his credentials to French Foreign Minister Zinedine Zidane.

  73. Or could this be a simple case of Mr. Ta Nehisi being a college-dropout cloaked in Dr. Huckstertable’s coat impatiently reimagining an exclusively Nubian Pantheron in which there’s no space left for a Numidian Privilege ? Gober’s uber confidence ain’t gonna help him a lot once the the fine young canibals decide it’s time for the other white meat to come home to roost.

    As Foucault would say:”Enculons-nous à sec.”

  74. @Cookies

    No, didn’t say that. As one commenter pointed out, its not “hate” per se to call other groups out for mishaps AND wrongdoings that they’ve done.

    We’re all White Southerners, sure if only.

    The larger issue is that Steve mentioned a few known Jewish intellectuals who are anti-immigration and my point was that they are at best inconsistent on this issue. They certainly weren’t when an R was occupying the Oval Office and perhaps won’t be anti-immigration during the next R administration.

    Its like the undue fanatical devotion some have toward Limbaugh. When was he ever a major voice vs anti-Open Borders? Answer: He’s never been.

    Sometimes leadership devotion is misplaced in the wrong people.

  75. Here is the ‘real’ relevant quote that explains a cost-benefit intricacy of this, for now on cui bono basis still functional unholy alliance among The Atlantis’ pundits:

    J. Gober:” C’mon Coates, are you really saying that you’ve never heard of the “City of God”, yet somehow you landed a gig at MIT as a visiting professor?”

    Ta’ Hennessy:“Qu’est-ce que ça veut dire, putain?! Well, maybe I ain’t read a book, but at least I saw the movie….and ….so what, et mon vier, madame Olivier ! votre chien, il encule le mien, et vous dites rien !!!??? Ce putain de bordel de merde !… Alors, the last time I checked – you, mon ami Jaufré, wasn’t served in the Marines either, but nobody had to aks you twice to join IDF’s Pelican Bay Aufseherin company… Je te foutrai mon poing sur la gueule, connard!!!”

    Crickets

  76. A good outside chance of 300 solid comments for just this post alone. Wonder why? Why this one? Partly due to the semi-ironic post title? Must be something.

    Yup, a good outside chance, much like NY getting the final wildcard for Jeter’s final season.

  77. That was true of Atheists, but not of Jews. The poll found Jews rate Christians much more favorably than Muslims. (Average together Jews’ attitudes toward Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals.)

    Mormons aren’t Christians.

  78. Anonymous says:

    A good outside chance of 300 solid comments for just this post alone. Wonder why? Why this one? Partly due to the semi-ironic post title? Must be something.

    There would be a lot more if Steve weren’t so sensitive to discussion of WWII. Steve, the censorship of polite discussion of WWII facts and questions is in my view unnecessary and unfair (privileging as it does one politically motivated narrative over others). I nonetheless continue to hold you in high esteem.

  79. george says:

    @Art Deco

    Search on: darren wilson mother con

  80. Anonymous says:

    @Svigor

    The similarities you describe are mostly artifacts of American social and political context. Besides average cognitive ability, there are marked differences between the groups with respect to time preference and propensity for random violence. Traditional Jewish humor is quite different from black humor, and the propensity for compulsive observance of religious law (building fences around the Torah) that characterized Jews’ shtetl ancestors doesn’t have a clear parallel. Other than aggressiveness, personality characteristics also differ – more anxiety and depression among Jews.

  81. It was completely innacurate and I’ve never seen any of you fellows explain how it was anything other than a lie. Once more:

    1) MacDonald in CofC quotes Altemeyer’s study as evidence Jews are hyper-ethnocentric

    What does he say, and where does he say it?

    You can’t tell us, because it didn’t happen.

    MacDonald did not cite Altemeyer’s study as evidence Jews are hyper-ethnocentric.

    Ben, explain how this is anything except a lie by MacDonald:

    Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    neatly fudges one massively in convenient detail: according to Altemeyer, Jews as a group consistently score lower on the RWA scale than do members of any other religious group.

    Over the years, there have been consistent differences in the RWA Scale scores of students affiliated with different religions. Those with no affiliation (who are mostly agnostics and atheists, about 75% of whom in 1979 stated that they were raised in no religion whatsoever) scored significantly lower than all the others, while Jews also tended to score low. … Catholics and Protestants in turn scored higher than these groups. …The results described above seem to indicate that authoritarianism and religious variables mutually determine one another. In the first place, it seems clear that different religions produce different levels of authoritarianism in their membership. People raised in no religious system tend to be less authoritarian than those raised in Judaism or Christianity, Jews tend to be less authoritarian than Christians, and there are at least some reliable differences within Protestantism among Manitoba students.

    That’s not a lie by MacDonald because you’re quoting someone else.

    Before you call someone a liar, you might want to check to see what he actually said.

  82. @YetAnotherFakeName

    This response is to fair-minded third parties who might be misled by George into thinking that there is any substance to his charge against me and Federale.

    The incident occurred ten-and-a-half days before my article appeared at VDARE. Thus, had George followed his own “rule,” he would never have complained.

    But his rule is simply ridiculous. Any fair-minded reader will see that my articles on the case were informed by:

    The incredible and mutually contradictory character of the “eyewitness” accounts of the shooting, which didn’t hold up to scrutiny on Day One;
    The store videotape of Brown’s robbery;
    My knowledge of the way that black street toughs interact with the police;
    The audio of the witness at the scene, who reported seeing Brown charge Officer Wilson;
    The autopsy report on Mike Brown; and
    The wounds that Brown and possibly his accomplice Dorian Johnson had inflicted on Officer Wilson.

    George is either thoughtlessly taking sides against the white cop, or engaging in mischief, for mischief’s sake.

  83. Mike says:

    @Anonymous

    The crime rate in ferguson is about the national average. The first homocide of the year was committed by Darren Wilson. Is that a “wholesale orgy of death”?

    Lol.

  84. 1) MacDonald in CofC quotes Altemeyer’s study as evidence Jews are hyper-ethnocentric

    What does he say, and where does he say it?

    You can’t tell us, because it didn’t happen.

    MacDonald wrote Altemeyer’s metric proves high Jewish ethnocentrism right in the Culture of Critique.

    In MacDonald’s own words (italics):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    But the real distortion MacDonald commits against Altemeyer is his failure to acknowledge Altemeyer‟s findings for different religious groups as measured against the Right – Wing Authoritarianism Scale. If reflecting on the authoritarianism of White North Americans like himself in Separation and Its Discontents stirs MacDonald to warming reveries of hearth and home, turning his attention to Jewish authoritarianism in Culture of Critique sharpens his focus on all of the unappetizing features of right -wing authoritarianism that Altemeyer emphasizes.

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

  85. @Jefferson

    That’s as may be; you’re making a fool of yourself.

  86. @ben tillman

    Mormons aren’t Christians.

    Interesting. Some people would agree, and some wouldn’t. I’ve been to some Mormon religious services, and they did a lot of things well.

    Even if we don’t include Mormons as Christians, Jews have high opinions of Catholics, and if the poll included ratings of Protestants, Jews would likely rate them just as highly.

    I used to be a Richard Dawkins-type, same as all my typical coastal liberal friends, but I became a defender of Christianity from reading about Christianity being replaced with Islam:

    If current trends continue—a Muslim population boom, combined with an aging Christian demographic and the increasing secularization of British natives—Islam is set to overtake Christianity in Britain within the next 20 years, according to demographers. … Church officials now welcome hundreds of Muslims praying five times a day in their building because the nearby mosque is filled to overcapacity and Muslim worshippers are forced to pray outside.

  87. @Nicholas Stix

    Nah, I’m with George.

    I’m also with the commentator above who gave this video of how a cop is supposed to act

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtcvmu3p6WM

    We all know that Michael was a ghetto black with problems…But why are police aggravating those problems?

    Darren Wilson was not a professional. He cussed at the kids “Get onto the fucking sidewalk!” …which provoked Michael Brown which then caused the cop to go bat shit crazy.

    The two boys went on to the sidewalk and even if Michael Brown had back talked to Darren Wilson, Wilson should have driven away. Instead he reversed his vehicle and attempted to get out of it, thus causing the confrontation of Two Low IQ Idiots. And that’s the end of it.

    This is ghetto black meet unqualified asshole white. Darren Wilson will be charged for his part in this confrontation, as he should.

    The difference between Wilson and George…is that Trayvon attacked George Zimmerman…whereas Wilson Provoked Brown into attacking him, and then he continued the confrontation in a lethal manner when he had other options available to him.

    So yes, Federale (and your post) were out of line as evidenced by the title of Federale’s post “This isn’t about Police brutality but Black Criminality” (That’s not the actuall title, but I have life…you get the point)

    Ann Coulter, god bless her for the immigration stuff, but she still thinks that american seattle chick killed the british girl in Italy….instead of being used as a patsy to take focus away from the black killer.

  88. Whoops says:

    @NicholasStix

    Sorry Anonymous Attorney wrote that post

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/militarization-of-police-not-the-issue-racial-difference-is

    And here’s something you wrote

    ‘Mike Brown thought he could just walk into a non-black man’s property, and rob and assault him at will. He behaved the same way with the cop who stopped him. Or tried to.”

    You’re right and you’re wrong at the exact same time. Michael Brown liked grabbing people and shouldn’t do that. But also, he seemed to only grab people when they provoked him. And frankly, I as a white person act exactly the same way.

    The store video ended up being spliced, and we have no idea what really happened between Brown and the Arab….but it obviously wasn’t robbery.

    “Walk onto a non-black man’s property” LOL! Yeah…lol come on man….The arab may have been being a total asshole, exactly like the white cop.

  89. HereYaGo says:

    Here ya go…Dailymail Day 2

    Half White Half Asian Criminal Male:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731444/Oklahoma-policeman-accused-sex-assaults-duty.html

    Previous Day’s was the guy from San Diego who killed the pregnant chick (alleged lover my ass)

    Admittedly most of the killers are half-white half-asian mixes….

    But everyone since the dawn of time has warned against that mix (Dr. No anyone?) so you know…no surprise

  90. syon says:

    @ben tillman

    Mormons aren’t Christians.

    MMM, we could spend a month (easily) debating that one.

  91. syon says:

    @The Undiscovered Jew

    Syon will be along any minute now to tell us all what white trash bastards they were.

    The Confederate Jews? Judah P. Benjamin and his ilk? Traitors seems like the correct word to use.

  92. syon says:

    @Svigor

    Or their constant penchant for subverting or taking over other people’s countries.

    But surely you’re in favor of Judah P. Benjamin’s role in subverting the USA, dear boy?

  93. trogs says:

    @syon

    “It’s the perfect mirror image, dear fellow.”

    It’s fascinating how one sees persons of Jewish background take this analogy exactly as far as it will go – Anglos are “envious” negroes – and never address the areas where the analogy breaks down.

    Why is it that British rule is romanticized in Hong Kong, and the charitable Parsi rulers are so beloved in India that they are the subject of fond aphorisms, and Norwegians are prized and invited everywhere, and Germany is the most popular country in the world, while Jews and Gypsies and Cantonese and Sicilians and Arabs and Irish Travellers keep getting accused of the same Clannish bullshit over and over again, century after century, country after country? Endless “prejudice” from everyone they bump into.

    Answer: “Envy. Swedes are like Rwandans. It’s the perfect mirror image, dear fellow.”

    Yeah. Sure.

  94. syon says:

    @Svigor

    Country B: 8% Amerind, 8% East Asian, 8% Southeast Asian, 8% Central Asian, 8% Southwest Asian, 8% South Asian, 8% Northern European, 8% Southern European, 8% East African, 8% West African, 8% South American, 8% Jewish, 4% Other.

    That’s not where we are headed, dear boy. Our future involves a great mass of Mestizo Hispanics, not this salad bowel fantasy.

  95. syon says:

    @Svigor

    Agreed: if Jews and blacks stopped showing so very many political similarities, Jews and blacks would no longer appear so politically similar.

    MMMM, looks like someone can’t quite grasp the concept of contingency…..

  96. syon says:

    @Anonymous

    Blacks (like Jews) vote in favor of Angl0-European disembowelment. Hence blacks’ seemingly masochistic silence on mass immigration.

    On this point, dear fellow, the Black elite are like every other elite in America: the Catholic Church, Big Business, Labor Unions, etc. They have all signed on to the open borders project.

    Is it good for the Jews?

    A potentially sound policy. Sadly, the bulk of elite American Jewry seem to not understand what is good for the Jews. Hence, their support for things like mass immigration (they somehow fail to understand that the 1924-1965 period was a veritable golden age for American Jews).

  97. syon says:

    @Svigor

    This is sloppy arguing of the syon “gosh, I’ll just use a straw man and hope no one will notice” school.

    Dear boy, I can scarcely be blamed for making a straw man out of KM when the poor man is already made of straw.

    Funny, because when I read TUJ blame the (less leftist) Anglo-Saxons for the (far more leftist) Jews, I’m reminded of how Sowell blames the (less pathological) Scots-Irish for the (much more pathological) blacks.

    Well, there was a curious cultural synthesis between Whites and Blacks in the South. After all, the South, as a culture, would not exist without Blacks…

    More to the point, there are far more political similarities between Jews and blacks, than between whites and blacks. I can go on at length about them, if you like. Jews sure vote like blacks.

    MMMM, now that you’ve set the ball rolling, as it were, the notion of exploring the many affinities between Southern Whites and Southern Blacks intrigues me….

    The difference being, the first has the ring of truth, while the second is absurd.

    I don’t know about that, dear boy. Read Kevin MacDonald’s POC counterparts, people like Ward Churchill (of course, his POC status is purely inside his own head, but still) and Fanon. They note how the POC have been brainwashed into accepting the White Man’s norms, how everything they do and think is the product of the White Man’s thought control. They note how the very flesh of the POC has been contaminated by the White Man, so that the POC hates the shape of his facial features and the color of his skin.

    And whites create societies that blacks flock to, and scream bloody murder at the idea of being prevented from flocking to.

    Again, dear boy, the POC theorists have an answer for that as well. The Whites use their superior cunning to impoverish the POC. Note, for example, how the rise of the West was paralleled by the fall of the POC empires (Islam, China, India, etc). The fiendish White Man brought low the nations of color in order to ensure their racial dominance. Reduced to poverty in their home countries, POC are forced by the evil White Man to immigrate to the West.

    As I said before, reading KM as a POC theorist is a highly rewarding experience.

    Short version: all Jewish pols vote for open borders. 100%. Heathen (“gentile”) pols only vote for them 50% of the time.

    All of them, dear boy? Does that include Samuel Gompers ?

  98. syon says:

    @Sebastian

    By all means, old bean, feel free to cite the multitude of instances you have found where KM engages in the behavior you describe.

    MMM, well, there’s this:http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WesternOrigins.htm

    Skipping down to the Ice Age section, we find this:

    “European groups are part of the North Eurasian and Circumpolar culture area.39 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and marriage tends to be exogamous i.e., outside the kinship group. All of these characteristics are opposite those found in the Middle Old World culture area, comprising the lower part of Eurasia. This culture group includes Jews and similar Near Eastern groups.

    This scenario implies that Northern European peoples are more prone to individualism because they existed for a very long period in an ecological context that did not support large tribal groups based on extended kinship relations.Based on mitochondrial DNA, around 80% of European genes are from people who arrived in Europe from the Middle East 30-40,000 years ago.40 These populations persisted through the Ice Ages. Presumably European populations who evolved in the cold and cloudy environments of the North for 40,000 years developed not just blond hair and blue eyes but temperaments and life style preferences to go with it.”

    Then there’s this:http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Individualism-Collectivism.html

    And then there’s this:http://www.vdare.com/articles/vladimir-avdeyev-and-the-russian-revival-of-racial-science

    “Europeans are therefore less ethnocentric than other groups—which makes them susceptible to being subverted by groups with a strong sense of in-group solidarity. Individualist cultures show relatively little emotional attachment to in-groups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself.”

    Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and out-group members. They are also more likely to behave in a pro-social, altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of in-group/out-group boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes toward out-group members. They often disagree with in-group policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to in-groups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other in-group members.

    Opposition to out-groups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the out-group members are culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few in-groups (see Harry Triandis, Individualism and Collectivism).

    Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.”

  99. syon says:

    @iSteveFan

    So the fact that the USA is becoming a white/brown/black/yellow sort of country is exactly the desired outcome. No one group will be able to lord it over the others.

    But that’s not what is happening. The USA is becoming a majority Hispanic Mestizo country.

  100. syon says:

    @Sean

    syon, I’ll think you will find that Steinlight does justify his views on the basis of what the Jews’ (his ingroup) interests are, so he can’t be accepting the application of a Kantian universal law for gentile and Jew alike.

    Which, frankly, does not concern me.I’m only interested in the fact that Steinlight wants to cut down on immigration to the USA.

    But white gentile society does not accept white gentiles saying they are deciding issues according to what is in the interests of white gentiles. The main reason for that is probably something to do with white gentile psychology.

    Terms like “White Gentile psychology” seem rather useless to me. How similar are the psychologies of Corsicans and Finns? Estonians and Irishmen? Latvians and Sicilians ?

  101. syon says:

    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    And they’ve also put their money where their mouths are? They have actually donated money to various anti-immigration organizations?

    I have no idea about their donation habits. On the other hand, since neither man is a multi-millionaire/billionaire, I’m not sure how important their financial contributions would be.

    As for denigrating their “mouths”….. Dear fellow, Mickey Kaus is a pundit; his value to the immigration restriction cause lies in the area of speech.

  102. @Mike

    The crime rate in ferguson is about the national average. The first homocide of the year was committed by Darren Wilson.

    We generally don’t consider justifiable homicide a crime. The crime was committed by Brown.

  103. @The Undiscovered Jew

    I’ve never heard other ethnic whites talk much about immigration to their ancestral nations.

    Have Pelosi, Rudy Giuliani, Mario Cuomo or Andrew Cuomo called for Italy to further let in more legal immigrants and amnesty their illegal boat refugees?

    How often did Ted Kennedy, the Chamber of Commerce’s Tom Donahue call for more immigration for Ireland?

    But of course none of those ethnic whites are Jews, so this is never mentioned by anti-semites.

    First off, the intellectual laziness of calling anyone who questions or criticizes the Jewish community or, especially, Jewish elites an anti-semite is getting quite tiresome. That’s works in most settings, but, here, it’s just embarrassing.

    Second, you are correct, white elites simply don’t talk about immigration to their ancestral homes – in part, because they, unlike Jews, don’t have duel allegiance. However, since basically every one of their ancestral homes is being inundated by 3rd world immigrants, white elites tacitly approve of said immigration through their silence. Do you really think that the Rahm Emanuel – former volunteer for IDF – and his fellow Jewish leaders would keep quite if Africans and Arabs began hopping the Israeli border in large numbers and attempting to become Israeli citizens.

    Look, I don’t know why you keep trying to convince us that black is white and up is down. I’ve already said that I understand why Jewish elites are doing what they’re doing. In many ways, I very much respect their intentions – if not their deeds. They are trying to make the world a safer place for Jews. They are looking out for their own. I happen to think that that they’re screwing the majority of their own people over, but that’s just an opinion.

    You don’t have a problem with me. You have a problem with acknowledging what the vast, vast majority of your own elites are doing. It boring to argue about whether the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

  104. Jim says:

    @syon

    Similarity here is relative. Traditionally whites might think of say Englishmen and Italians as very different. But if you look at a genetic map of the whole human race then Englishmen and Italians are squeezed right next to each other. The differences between different European nationalities are trivial compared to the differences between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.

  105. First off, the intellectual laziness of calling anyone who questions or criticizes the Jewish community or, especially, Jewish elites an anti-semite is getting quite tiresome. That’s works in most settings, but, here, it’s just embarrassing.

    It’s known as poisoning the well. The fact that they made up a term to label those they don’t like doesn’t matter.

  106. Jim says:

    @syon

    The decline of China, India and the Middle East was due most of all to the Mongols not to Europeans. Also in China after the ouster of the Mongols it was due to the Manchu. Western Europe was lucky in that Western Europe was spared the Mongol onslaught. But the devastation inflicted by the Mongols was not in any way the fault of Europeans.

  107. Cookies says:

    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    “You have a problem with acknowledging what the vast, vast majority of your own elites are doing”

    What are the vast, vast majority of YOUR elites doing?

    Why don’t you have to answer for them?

  108. Anonymous says:

    @syon

    Based on mitochondrial DNA, around 80% of European genes are from people who arrived in Europe from the Middle East 30-40,000 years ago.40 These populations persisted through the Ice Ages.

    The Kmac article needs a population genetics update. Work published last year based on autosomal DNA (a much larger sample of the genome than mitochondrial DNA) shows that Europeans can be modeled as a mixture of Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG), Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) and Early European Farmer (EEF) components. The EEF were descendants of people who migrated to Europe from the Middle East during the Neolithic period, with some degree of WHG admixture. Northwest Europeans typically demonstrate 40-50% EEF ancestry on genetic ancestry tests. Southern Europeans demonstrate more EEF ancestry than that, and Northeast Europeans demonstrate less.

  109. syon says:

    @Jim

    The decline of China, India and the Middle East was due most of all to the Mongols not to Europeans. Also in China after the ouster of the Mongols it was due to the Manchu. Western Europe was lucky in that Western Europe was spared the Mongol onslaught. But the devastation inflicted by the Mongols was not in any way the fault of Europeans.

    Not according to the POC school of thought.For example, last Spring I attended a seminar where I had to listen to a Chinese woman carefully explain that China’s fall was engineered by the perfidious White Man. She told us that the English corrupted China by forcing through opium (she got really angry at this point; spittle nearly jumped from her mouth when she talked about English drug-pushers growing fat by hooking millions of Chinese on the White powder). Her most subtle point though, was the Taiping Rebellion; she talked at length about how it was the product of the White Man’s most dangerous device, weaponized culture (the movement involved a weird version of Christianity). Hence, all the millions who died were the fault of the White Man’s culture. Then she went on to talk about how the White Man used the problem that he had created as an excuse to intervene militarily (“Chinese” Gordon, etc).

    As I said earlier, it was very similar to MacDonald’s standard spiel.

  110. @syon

    Interesting image you created there syon.

    I guess you deliberately wanted us to think of KM as a spittle flecked Hitler ranting about the You Know Who’s.

  111. Svigor says:

    As I said earlier, it was very similar to MacDonald’s standard spiel.

    Take a step back, and it’s pretty similar to the Jews’ spiel, too: “white heathens are to blame for everything.”

  112. Svigor says:

    Syon, maybe you should front-load your posts with the persuasive stuff, if available. I’m starting to TL;DR-scroll past your comments because the signal:noise ratio is so consistently low. Maybe front-loading will help? There might’ve been something good in there, but I’ll never know because the first volleys were all so bad.

    Maybe I’ll just start following up your volleys with a quick note that I scroll past your posts when Jews are the subject, and anyone who finds them persuasive can second them and I’ll take a look.

    The similarities you describe are mostly artifacts of American social and political context. Besides average cognitive ability, there are marked differences between the groups with respect to time preference and propensity for random violence. Traditional Jewish humor is quite different from black humor, and the propensity for compulsive observance of religious law (building fences around the Torah) that characterized Jews’ shtetl ancestors doesn’t have a clear parallel. Other than aggressiveness, personality characteristics also differ – more anxiety and depression among Jews.

    Yes, the differences are better summed up as “behavioral genetics.” But you have to admit, they are pretty simpatico, socio-politically speaking. When looking at politics through the lens of Steve’s Core vs. Fringe observation, they are far more alike than not. Jews’ ability to “pass” as white is the biggest difference, along with SES.

  113. Svigor says:

    Wilson is from a family of con artists

    It would be at least as accurate to say that Brown came from a race of violent criminals, a family of violent criminals, etc.

  114. HA says:

    @syon

    …when she talked about English drug-pushers growing fat by hooking millions of Chinese on the White powder…

    I do not think one has to be a white-hating Chinese nationalist or a disciple of LaRouche to admit that the above statement, for all its tendentious phrasing, is accurate. The marketing of opium in China is a topic similar to that of Jewish influences in the rise of Communism, in the sense that both are apparently nearly impossible to write about without earning the bitter hatred of a large number of people who are very impassioned, to the point of being unhinged.

  115. Bill says:

    @syon

    Actually, this does fit in with some of MacDonald’s ideas, though not in the way that you or the Chinese woman would imagine. Jews dominated the opium trade of the British Empire, and were instrumental in promoting the opium trade with China and using British military power to advance the trade.

  116. But that’s not what is happening. The USA is becoming a majority Hispanic Mestizo country.

    With a large East Asian minority, a large Black minority, a large MENA minority, a large Subcon minority, a large White minority, plus Filipinos and Jews and Samoans and American Indians.

  117. Bill says:

    @syon

    The opium trade violated China’s sovereignty and was a corrupting influence. The Chinese did not want to trade with the British in the first place, but was forced to trade with them, and forced to trade in opium.

    The similarity here with the MacDonaldian White Gentile perspective is that the MacDonaldian White Gentiles want sovereignty and freedom, which they believe are denied, just as Chinese sovereignty and freedom were violated by the opium trade.

    To the extent that the POC narrative is about sovereignty, freedom, and separatism, it does have similarity with the MacDonaldian view. But the POC narrative is generally not about sovereignty, freedom, and separatism, but about reparations from and power over Europeans.

  118. As I said earlier, it was very similar to MacDonald’s standard spiel.

    That’s not true, but let’s suppose it were.

    Here’s your argument:

    A has accused B of doing X to A.

    The accusation is ridiculous (or at least false).

    Therefore B’s accusation that C did X to B is similarly ridiculous (or false).

    That’s literally nonsense. False accusations and true accusations can and do co-exist in this world, and your implication to the contrary is astounding.

  119. Bill says:

    @syon

    Actually, this does fit in with some of MacDonald’s ideas, though not in the way that you or the Chinese woman would imagine. Jews dominated the opium trade of the British Empire, and were instrumental in promoting the opium trade with China and using British military power to advance the trade.

  120. Bill says:

    @syon

    The opium trade violated China’s sovereignty and was a corrupting influence. The Chinese did not want to trade with the British in the first place, but was forced to trade with them, and forced to trade in opium.

    The similarity here with the MacDonaldian White Gentile perspective is that the MacDonaldian White Gentiles want sovereignty and freedom, which they believe are denied, just as Chinese sovereignty and freedom were violated by the opium trade.

    To the extent that the POC narrative is about sovereignty, freedom, and separatism, it does have similarity with the MacDonaldian view. But the POC narrative is generally not about sovereignty, freedom, and separatism, but about reparations from and power over Europeans.

  121. I do not think one has to be a white-hating Chinese nationalist or a disciple of LaRouche to admit that the above statement, for all its tendentious phrasing, is accurate.

    To some extent, that can be seen as a direct result of the failure of the QianLong Emporer to realize that the world was a different place than they assumed and to open up trade with Britain.

    Of course, one can also consider that the British did China a favor. They seem to have dealt with the issue of drug dependence very well, with what looks like a two-pronged approach: Cultural and genetic (with those more susceptible having their genes removed from the pool.)

  122. @Fourth doorman of the apocalypse

    Anti-semitism was first widely used in 1881 by the German journalist Wilhelm Marr.

    It acquired a negative connotation because Christians, liberals, and capitalists are all oriented toward human rights, and believe in criticizing people for their actions instead of their ancestry. (Every church I’ve been to talked about love, redemption, and morality.)

    It’s understandable that you don’t like being labeled with a negative term. But aren’t you labeling others, like Arthur Jensen and Mila Kunis, who have nothing in common, with negative terms?

  123. HA says:

    @Hard Line Realist (whimsical)

    “Of course, one can also consider that the British did China a favor. They seem to have dealt with the issue of drug dependence very well, with what looks like a two-pronged approach: Cultural and genetic (with those more susceptible having their genes removed from the pool.)”

    By that argument, cocaine and heroin are doing significant portions of the US a favor, too — it all comes down to what exactly one means when one says a culture deals with drug dependence “very well”. If you’re the one whose loved one ended up a junkie, or an innocent victim of a junkie, the claim that his or her removal from the gene pool was a favor for which the Escobars of the world deserve some gratitude is not really much of a consolation. In fact, it’s more likely to be regarded as adding insult to injury.

    For similar reasons, I don’t think any objective analyst would expect the Chinese to be grateful to the British. Given the large number of wealthy upper-class Chinese who became addicted (among them Ip Man) and who might have continued to be contributors to the gene pool were it not for the drug’s increased availability, the perceived loss is going to seem especially acute.

  124. You quoted what MacDonald wrote at p. 190 of The Culture of Critique:

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.

    You wrote,

    MacDonald in CofC quotes Altemeyer’s study as evidence Jews are hyper-ethnocentric

    The quote you provided (above) does not say that.

    1. You allege that MacDonald made a claim regarding Jews in general. This passage mentions Jews in traditional Jewish society and Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups and, as a separate category, secular Jews but says nothing whatsoever about Jews in general.

    2. You allege that MacDonald make a claim regarding the ethnocentrism (actually “hyper-ethnocentrism”) of Jews in general. But the passage discusses “Right Wing Authoritarianism”. It says nothing about ethnocentrism. You apparently equate the two terms. MacDonald does not, and he said so just before the passage you quoted. Here are the two sentences immediately preceding the quote you provided above:

    A prominent aspect of the Authoritarian Personality program of research was the conflation of two rather separate concepts, hostility toward other ethnic groups and authoritarianism. It is interesting in this regard that authoritarianism in personality would appear to involve susceptibility to engaging in group strategies, and that engaging in group strategies may be only tangentially related to hostility toward other ethnic groups.

    Then MacDonald cites Altemeyer’s definition of RWA (see above), which does not say anything about ethnocentrism. Again, according to Altemeyer it involves three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority, aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities, and adherence to social conventions.

  125. Svigor says:

    I do not think one has to be a white-hating Chinese nationalist or a disciple of LaRouche to admit that the above statement, for all its tendentious phrasing, is accurate. The marketing of opium in China is a topic similar to that of Jewish influences in the rise of Communism, in the sense that both are apparently nearly impossible to write about without earning the bitter hatred of a large number of people who are very impassioned, to the point of being unhinged.

    Yeah; if you talk about the former, the victim group gets all hot and bothered and pitches a fit. If you talk about the latter, the perpetrator group gets all hot and bothered and pitches a fit.

    But that’s not what is happening. The USA is becoming a majority Hispanic Mestizo country.

    Well, you know what they say; the perfect is the enemy of the good.

    Ben: you’re a trooper. I don’t have it in me to grind with that shyster. Kudos.

  126. @Southfarthing

    OK, so I got the genesis of the term wrong. My point that the use of it made by detractors of KM is a case of poisoning the well still stands.

    It’s understandable that you don’t like being labeled with a negative term. But aren’t you labeling others, like Arthur Jensen and Mila Kunis, who have nothing in common, with negative terms?

    Aren’t you going a bit beyond the data? As far as I am aware no one has applied that label to me.

    Also, I don’t know who Mila Kunis is or how he relates to Arthur Jensen (assuming you do not mean the musical Arthur Jensen).

    In any event, I think that KM is doing a service in bring up the issue of group strategies in the same way that, say, Greg Cochran points out interesting things about the Amish.

    Of course, some groups do get upset when people try to examine the reasons for their success, but it is curious, for example, that when various people examine the question of Did Jesus Exist, Christians do not seem to get as upset. (However, I am sure that Muslims will continue to get upset about examinations of the formation of their religion and the question of Did Mohammed Exist.)

  127. gu says:

    @syon

    Ecept in this case it’s true. Genius.

  128. @Fourth doorman of the apocalypse

    The negative label that you’re objecting to is when you’re referred to as an anti-Semite. But you don’t have a problem lumping all Jews under negative labels.

    If most Amish opposed immigration and generally intermarried with other groups, Greg Cochran wouldn’t say they support immigration, and wouldn’t say they’re ethnocentric. But anti-Jews do that to Jews.

    If we’re talking about ethnocentrism practiced by a minority of Jews, then say that, instead of blaming all Jews. Jews are our colleagues, cousins, neighbors, spouses etc. and they’re normal people with human rights. I have little difficulty convincing Jews I meet that the liberal narrative is wrong. I actually find it easier with Jews because Jews suffer from cultural marxism directly in the form of pro-Hamas liberal opinion, and Muslim immigrants chasing Jews out of Europe.

    Mila Kunis is an actress. This is her with her husband, Ashton Kutcher, also an actor. Both she and Arthur Jensen (the IQ researcher) get included in the “collective ethnic punishment” of Jews, even though neither of them have anything to do with Jewish leftists or ethnocentrists.

  129. 1. You allege that MacDonald made a claim regarding Jews in general. This passage mentions Jews in traditional Jewish society and Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups and, as a separate category, secular Jews but says nothing whatsoever about Jews in general.

    1) Religious Jews still scored lower than other highly religious groups*, except for Anglicans and Unitarians. Even if his comment was limited to devout Jews, his analysis is the exact opposite of his source’s results.

    2) More importantly, one of the central theories of the book, and his career, is secular Jews exhibit comparable ethnocentric behaviors of traditional Jewish societies. Essentially every characteristic MacDonald associates with traditional and Orthodox Jews is reflected in varying degrees with seculars.

    Do you really want to claim that passage wasn’t associating traditional Jewish group cohesiveness’, respect for authority, and supposed hostility to outsiders with Jewish ethnocentrism generally?

    But the passage discusses “Right Wing Authoritarianism”. It says nothing about ethnocentrism. You apparently equate the two terms. MacDonald does not, and he said so just before the passage you quoted.

    Reread the surrounding passages from CofC . Based on the text, MacDonald meant Jewish authoritarianism is indicative of Jewish group cohesiveness because Jews are in his view very hostile to outsiders.

    He does claim authoritarianism is a weak indicator of anti-semitic ethnocentrism among gentiles because authoritarians adopt their group’s feelings towards any type of outsider; if the group accepts outsiders, authoritarians are accepting, if the group is hostile then so are authoritarians – in which case Jewish authoritarianism is a reflective measure of Jewish ethnocentrism as MacDonald’s position holds.

    From CofC:

    Moreover, Altemeyer notes that the data are consistent with the proposal that authoritarian individuals are ethnocentric only to the extent that other ethnic groups are conventional targets of discrimination by groups with which the authoritarian individual identifies. Similarly, “intrinsically” religious people tend to be hostile toward outgroups only where the religion itself does not proscribe such hostility (Batson & Burris 1994). The defining feature of authoritarian individuals in this view is simply their adoption of the social conventions and norms of the group, some of which may involve negative attitudes toward outgroups. This proposal is highly compatible with the present approach to group identification and group conflict.

    Snip

    It has been noted that authoritarianism refers to a set of traits that predispose individuals to strongly identify with highly cohesive groups that impose uniform standards of behavior on group members. Since authoritarian individuals are highly prone to submerging themselves within the group, conforming to group conventions, and accepting group goals, there will indeed be a tendency toward anti-Semitism when the ingroup itself is anti-Semitic; there will also be a tendency toward ethnocentrism when the group membership itself is based on ethnicity.

    This is essentially the position of Altemeyer (1981, 238), since he proposes that the fairly weak associations usually found between authoritarianism and hostility toward outgroups reflect conventional hostility toward outgroups. From this perspective, these concepts may be empirically associated in particular samples, but there is no structural connection between them. The association simply reflects the authoritarian tendency to adopt social conventions and norms of the group, including the negative attitudes toward particular outgroups. This perspective would account for the significant but modest correlations (.30-.50) Altemeyer (1994) finds between authoritarianism and ethno-centrism.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    * If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

  130. @Southfarthing

    But you don’t have a problem lumping all Jews under negative labels.

    Please point out where I did that, because I don’t recall doing that. I don’t know where you got all that shit you attribute to me from me saying that I think KM has a point.

    I did claim that those who attach the label anti-semite to KM are engaging in poisoning the well. I still think it is true.

  131. @Southfarthing

    But you don’t have a problem lumping all Jews under negative labels.

    Please point out where I did that, because I don’t recall doing that. Actually, I don’t know where you got all that shit you attribute to me. I simply think that KM has a point.

    I did claim that those who attach the label anti-semite to KM are engaging in poisoning the well. I still think so.

  132. @The Undiscovered Jew

    1) Religious Jews still scored lower than other highly religious groups*, except for Anglicans and Unitarians. Even if his comment was limited to devout Jews, his analysis is the exact opposite of his source’s results.

    He didn’t make any analysis that could be the opposite of his source’s.

    YOU had a chance to say how MacDonald lied. YOU made an allegation that has been shown to be false. Pitifully so. Now we have to start over again?

    You had a chance to take your best shot. You were wrong.

    2) More importantly, one of the central theories of the book, and his career, is secular Jews exhibit comparable ethnocentric behaviors of traditional Jewish societies. Essentially every characteristic MacDonald associates with traditional and Orthodox Jews is reflected in varying degrees with seculars.

    Sigh. Where does he say this, and how is this a lie? And what does it have to do with Altemeyer?We already established that Altemeyer’s study didn’t measure ethnocentrism. Remember? Jesus, I feel like I’m talking to my three-year-old..

  133. syon says:

    @Svigor

    Well, you know what they say; the perfect is the enemy of the good.

    MMM, I’m not sure why anyone (barring Aztlan nationalist types, of course) would regard a majority Mestizo Hispanic America as being a good idea….

  134. syon says:

    @Bill

    To the extent that the POC narrative is about sovereignty, freedom, and separatism, it does have similarity with the MacDonaldian view.

    Actually, I would argue that the central point of similarity between KM and the POC theorists is that both rely on the angel-devil theory of history. KM has his angel (the noble Nordic, genetically predisposed to Kantian Universalism); the POC have theirs (the non-White peoples of the globe, naturally good and pure).KM has his devil (the Jew, tribalistic and cunning, forever intent on destroying European Gentile society); the POC have theirs (the White Man, racist and cunning, forever intent on destroying the POC nations of the world).

  135. syon says:

    @Bill

    Actually, this does fit in with some of MacDonald’s ideas, though not in the way that you or the Chinese woman would imagine. Jews dominated the opium trade of the British Empire, and were instrumental in promoting the opium trade with China and using British military power to advance the trade.

    MMMM, really dear boy?

    William Jardine:

    William Jardine (24 February 1784 – 27 February 1843) was a Scottish physician and merchant who co-founded the Hong Kong based conglomerate Jardine, Matheson and Company. Following his return to England from the Far East, between 1841 to 1843, he was Member of Parliament for Ashburton representing the Whig party.

    Educated in medicine at the University of Edinburgh, in 1802 Jardine obtained a diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. In the same year he became a surgeon’s mate aboard the Brunswick belonging to the East India Company, and set sail for India. Captured by the French and shipwrecked in 1805, he was repatriated and returned to the East India Company’s service as a ship’s surgeon. In May 1817, he abandoned medicine for commerce.[1]

    Jardine was a resident in China from 1820 to 1839. His early success in Canton as a commercial agent for opium merchants in India led to his admission in 1825 as a partner in Magniac & Co., and by 1826 he controlled that firm’s Canton operations. James Matheson joined him shortly afterwards with Magniac & Co. reconstituted as Jardine, Matheson & Co in 1832. After Imperial Commissioner Lin Zexu destroyed 20,000 cases of British-owned opium in 1839, Jardine arrived in London that September to press Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston for a forceful response.[1]

    Jardine, one of five children, was born in 1784 on a small farm near Lochmaben, Dumfriesshire, Scotland.[2] His father, Andrew Jardine, died when he was nine, leading the family in some economic difficulty. Though struggling to make ends meet, Jardine’s older brother David provided him with money to attend school. Jardine began to acquire credentials at the age of sixteen. In 1800 when he entered the University of Edinburgh Medical School where he took classes in anatomy, medical practice, and obstetrics among others. While his schooling was in progress, Jardine was apprenticed to a surgeon who would provide housing, food, and the essential acquaintance with a hospital practice, with the money his older brother, David, provided. He graduated from the Edinburgh Medical School on 2 March 1802, and was presented a full diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. He chose to join the service of the British East India Company and in 1802 at the age of 18 boarded the East Indiaman Brunswick. On 15 March, after satisfying the entry requirements, William Jardine, was paid two months advanced wages as a surgeon’s mate in the East India Company’s Maritime Marine Service. One advantage of service with the East India Company was that employees were allowed to trade in goods on their own account. Each employee was allowed cargo space equivalent to two chests or about a hundred pounds of cargo. Jardine engaged in this trade with exceptional dexterity, even leasing the apportioned cargo space of other crew members who did not have interest in using the space, and was able to save quite an amount of money.

    Sir James Matheson:

    Sir James Nicolas Sutherland Matheson, 1st Baronet (17 October 1796 – 31 December 1878), born in Shiness, Lairg, Sutherland, Scotland, was the son of Captain Donald Matheson,[1] a Scottish trader in India. He attended Edinburgh’s Royal High School and the University of Edinburgh. He and William Jardine went on to co-found the Hong Kong based trading conglomerate Jardine Matheson & Co. that became today’s Jardine Matheson Holdings.

    After leaving university, Matheson spent two years in a London agency house before departing for Calcutta, India and a position in his uncle’s trading firm, Mackintosh & Co.[2]

    Jardine, Matheson & Co:

    Jardine Matheson & Co., later Jardine Matheson & Co. Ltd., forerunner of today’s Jardine Matheson Holdings, was a Far Eastern trading company founded in 1832 with Scotsmen William Jardine and James Matheson as senior partners. Trading in opium, cotton, tea, silk and a variety of other goods, from its early beginnings in Canton (modern day Guangzhou), in 1844 the firm established its head office in the new British colony of Hong Kong then proceeded to expand all along the China Coast.

    By the end of the nineteenth century, Jardine, Matheson & Co. had become the largest of the foreign trading companies in the Far East[1] and had expanded its activities into sectors including shipping, cotton mills and railway construction.

    Lancelot Dent:

    Lancelot Dent was a 19th-century British merchant resident for a period in Canton, China who dealt primarily in opium.

    He was christened on August 4, 1799 in Crosby Ravensworth, Westmorland, England, son of William and Jane (Wilkinson) Dent.

    Lancelot took over as senior partner of trading house Dent & Co. headquartered in Canton, when his brother Thomas departed the company in 1831. He had a powerful hold over some agency houses buying opium from the Calcutta auction, including Carr, Tagore & Company, managed by Bengali merchant Dwarkanath Tagore.

    Together with Thomas, Lancelot commissioned construction of Flass House, now a grade two listed building in the Palladian style, on land inherited from their sister in England’s northern Lake District.[1] The property would remain in the Dent family until 1972, when it was sold to banker, historian and writer Frank Welsh.[2]

    Lancelot and John Dent were consuls of Italy in Hong Kong.[citation needed]

    Dent died in London on 28 November 1853 aged 54 and is buried in the churchyard at Crosby Ravensworth.[3]

    And on the American side of things:

    Russell & Company (Chinese: 旗昌洋行; pinyin: Qíchāng Yángháng) was the largest and most important American trading house in Qing dynasty China from 1842 to its closing in 1891.

    Samuel Russell founded Russell & Company in Canton, China, in 1824. Dealing mostly in silks, teas and opium, Russell & Company prospered, and by 1842, it had become the largest American trading house in China. It kept its dominance until its closing in 1891. Russell withdrew from the company in 1836 and returned to the United States.

    Notable people of Russell & Company[edit]
    Warren Delano, Jr., the grandfather of Franklin Roosevelt (32nd President of the United States) served as the Chief of Operations of Russell and Company in Canton.
    Robert Bennet Forbes (1804–1889) was the head of Russell and Company.
    John Murray Forbes (1813-1898), brother of Robert Bennet Forbes and the great-granduncle of 2004 presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry.
    Abiel Abbot Low, founder of trading company A. A. Low & Brothers, served as a partner.
    William Henry Low, Abiel Abbot Low’s uncle, senior partner of the firm.
    William Henry Low, Abiel Abbot Low’s brother.
    Augustine Heard, who later founded Augustine Heard & Company, a large trading house in China.
    Russell Sturgis, who later became head of Baring Brothers in London.
    John Cleve Green (1800-1875) Philanthropist – benefactor of Princeton.

    Frankly, the only major Jewish player that I am aware of is David Sassoon:

    David Sassoon & Co., Ltd. was a trading house operating in late 19th century and early 20th century China.

    Established by David Sassoon, a Baghdadi Jewish businessman in Bombay, the firm specialised in trading Indian cotton yarn and opium from Bombay to Canton, China. Later on the business expanded to act as Hong Kong agents for the Apcar Line, a company which operated steamers plying between Calcutta–Hong Kong and Japan–Shanghai. The firm also acquired property in Hong Kong.[1]

    David Sassoon’s son Sir Albert Sassoon, Bart. succeeded his father and subsequently passed the business on to Sir Edward Sassoon, Bart., M.P..[1]

  136. syon says:

    @ben tillman

    Tillman:”That’s not true,”

    It’s quite true, dear boy.

    ” but let’s suppose it were.”

    This sounds like fun

    “Here’s your argument:

    A has accused B of doing X to A.

    The accusation is ridiculous (or at least false).”

    Who says that it is false, dear boy?Have you disproved their arguments about White perfidy?

    “Therefore B’s accusation that C did X to B is similarly ridiculous (or false).”

    Yes, it does sting to see KM grouped with his peers.

    “That’s literally nonsense. False accusations and true accusations can and do co-exist in this world, and your implication to the contrary is astounding.”

    Of course, dear boy. Some things are true and some things are untrue. And KM, like his POC peers, is a mixture of both. What is quite fascinating, though, is how both KM and his People of Color brethren are united in their desire to find the source of evil in the world. For KM, it is the Jew. For the POC theorist, it is the White Man.

    That’s why I would love to see KM debate a POC theorist. It would be like that scene in THE RULING CLASS where one man claiming to be Jesus (Peter O’Toole) is introduced to another man claiming to be Jesus (Nigel Green).

  137. syon says:

    @ben tillman

    With a large East Asian minority, a large Black minority, a large MENA minority, a large Subcon minority, a large White minority, plus Filipinos and Jews and Samoans and American Indians.

    MMMM, which still leaves us with a Hispanic Mestizo majority…..

  138. syon says:

    @Svigor

    Syon, maybe you should front-load your posts with the persuasive stuff, if available. I’m starting to TL;DR-scroll past your comments because the signal:noise ratio is so consistently low. Maybe front-loading will help? There might’ve been something good in there, but I’ll never know because the first volleys were all so bad.

    Don’t worry, dear boy. You won’t hurt my feelings. Feel free to “TL;DR-scroll ” past all my stuff.

  139. syon says:

    @Svigor

    As I said earlier, it was very similar to MacDonald’s standard spiel.
    Take a step back, and it’s pretty similar to the Jews’ spiel, too: “white heathens are to blame for everything.”

    Of course. Kevin MacDonald’s thinking is very similar to the School of Jewish Victimology. As with the POC theorists, the framework remains the same; only the devil changes.

  140. syon says:

    @Hard Line Realist (sensitive)

    Interesting image you created there syon.

    I guess you deliberately wanted us to think of KM as a spittle flecked Hitler ranting about the You Know Who’s.

    Hitler is old-hat, dear fellow. The poor man has been shuffled onstage too often.

    No, I’m more interested in the ways that KM mirrors the POC Leftists that I have to deal with on a daily basis. Being an academic (English Lit, the very epicenter of the PC Leviathan), I have to deal with anti-White POC types on a daily basis. Why, I even once attended a conference where a South Asian woman defended Jean-Jacques Dessalines’ genocide of the French Haitian population. Needless to say, no one objected, including me (I have tenure to think about).

  141. @ben tillman

    Ben, it is amusing that some people are so unhinged by KM’s writings that they have to come up with strategies to discredit him.

    Now they have realized that poisoning the well by calling him an anti-semite (as if he hates Arabs or something) is possibly having the opposite affect, so they are likening him to those unhinged Persons of Color.

    I wonder what the next step will be? Don’t they understand the Streisand effect?

  142. Sean says:

    KM mirrors a certain people’s unashamed and openly avowed group self interest, at massive personal cost to himself, because whites do not accept that behaviour from their own kind. But if he was writing books implying his group are the cancer of society, no one would blink an eye.

  143. Bill says:

    @syon

    The MacDonaldian view does not rely on the angel-devil theory of history. It’s not a theological view. It’s not an ideological theory of history. It’s based on evolutionary biology and is empirically focused. It takes certain facts of evolutionary biology as given facts of nature, and claims that things such as freedom, separatism, self-determination, sovereignty, etc. are desirable.

    The POC narrative is modeled on the traditional, anti-majoritarian Jewish diaspora narrative.

  144. Bill says:

    @syon

    Yes, really. Jews dominated the opium trade. I never said that no gentiles traded with China or that no gentiles traded in opium.

  145. Tom says:

    @Sean

    Most whites have never heard of him. And most whites have no influence on the gatekeeping role played by academia and the media over the public reception of KM’s work. Whites are underrepresented in this important gatekeeping role. You can’t infer attitudes simply by the reception or non-reception of KM’s work

  146. Tom says:

    Evolutionary biologists such as the late W.D. Hamilton and David Sloan Wilson have praised and agreed with KM’s work. They’re not POC leftists.

  147. He didn’t make any analysis that could be the opposite of his source’s.

    Of course it’s the opposite.

    He said Jews scored high on authoritarianism (which he does connect with Jewish ethnocentrism but not antisemitism, see below). The actual study’s results had Jews scoring among the least authoritarian of religious groups.

    Where does he say this, and how is this a lie?

    For starters there’s his comparison of modern, secular Jewish academics today playing a role comparable to what ‘charismatic rabbi figures’ did in traditional Jewish religious communities.

    We already established that Altemeyer’s study didn’t measure ethnocentrism.

    MacDonald said authoritarianism does reflect ethnocentrism if a group is hostile to outsiders* and/or the group’s identity is based on ethnicity*. Although he explains authoritarianism by itself does not necessarily relate to ethnocentrism or antisemitism in the absence of outgroup hostility or ethnic identity, he does associate both traits with Jews.

    Therefore he is linking Jewish ethnocentrism with their supposed high authoritarian tendencies – tendencies where, again, they score low.

    If he isn’t linking Jewish authoritarianism to Jewish ethnocentrism, explain what he means when he talks here about Jewish ‘submisiveness’ to Jewish authorities, ‘group evolutionary cohesiveness’ , identification with the group , and hostility to outsiders?

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

    * Since authoritarian individuals are highly prone to submerging themselves within the group, conforming to group conventions, and accepting group goals, there will indeed be a tendency toward anti-Semitism when the ingroup itself is anti-Semitic; there will also be a tendency toward ethnocentrism when the group membership itself is based on ethnicity.

  148. @Southfarthing

    Southfarthing and Syon,

    The allegation about the Jewish role in immigration was started by MacDonald who’s claimed Jews have been trying to demographically make whites a minority since the 19th century because it supposedly made them safer. In his view, this makes Jews distinct from other immigrants because they only advocated for migration from their home countries; Irish wanted more Irish, Poles more Poles, Italians more Italians, etc. As far as I know, he’s the first person to argue Jews have had this agenda since the 1880s.

    But, as in many other cases, he’s been caught lying about what his evidence says. One of his sources, Neuringer, actually says Jews were concerned how immigration impacted Jews, and weren’t concerned with non-white immigration:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

    If antisemites want us to believe their story about Jews and immigration, we’re going to need to see them provide direct quotes from MacDonald’s sources given his history of lying about the immigration topic and Jews.

  149. Evolutionary biologists such as the late W.D. Hamilton and David Sloan Wilson

    Would they have praised him if they knew he was a liar?

  150. @Bill

    I know of Chinese people in Thailand who purchased Thai names.

    Isn’t it interesting that syon corrects people on matters related to the You Know Who’s and takes an interest in KM and etc?

  151. Svigor says:

    That’s literally nonsense. False accusations and true accusations can and do co-exist in this world, and your implication to the contrary is astounding.

    He was probably just trying to find a way to squeeze the old “WNs sound like negroes LOL” thing into the argument, under the supposition that it touches a WN nerve. It doesn’t for this WN. Personally, I love it when people bring it up because then I can bring in my “similarities between blacks and Jews” argument. As an aside, I always thought Steve really disliked this argument, because it rarely made it past Komment Kontrol at the old blog.

    The negative label that you’re objecting to is when you’re referred to as an anti-Semite. But you don’t have a problem lumping all Jews under negative labels.

    Intelligent adults know – or should – that speaking in generalizations does not amount to “lumping all X under Y label,” particularly when the subject is people, for whom, generally speaking, no labels apply across the board.

    Is this really an issue? Do people really not know that when I make generalizations about Jews, this rule applies?

    Please, raise your hand if you think I’m so stupid that I don’t know that generalizations are just generalizations.

    I don’t see why I should work all sorts of caveats and legalese into my rhetoric only when I’m talking about Jews. I don’t think of you as God’s Chosen.

    If most Amish opposed immigration and generally intermarried with other groups, Greg Cochran wouldn’t say they support immigration, and wouldn’t say they’re ethnocentric. But anti-Jews do that to Jews.

    I dispute Jews’ assertion that they oppose immigration. Their pols vote 100% for open borders, and they seem happy with those pols, organized Jewry is unanimously pro-open-borders, and Jews seem happy with them, too (Jews are nothing if not capable of getting the representation they want). People who are up to no good or ashamed of their behavior or otherwise have reason to deceive usually do so with pollsters. They often deceive themselves, as well. Self-reported data is often best used as toilet paper (though there is often much that can be gleaned by reading between the lines).

    Besides, let’s look at this from another angle. Jews vote heavily leftist, and thus support the lefty Narrative, which says all the silent, tacit support white Americans give to the evil, racist American power structure puts them on the hook via white privilege. In fact, Jews are some of the most prominent advocates of the white privilege narrative.

    So, really, even if you’re right, my position is simply tit-for-tat. Except, not, because the white privilege narrative runs the world, and we’re just here on some blog. Yet, you’re here bothering us, instead of fighting the real power. So, what does that make you?

    Both she and Arthur Jensen (the IQ researcher) get included in the “collective ethnic punishment” of Jews, even though neither of them have anything to do with Jewish leftists or ethnocentrists.

    Who do you think is suffering more from collective ethnic punishment? Jews, or whites? And who’s getting the better of whom? Priorities, my good man. I think yours aren’t particularly defensible.

  152. It is interesting that the Wiki page on Jardine goes to great efforts to proclaim him a kind-hearted man:

    You will find Jardine a most conscientious, honourable, and kind-hearted fellow, extremely liberal and an excellent man of business in this market, where his knowledge and experience in the opium trade and in most articles of export is highly valuable. He requires to be known and to be properly appreciated.

    and:

    Though their charity was never belabored, it was well accepted that they were done with sincerity. Jardine’s tough exterior and candid letters to agents masked his compassionate nature, never exacting punishment when due.

    And yet they made the majority of their fortune dealing in opium. That is, dealing in misery.

    I guess, as someone else observed, they thought they were helping the Chinese rid themselves of addicts or something.

  153. anonymous says:

    “I dispute Jews’ assertion that they oppose immigration.”

    It’s this sort of stuff that does make you wonder. If you pay any attention or know any number of Jews, of course they are strongly and openly pro-immigration. Ellis Island! Give me your…! But in a discussion about immigration, people, clearly Jewish, start making contorted arguments to the effect that it can’t be true. It’s as if they think if they find a way to verbally make an argument where the words string together to sound right, even if it’s completely false, that they’ve proven something. All they’ve proven is their habit of consistently trying to obfuscate.

  154. He said Jews scored high on authoritarianism (which he does connect with Jewish ethnocentrism but not antisemitism, see below).

    You’re lying, or you’re crazy. The quote that you posted here said nothing of the sort. And this is your strongest argument?

  155. Anonymous says:

    @anonymous

    Not all of us. I think an immigration moratorium of the sort Luke Lea has proposed is in order. For the record, I haven’t been in a position to vote for Jewish politicians because I live in a state with a small Jewish population. The leadership of Jewish organizations is not democratically elected. The large donors are responsible for that.

  156. @Svigor

    The data is clear that most Jews are against immigration, and aren’t ethnocentric. Mainstream Jews are normal White people.

    Most Jewish elites support immigration for the same reasons most Gentile elites support immigration (e.g. the GOP leadership, Bill DiBlasio, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Nancy Pelosi, etc.).

    Amren.com gets a lot of support from Jews, and many of its speakers are Jews. Isn’t that good for your causes? Shouldn’t they get credit for that?

    Who do you think is suffering more from collective ethnic punishment? Jews, or whites?

    Jewish-Ameicans and Jewish-Frenchmen lose their country because of immigration, same as Gentiles, but they also suffer from non-Whites’ high rates of anti-Semitism. Youtube, 3 min: France’s Jews, Under Attack, Fight Back.

    If we want Jews to be less liberal (I want that), instead of arguing against “the Jews,” argue against liberalism. That also has the benefit of that human-rights-oriented Christians, liberals, and capitalists no longer oppose us. Given those benefits, why not argue against liberalism instead of “the Jews”?

  157. syon says:

    @Svigor

    He was probably just trying to find a way to squeeze the old “WNs sound like negroes LOL” thing into the argument, under the supposition that it touches a WN nerve. It doesn’t for this WN. Personally, I love it when people bring it up because then I can bring in my “similarities between blacks and Jews” argument

    “WN”? Does that stand for “White Nationalism”? As for White Nationalists sounding like Blacks, there’s really not much to the notion. White Nationalists organize themselves around the idea of purity of European ancestry. Hence, they are very keen on sniffing out potential outsiders. Blacks, in contrast, pursue a big tent strategy. One drop of Black blood (cf the very White Eric Holder) makes you 100% Black.

  158. syon says:

    @Fourth doorman of the apocalypse

    “Isn’t it interesting that syon corrects people on matters related to the You Know Who’s”

    You mean Jews, yes?

    ” and takes an interest in KM and etc?”

    He’s an interesting fellow. As I’ve mentioned, it is quite interesting to see someone who displays the thinking patterns of the POC Left but who focuses his opprobrium on a different target. Reading him helps me to to understand the people that I have to contend with every day.

  159. syon says:

    @Bill

    “The MacDonaldian view does not rely on the angel-devil theory of history.”

    MMMM, White Gentiles are good; Jews are bad. Seems to match the angel-devil theory.

    ” It’s not a theological view. It’s not an ideological theory of history. ”

    OK. It’s pure empiricism. Things are seen without any kind of ideological filter…

    “It’s based on evolutionary biology and is empirically focused. It takes certain facts of evolutionary biology as given facts of nature, and claims that things such as freedom, separatism, self-determination, sovereignty, etc. are desirable.”

    Wait, it claims that things like “freedom, separatism, self-determination, sovereignty, ” are , as you say, “desirable”? That is a value-judgement, dear fellow. Hence, we are firmly in the realm of the ideological.

    “The POC narrative is modeled on the traditional, anti-majoritarian Jewish diaspora narrative.”

    But so many POC theorists employ the majoritarian point of view, dear fellow. The anti-colonial narrative, for example, is framed as the POC majority vs the evil White minority. Attend POC literary conferences, and you will hear people crowing about how the “Voice of the Peoples of Color is the Voice of Humanity.”

    “Yes, really. Jews dominated the opium trade. I never said that no gentiles traded with China or that no gentiles traded in opium.”

    Well, saying does not make it so, dear fellow. You’re going to have to supply some solid evidence. As my previous post demonstrated, White Gentile firms (Jardine, Matheson, & C0, Dent & Co, Russell and Company, etc) dominated the trade. The only Jewish firm of any size that I could find was David Sassoon & Co.

  160. syon says:

    @Sean

    “KM mirrors a certain people’s”

    You mean Jews, yes? We are all adults here. Don’t be coy.

    ” unashamed and openly avowed group self interest,”

    Complete agreement, dear fellow. KM is very, very similar to people like Alan Dershowitz. They have their devil (European Gentiles); he has his (European Jews).

    ” at massive personal cost to himself, because whites do not accept that behaviour from their own kind.”

    Once upon a time it was quite acceptable, dear fellow. Regrettably, the Holocaust put such thinking in bad odor. I will say, though, that I do rather admire KM’s willingness to say what he thinks. Everyday, I grit my teeth and censor my speech when I hear my colleagues drone on about Lacan, Fanon, Barthes, etc. Of course, KM does have tenure….

    “But if he was writing books implying his group are the cancer of society, no one would blink an eye.”

    Tell me about it. As I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve heard POC academics defend the massacre of the Haitian French.

  161. syon says:

    @Tom

    Most whites have never heard of him. And most whites have no influence on the gatekeeping role played by academia and the media over the public reception of KM’s work. Whites are underrepresented in this important gatekeeping role.

    MMMM, in my experience, Whites make up the vast majority of people in gatekeeping roles in academia and the media.

  162. syon says:

    @Fourth doorman of the apocalypse

    Ben, it is amusing that some people are so unhinged by KM’s writings that they have to come up with strategies to discredit him.

    Now they have realized that poisoning the well by calling him an anti-semite (as if he hates Arabs or something) is possibly having the opposite affect, so they are likening him to those unhinged Persons of Color.

    Anti-Semitism is a very stupid phrase, particularly when one recalls that Ashkenazi Jews are 50% South European in ancestry.

    That having been said, KM does structure his arguments around biological imperatives….

  163. Hey Steve,

    I think I now understand the trolls you get here:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/trolls-are-not-problem.html

    BTW,

    You still have a way to go before you reach the level of comments that rt.com seems to get on some of its pages. I saw 1047 on one page.

  164. Sean says:

    “Everyday, I grit my teeth and censor my speech when I hear my colleagues drone on about Lacan, Fanon, Barthes, etc. Of course, KM does have tenure…”

    ‘Lacan, Fanon, Barthes’ Er, what about Derrida the man who wrote ‘White Mythology’; “Metaphysics—the white mythology which reassembles and reflects the culture of the West: the white man takes his own mythology, Indo-European mythology, his own logos, that is, the mythos of his idiom, for the universal form”.

    Derrida is complaining that actual biological (it’s not a metaphor) white men are trying to impose universal standards. You say the PC gatekeepers are not Jews, but white; hence you appear to have adroitly switched feet about Anglo Saxons being Kantians.

    No one can deny that European society has benefitted from Jews. Yes, they have done good things. And they have not been held back considering their numbers relative to the positions they have. Jewish preferment in the most powerful nation on earth did not start after the Holocaust. A Jew was Secretary of State for India, a Jew was viceroy of India, a Jew was High Commissioner of Palestine. I have heard rumours about Disraeli (not not those rumours, that he was a Jew).

    Kevin MacDonald says Jews are now promoting the immigration policy that they think benefits Jews. They are, they don’t pretend otherwise, and they are not penalised for it. Now, my dear syon, please stop inveigling people into pointless, repetitive and circular discussions. Everyone knows what you think on the topic of MacDonald. Save it for when there is a post on something not tangential to that topic.

  165. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.

    And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible.

    Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism.”

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

  166. Bill says:

    @syon

    MacDonald never says anything about “good” or “bad” people. Evolutionary biology is a scientific, materialist, reductionist view which doesn’t speak of “good” or “bad” people. Biological organisms aren’t “good” or “bad” in evolutionary biology. They have biological interests and conflicts of interests. This is not a theological or ideological view.

    The POC narrative in the West is not a majoritarian view. It’s an anti-majoritarian view. There is an anti-colonial, nationalist narrative in the foreign countries themselves that is distinct from the POC narrative. The POC narrativee takes elements from this nationalist narrative to pursue an anti-majoritarian narrative within the West.

    Jews did dominate the opium trade. See Ezekial Musleah’s On the Banks of the Ganga. Your post did not demonstrate that White Gentiles dominated the opium trade, so I don’t know why you so dishonestly claim it did. All you did was paste an article from Wikipedia describing how some Brits had large firms that traded in the Far East. That’s not in dispute or in discussion here.

  167. @Bill

    Jardine Matheson is not an obscure name in the history of Hong kong.

  168. Bill says:

    @Sean

    What Derrida did was take Heidegger’s philosophy and turn it into an anti-majoritarian, leftist narrative of critique. Remember that Heidegger attacked the Western tradition of philosophy, science, and metaphysics and its claims to universalism. But Heidegger was not an anti-majoritarian leftist and his political instincts were the exact opposite. One of his primary concerns was that this tradition alienated Germans, the West from authentic Being.

    This is actually quite common in Western intellectual history. The early reform minded socialism of people like Saint-Simon was picked up by Marx and others and turned into a radical leftist program.

  169. Bill says:

    @Steve Sailer

    Yes, I know. The company still exists today.

  170. Svigor says:

    The data is clear that most Jews are against immigration, and aren’t ethnocentric. Mainstream Jews are normal White people.

    No, the data is clear that Jews are far more ethnocentric and pro-immigration than Euro-Americans. Mainstream Jews are faux liberals who support their ethnic Reich in Israel, the bombarding of Palestinian urban centers with artillery fire (killing thousands of civilians), etc., and then turn around and become "leftist" vis-a-vis America. I.e., your standard ethno-leftists, in contrast to genuinely leftist Euro-Americans.

    Most Jewish elites support immigration for the same reasons most Gentile elites support immigration (e.g. the GOP leadership, Bill DiBlasio, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Nancy Pelosi, etc.).

    I’ve already shown (many times) how Jewish pols vote 100% for open-borders, while Euro-Americans vote slightly more for closed borders than for open borders. (And given Jewish political over-representation, their influence is far more decisive than the Jewish vote)

    Amren.com gets a lot of support from Jews, and many of its speakers are Jews. Isn’t that good for your causes? Shouldn’t they get credit for that?

    Sure, a tiny minority of Jews are helpful in certain areas of interest that overlap with my racial beliefs, and they should get credit for that. Why wouldn’t I want to give them credit? They certainly don’t negate the vast majority of American Jews who are on Team Black (on this side of the Atlantic, anyway), though.

    I do note, however, that Jews on our side vis-a-vis the black question seem to turn back into leftists again when we switch the conversation from blacks, to Jews. Then they turn back into rightists again when we switch the conversation from Jews in the diaspora to Jews in Israel.

    Jewish-Ameicans and Jewish-Frenchmen lose their country because of immigration, same as Gentiles, but they also suffer from non-Whites’ high rates of anti-Semitism. Youtube, 3 min: France’s Jews, Under Attack, Fight Back.

    American Jews and French Jews still have their country, Israel, while heathen (“gentile”) Frenchmen and Euro-Americans lose the only countries they have.

    If we want Jews to be less liberal (I want that), instead of arguing against “the Jews,” argue against liberalism.

    In many ways, liberalism is Jewishness. Jews are the brain trust of American liberalism. They’re the bank of American liberalism. I’m not the sort to sweep that under the rug. Also, I like to go where I’m most needed. There are many people doing a good job of criticizing liberalism. There are few doing a good job of criticizing Jewry.

    Divide and conquer seems like a good strategy to me; why shouldn’t I highlight the very divergent interests of liberal Euro-Americans and faux-liberal American Jews?

    That also has the benefit of that human-rights-oriented Christians, liberals, and capitalists no longer oppose us. Given those benefits, why not argue against liberalism instead of “the Jews”?

    The best way to smash the stupid, cowardly, shameful taboo on criticizing Jews is to smash it, not to cower before it.

    Everybody deserves their fair share of criticism. Jews have been woefully deprived of theirs for a long time now. Somebody needs to keep them honest. Couple this with Jews’ singular inability to do the job themselves, and we’ve got a real, unfulfilled need, here. Charity is best applied to under-served communities, no?

  171. syon says:

    @Bill

    Bill:”MacDonald never says anything about “good” or “bad” people. Evolutionary biology is a scientific, materialist, reductionist view which doesn’t speak of “good” or “bad” people. Biological organisms aren’t “good” or “bad” in evolutionary biology. They have biological interests and conflicts of interests. This is not a theological or ideological view.”

    KM assigns value to what he regards as “European biological interests.” This is not disinterested science. KM is an active partisan; he views the Jew as the European incubus (cf the POC narrative, where the White Man is the World’s parasite).

    “The POC narrative in the West is not a majoritarian view. It’s an anti-majoritarian view. There is an anti-colonial, nationalist narrative in the foreign countries themselves that is distinct from the POC narrative. The POC narrativee takes elements from this nationalist narrative to pursue an anti-majoritarian narrative within the West.”

    Hardly, dear fellow. You need to hang around the POC crowdThey view themselves as the voice of the planet. Europeans are a minority of the World’s population, and they must accede to the will of the POC majority.

    “Jews did dominate the opium trade. See Ezekial Musleah’s On the Banks of the Ganga.”

    Why not post a few excerpts, dear boy?

    ” Your post did not demonstrate that White Gentiles dominated the opium trade, so I don’t know why you so dishonestly claim it did.”

    MMMM, my post showed that a solid majority of the largest and most important companies trading opium in China were run by White Gentiles. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

    “All you did was paste an article from Wikipedia describing how some Brits had large firms that traded in the Far East. That’s not in dispute or in discussion here.”

    Actually, that is in discussion here, dear boy. We are talking about the opium trade in China. Hence, the fact that White Gentile firms (Jardine, Matheson; Russell and Co, etc) dominated the opium trade is rather important.

  172. syon says:

    @Sean

    “‘Lacan, Fanon, Barthes’ Er, what about Derrida the man who wrote ‘White Mythology’; “Metaphysics—the white mythology which reassembles and reflects the culture of the West: the white man takes his own mythology, Indo-European mythology, his own logos, that is, the mythos of his idiom, for the universal form”.”

    Oh, Derrida pops up quite a bit. But the fervor attached to his name has diminished a tad over the years. One can only take so much deconstruction, after all.Currently, it seems that the favored Derrida texts are ARCHIVE FEVER and SPECTERS OF MARX. At least those are the ones that my colleagues name-drop with the greatest frequency.

    “Derrida is complaining that actual biological (it’s not a metaphor) white men are trying to impose universal standards. ”

    Frankly, I’m never sure about anything that Derrida says (cf Foucault’s quip about Derrida being an “obscurantist terrorist”). And, according to Derrida, everything is metaphorical in nature…

    “You say the PC gatekeepers are not Jews, but white;”

    Did I say that the PC gatekeepers are not Jews? No, I simply observed that the gatekeepers are White.

    ” hence you appear to have adroitly switched feet about Anglo Saxons being Kantians.”

    KM is the one who says that Nordics are natural Kantians, dear boy, not me.

  173. syon says:

    @Svigor

    American Jews and French Jews still have their country, Israel, while heathen (“gentile”) Frenchmen and Euro-Americans lose the only countries they have.

    America is the only country that I have, dear boy.

  174. syon says:

    @Bill

    some facts on the opium trade in China to bear in mind:

    A reduction in import duty by the British government on Chinese tea from 110 per cent to an average ten per cent in 1784 caused a surge in domestic demand, which in turn led to a huge silver deficit for the East India Company (EIC), who were the sole importers of the commodity.[2] Silver was the only currency the Chinese would accept in payment for their tea and to redress the balance in 1793 the EIC acquired a monopoly on opium production in India from the British government. However, as it had been illegal to sell the drug in China since 1800,[3] consignments were sent to Calcutta for auction[4] whereafter private traders smuggled the opium to the southern ports of mainland China.[4][5] In 1834 the EIC lost its trading monopoly in China[6] and instead Queen Victoria appointed Lord Napier as first commissioner of trade for the country. Napier’s first visit to the southern port of Canton (now Guangzhou), where the rigid Canton System controlled all trade with China, failed to convince the Chinese authorities to open up further ports for trading. In 1837, the Qing government, having vacillated for a while on the correct approach to the problem of growing opium addiction amongst the people, decided to expel merchant William Jardine of Jardine, Matheson & Co along with others involved in the illegal trade. Governor-general of Guangdong and Guangxi Deng Tingzhen and the governor of Guangdong along with the Guangdong Customs Supervisor (粵海关部监督) issued an edict to this effect[7] although Jardine remained in the country. Former Royal Navy officer Charles Elliot became Chief Superintendent of British Trade in China in 1838, by which time the number of Chinese opium addicts had grown to between four and twelve million.[8] Although some officials argued that a tax on opium would yield a profit for the imperial treasury, the Daoguang Emperor instead decided to stop the trade altogether and severely punish those involved. He then appointed respected scholar and government official Lin Zexu as Special Imperial Commissioner to enforce his will.

    Soon after his arrival in Canton in the middle of 1838, Lin wrote to Queen Victoria in an appeal to her moral responsibility to stop the opium trade.[9] The letter elicited no response (sources suggest that it was lost in transit),[10] but it was later reprinted in the London Times as a direct appeal to the British public. An edict from the Daoguang Emperor followed on 18 March,[11] emphasising the serious penalties for opium smuggling that would now apply.

    On 18 March 1839, Lin summoned the twelve Chinese merchants of the Cohong who acted as intermediaries for the foreign opium traders. He told them that all European merchants were to hand over the opium in their possession and cease trading in the drug forthwith.[11] The commissioner went on to call the Cohong “traitors” and accuse them of complicity in the illegal trade; they had three days to persuade the foreigners to forfeit their opium or two of them would be executed and their wealth and lands confiscated. Howqua, the leader of the Cohong passed Lin’s orders to the foreign merchants who subsequently convened a meeting of their Chamber of Commerce on 21 March. After the meeting, Howqua was told that Lin’s move was a bluff and his threats should be ignored. In fear for his life, the merchant then suggested that surrendering at least some contraband might assuage Lin. Lancelot Dent of Dent & Co. agreed to surrender a small quantity of the drug and others followed suit, even though the amounts offered represented only a tiny fraction of the foreign merchants’ total stock, which was worth millions of pounds.[12] The commissioner then backed down on his promise to execute members of the Cohong and instead invited the top foreign merchants including Dent[13] to his residence for interview. Without considering the potential repercussions and with Jardine gone from Canton, Lin decided to behead Dent as an example to the other traders and force them to hand over all their opium. Dent was warned by his friends[14] that in 1774 an individual who had heeded such a summons ended up garroted[15] so he instead asked Howqua to tell Lin he would meet him provided he received a guarantee of safe conduct. Dent further stalled by sending Robert Inglis, one of his partners, to a meeting with Lin’s subordinates. Charles Elliot then ordered all British ships in Canton to head for the safety of Hong Kong island before he himself arrived at the foreign factories on 24 March, 1839, three days after the expiry of Lin’s deadline. After raising the Union Jack, the British superintendent of trade announced that all foreign merchants were henceforth under the protection of the British government.[16] Chinese soldiers then sealed off access to the factory area and began a campaign to intimidate the foreign residents trapped inside. Elliot read out a petition stating that all opium was to be handed over, promising compensation from the British government for the costs of the merchandise, with a deadline of six pm on 27 March. By nightfall, British traders had agreed to surrender around 20,000 chests of opium (approximately 1,300 long tons (1,321 t))[5] with a value of 2,000,000 British pounds.[17] Even though Lin believed that the British had surrendered all their supplies, the factories remained in a state of virtual siege as the commissioner demanded that the Americans, the French, the Indians and the Dutch hand over a further 20,000 chests in total.[18] This would have been impossible; the French were absent from Canton at the time, the Indians and Americans claimed that any opium they held belonged to others while the Dutch did not deal in the drug.

    Lin’s initial plan called for the transport of the seized opium under Chinese guard to Lankit Island (Longxue Island), some 5 miles (8.0 km) south of the Bogue forts and 35 miles (56 km) from Canton. However, he agreed that men assigned by Elliot could instead carry out the task.[20] Deng Tingzhen together with Lin arrived at the Bogue on 11 April. According to a Chinese account of events, at this point Lin offered three catties[A] of tea for every one of opium surrendered.[21] The Jardine Matheson clippers Austin and Hercules moored in the river and began the transfer of opium in their holds but rough waters forced them to relocate to Chuanbi Island further down river and close to the Shajiao Fort (沙角炮台) outside Humen Town. By 21 May 1839, 20,283 chests had been unloaded at Chuanbi. Pleased with the outcome, Daogguang sent Lin a roebuck venison to symbolise an imminent promotion and a hand-written scroll inscribed with the Chinese characters for good luck and long life.[22] On 24 May, all foreign merchants previously involved in the opium trade received orders from Lin to leave China forever. They departed in a flotilla under the command of Charles Elliot, who by now had become persona non grata with the British government for his acquiescence to Chinese demands.

    Destruction of opium at Humen, June 1839
    Lin then set about destroying the seized opium. After encircling the site with a bamboo fence to prevent theft, three stone pits, lined with wood, were dug into which was poured the seized opium along with lime and salt. A minor interruption occurred when one man was caught trying to remove a quantity of the drug—he was beheaded on the spot.[23] Once the pits had been filled with sea water, labourers tramped the mixture to ensure the drug’s destruction. The residue was then flushed through a channel into the South China Sea while Lin said a prayer apologising for the pollution. The work commenced on 3 June 1839 and took a total of 23 days [24] When the task was finished, the American missionary, Elijah Coleman Bridgman, who witnessed events, commented: “The degree of care and fidelity, with which the whole work was conducted, far exceeded our expectations …”[25]

    Aftermath[edit]
    See also: First Opium War
    Once the opium had been destroyed, Elliot promised the merchants compensation for their losses from the British government. However, the country’s parliament had never agreed to such an offer, and instead thought that it was the Chinese government’s responsibility to pay reparations to the merchants. Frustrated that any repayment for the destroyed opium seemed unlikely, the merchants turned to William Jardine, who had left Canton just prior to Lin’s arrival. Jardine believed that open warfare was the only way to force compensation from the Qing authorities and in London he began a campaign to sway the British government,[26] meeting with Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston in October 1839. The following March, in the face of strong opposition from the among others the Chartists, the pro-war lobby eventually won 271 to 262 in a House of Commons debate on whether to despatch a naval force to China.[27] In the spring of 1840 an expeditionary force of sixteen warships and 31 other ships left India for China,[26] which would become involved in multiple Sino-British battles in the First Opium War that followed.

    WIKIPEDIA

  175. syon says:

    @Bill

    And a few more facts on the opium trade:

    Following the Battle of Plassey in 1757, Britain annexed the Bengal Presidency to its empire. After the British gained control the former monopoly on opium production held by the Mughal emperors passed to the East India Company (EIC) under the The East India Company Act, 1793.[11] However the EIC was £28 million in debt as a result of the Indian war and the insatiable demand for Chinese tea in the UK market, which had to be paid for in silver.[12][13] To redress the imbalance, the EIC began auctions of opium in Calcutta and saw its profits soar from the opium trade. Considering that importation of opium into China had been virtually banned by Chinese law, the East India Company established an elaborate trading scheme partially relying on legal markets, and partially leveraging illicit ones. British merchants carrying no opium would buy tea in Canton (now known as Guangzhou) on credit, and balance their debts by selling opium at auction in Calcutta. From there, the opium would reach the Chinese coast hidden aboard British ships then smuggled into China by native merchants. According to 19th Century sinologist Edward Parker, there were four types of opium smuggled into China from India: kung pan t’ou (公班土, gongban tu or “Patna”); Pak t’ou (白土, bai tu or “Malwa”); Persian, Kem fa t’ou (金花土, jinhua tu) and the “smaller kong pan”, which was of a “dearer sort”, i.e. more expensive.[14] Supplies of the drug arrived in “chests”[B] in the form of small balls having originated in the Indian provinces of Bengal and Madras.

    In 1797 the EIC further tightened its grip on the opium trade by enforcing direct trade between opium farmers and the British, and ending the role of Bengali purchasing agents. British exports of opium to China grew from an estimated 15 long tons (15,000 kg) in 1730 to 75 long tons (76,000 kg) in 1773 shipped in over two thousand chests.[15] The Qing dynasty Jiaqing Emperor issued an imperial degree banning imports of the drug in 1799. By 1804 the trade deficit with China had turned into a surplus of seven million silver dollars between 1806 and 1809.[13] Meanwhile, the Americans entered the opium trade with an inferior Turkish product and by 1810 controlled around 10% of the trade in Canton.

    In the same year the emperor issued a further imperial edict:

    Opium has a harm. Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality. Its use is prohibited by law. Now the commoner, Yang, dares to bring it into the Forbidden City. Indeed, he flouts the law! However, recently the purchasers, eaters, and consumers of opium have become numerous. Deceitful merchants buy and sell it to gain profit. The customs house at the Ch’ung-wen Gate was originally set up to supervise the collection of imports (it had no responsibility with regard to opium smuggling). If we confine our search for opium to the seaports, we fear the search will not be sufficiently thorough. We should also order the general commandant of the police and police- censors at the five gates to prohibit opium and to search for it at all gates. If they capture any violators, they should immediately punish them and should destroy the opium at once. As to Kwangtung and Fukien, the provinces from which opium comes, we order their viceroys, governors, and superintendents of the maritime customs to conduct a thorough search for opium, and cut off its supply. They should in no ways consider this order a dead letter and allow opium to be smuggled out![16]

    The imperial decree had little effect. The Qing government, far away in Beijing in the north of China, was unable to halt opium smuggling in the southern provinces. A porous Chinese border and rampant local demand facilitated the trade and by the 1820s China was importing 900 long tons (910 t) of Bengali opium annually.[17]

    The opium trafficked into China was produced by the EIC at its two factories in Patna and Benares. In the 1820s, opium from Malwa in the non-British controlled part of India became available, and as prices fell due to competition, production was stepped up.[18]

    In addition to the drain of silver, by 1838 the number of Chinese opium addicts had grown to between four and twelve million[19] and the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court who advocated legalizing the trade so the government could tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In the same year, the Emperor sent Special Imperial Commissioner Lin Zexu to Canton, where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege in their factories, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed.

    WIKIPEDIA

  176. Sean says:

    @syon

    “Frankly, I’m never sure about anything that Derrida says (cf Foucault’s quip about Derrida being an “obscurantist terrorist”). And, according to Derrida, everything is metaphorical in nature…”

    “Some have more nature than others, more genius, more generosity, more seed. … (Derrida 1982: 244-5) ”

    I’ll let others decide if that is metaphorical, and who he is talking about.

    ——

    “Did I say that the PC gatekeepers are not Jews?”

    First you say my category of white gentiles is too broad, then you said the gatekeepers of political correctness are white; now you are saying you were including Jews as white. Words are polysemic, but you are deliberately switching the clearly implied meanings mid-discussion.

    —–
    “KM is the one who says that Nordics are natural Kantians, dear boy, not me”

    The societies of north West Europeans have introduced moral standards, such as gay rights, that no one dreamt of 100 years ago. Kevin MacDonald’s theories about human groups are based on social identity. It is well established that ideas become more and more extreme among a group. But, the original ideas didn’t come from nowhere.

  177. Bill says:

    @syon

    We’re talking about KM’s academic work. His academic work is based on things like evolutionary biology and social identity theory. In his academic work, he doesn’t talk about partisan politics or describe Jews or anyone in else in moral or emotive terms like “good” or “bad” or “incubus”. Have you even read his academic work? If you have a problem with his academic work, you have a problem with evolutionary biology or with the inferences he draws from evolutionary biology, not with his partisan politics.

    I’m familiar with the POC narrative. The POC narrative is not identical with any and all anti-colonial, nationalist narratives, nor with any and all domestic non-white nationalist narratives, such as that of some separatist flavors of Nation of Islam black nationalism. The contemporary POC narrative is anti-majoritarian i.e. anti-White majoritarian. It’s a globalist, morally supremacist, anti-separatist narrative that’s modeled on a certain leftist Jewish diaspora narrative, and even some of its earliest articulation came from people like Sontag i.e. “The white race is the cancer of human history”.

    I never said that no White Gentiles traded in opium. Nor is this about the trading of commodities in general. Your posts said nothing about the domination of the opium trade. See Eze Nathan’s “History of Jews in Singapore” and Musleah’s On the Banks of the Ganga” for the Jewish domination of the opium trade.

  178. @Svigor

    We can test whether we’re being rational by comparing how many words we devote to other liberal, high-average-IQ minorities.

    Asian-Americans:
    1. Vote more liberal than Jews (73% in 2012 for Obama vs. Jews’ 69%).
    2. Are more ethnocentric than Jews. The Asian-American intermarriage rate is 28% and declining, while the Jewish intermarriage rate is 71% and rising. (Or 53% and rising if we include the Amish-like Jews).
    3. Are increasing as share of the US population even while Whites decrease, and (non-Amish) Jews will largely disappear due to intermarriage.

    2 years ago, my White Liberal friends were passing around this article: Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. Those liberals made the same argument you’re making, that “it’s on average true,” and only a fool would think they mean 100% of Straight White Males. The reason they didn’t want to say “‘many‘ or ‘upper class‘ Straight White Males” is because they wanted to bypass people’s rational thinking ability and vilify Straight White Males as a form of collective racial punishment.

    For our purposes, why not just say “Jewish liberals”? It’s more accurate, and that’s what we mean.

    It would be true to say the US is generally very warm compared to Russia, but a Russian visiting Minnesota in the winter without a jacket would suddenly appreciate the value of accuracy. Despite generalizations, most US states are cold in the winter, and most Jews oppose immigration.

    In many ways, liberalism is Jewishness. Jews are the brain trust of American liberalism. They’re the bank of American liberalism.

    If Jews were liberalism, then academia wouldn’t be organizing boycotts against Israelis. Accuracy in our thinking matters.

  179. Some sources for that post:
    1. Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is

    2a. Asian-Americans are increasingly voting Democrat, reaching 73% in 2012. But later data suggested a more accurate number would be 77%.
    2b. Jews voted Democrat 69% in 2012. (That number was higher from 1992-2008.)

  180. @dearieme

    Ian Tomlinson was a Millwall fan rivals of West Ham United who have a lot of fans in the media.

    It was a shameful case; the old boy had been no conceivable danger to anyone. The media response was rather muted. Why?

  181. syon says:

    “Some have more nature than others, more genius, more generosity, more seed. … (Derrida 1982: 244-5) ”

    I’ll let others decide if that is metaphorical, and who he is talking about.

    Well, again, according to Jackie Derrida, it’s metaphors all the way down….
    ——

    “First you say my category of white gentiles is too broad,”

    Too broad in some contexts, dear boy. Not broad enough in others.

    “then you said the gatekeepers of political correctness are white;”

    which they are, dear fellow.

    “now you are saying you were including Jews as white.”

    Because they are, dear fellow. Just study the 19th century miscegenation statutes.

    ” Words are polysemic, but you are deliberately switching the clearly implied meanings mid-discussion.”

    MMM, my implied meaning of White has always included White Jews, dear boy. Now, there are non-White Jews (cf the Falasha), but they are not the focus of the conversation.

    —–

    “KM is the one who says that Nordics are natural Kantians, dear boy, not me”

    The societies of north West Europeans have introduced moral standards, such as gay rights, that no one dreamt of 100 years ago. Kevin MacDonald’s theories about human groups are based on social identity. It is well established that ideas become more and more extreme among a group. But, the original ideas didn’t come from nowhere.

    KM’s theory holds that Nordics are genetically predisposed to moral universalism; how he squares that with things like General Plan Ost, the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, Apartheid, the conquest of Australia, etc, is something of a mystery….

  182. @syon

    I haven’t followed your debate, I haven’t even read this one comment, just the last paragraph in it:

    KM’s theory holds that Nordics are genetically predisposed to moral universalism; how he squares that with things like General Plan Ost, the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, Apartheid, the conquest of Australia, etc, is something of a mystery….

    There is no paradox here. Nobody said Nordics never, ever were (or are) capable of moral particularism. It’s just that – according to MacDonald – moral universalism comes easier to them than to most other peoples and races in the world. I think this is one of his least controversial and easiest to accept propositions.

    When during the Second World War Nazi propaganda spread word that Russians were raping and murdering Germans in the East, many Germans responded with expressions of overwhelming guilt and fear that it was a just punishment meted out by God against them. Cf. Richard J. Evans: The Third Reich at War, pp. 553-562, e.g. this passage (p. 561): “The last two years of the war were filled with atrocity propaganda emanating from Goebbels’s mass media: the Red Army in particular was portrayed, not entirely inaccurately, as hell-bent on raping and killing Germans as it advanced. Yet the effects of this were not what Goebbels intended. Far from leading to a strengthening of resolve amongst ordinary Germans, this propaganda only served to reveal deep-seated feelings of guilt that they had done nothing to prevent the Jews being killed. Such a feeling was an unexpected by-product of the continuing Christian convictions of the great majority of German citizens.” Or perhaps a by-product of their evolutionary heritage, which a century of nationalism and a decade of turbocharged National Socialist propaganda were unable to erase.

  183. Sean says:

    @syon

    “General Plan Ost, the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, Apartheid” are wars which are political events betreen organised states. Jews have never had that till recently, so it’s not relevant to MacDonald’s thesis, except where he discusses Israel As you bring it up, the Nordic countries (England and the US) fought wars for universalist reasons. Palmerston’s policy was emancipatory right down the line . How was it in the interests of the British to protect native Americans from Ben Franklin George Washington and their pals, or use their Navy to fight the international slave trade (1807), ban slavery throughout the British Empire (1833) ; ban Afrikaners from keeping slaves and arm tens of thousands of black Africans and use them against Afrikaners. What was the American civil war about if not moral universalism. Why did the Nordics not join the Nazis, eh? Where did votes for women and gay rights come from if not Nordics. It is true north west European culture is not the same as it was 10,000 of 1,000 ofr100 years ago. But no onecould deny that north west european culture is becomeing ever more emacipatory; it even extends sympathy to animals as when the Yellowstone Wapiti sow Grizzly killed a man, and they they let it go because it was just defending it’s cubs (they thought). The mother of that girl killed by coyotes Steve mentioned the other week, didn’t want the coyotes put down. That style of thinking only took over in north west European culture. Kevin MacDonald says that is connected to the hereditary propensities of ethnic north west Europeans. If he was right he wouldn’t have got anywhere. He didn’t, unlike Derrida who was feted by the people MacDonald tried to reach.

    It seems to me, my dear syon, that you think (a la Derrida) you can always show there is no actual meaning of a word . However, in White mythology Derrida is talking about the proto-Nazi style of actual biological white men (the essay specifically excludes women ) and their supposed claims that each word has a proper meaning , which Derrida clearly implies is connected to white men being worse human beings, what with all their colonising and conquering (which you explicitly brought in too). So I am afraid, my dear syon, you don’t understand Derrida very well, or you are trolling.

  184. Anonymous says:

    @syon

    I don’t think his professional academic research has been about “Nordics” or northern Europeans or Europeans more generally. I think he has speculated about them in his blogging and more informal writings, but I don’t think his professional academic research has focused on them.

  185. Anonymous says:

    @syon

    You still support Israel, don’t you? Do you support race based states for any other nations? Or just for Israelis?

  186. Svigor says:

    I don’t think his professional academic research has been about “Nordics” or northern Europeans or Europeans more generally. I think he has speculated about them in his blogging and more informal writings, but I don’t think his professional academic research has focused on them.

    Whites are bad Bad BAD when they speculate. Jews are good Good GOOD when they bomb civilian populations.

  187. syon says:

    You still support Israel, don’t you? Do you support race based states for any other nations? Or just for Israelis?

    Actually, no, I don’t support Israel.

  188. syon says:

    @Anonymous

    I don’t think his professional academic research has been about “Nordics” or northern Europeans or Europeans more generally. I think he has speculated about them in his blogging and more informal writings, but I don’t think his professional academic research has focused on them.

    Oh, I suppose that I am being unfair to KM by bringing up his “non-professional” writings (cf, for example, his hilarious review of THE HOBBIT; apparently Tolkien’s Hobbits are fictional avatars of KM’s Nordic man).

  189. syon says:

    @Sean

    ““General Plan Ost, the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, Apartheid” are wars which are political events betreen organised states. Jews have never had that till recently, so it’s not relevant to MacDonald’s thesis, except where he discusses Israel”

    But, dear boy, such things are terribly relevant to KM’s curious notion that Nordics are naturally universalistic in terms of their ethics….

    “As you bring it up, the Nordic countries (England and the US) fought wars for universalist reasons. Palmerston’s policy was emancipatory right down the line . How was it in the interests of the British to protect native Americans from Ben Franklin George Washington and their pals, or use their Navy to fight the international slave trade (1807), ban slavery throughout the British Empire (1833) ;”

    MMMM, a good deal of academic thinking argues that Britain’s anti-slavery policy was predatory in nature, dear boy. In BLACK JACOBINS, for example, CLR James argues that Britain’s anti-slavery moves were powered by the English desire to weaken the French.

    As for Britain’s Amerind policy, follow the money, dear boy. Fighting Amerinds and protecting English settlers costs money (cf Pontiac’s Rebellion).

    ” ban Afrikaners from keeping slaves and arm tens of thousands of black Africans and use them against Afrikaners.”

    MMM, seeing as how it aided the British in their conquest of the Boer Republics, I would say that they had ample incentive….

    “What was the American civil war about if not moral universalism.”

    MMMM, well, I could bring up the always interesting topic of rival economic systems….

    “Why did the Nordics not join the Nazis, eh?”

    That one is a bit too easy, dear fellow. Power politics. No one wants to be ordered around.

    “Where did votes for women and gay rights come from if not Nordics.”

    MMMM, many Leftists have noted that votes for women and Gay rights are a mere smokescreen for Western domination, dear boy….

    ” It is true north west European culture is not the same as it was 10,000 of 1,000 ofr100 years ago. But no onecould deny that north west european culture is becomeing ever more emacipatory; it even extends sympathy to animals as when the Yellowstone Wapiti sow Grizzly killed a man, and they they let it go because it was just defending it’s cubs (they thought). The mother of that girl killed by coyotes Steve mentioned the other week, didn’t want the coyotes put down. That style of thinking only took over in north west European culture. Kevin MacDonald says that is connected to the hereditary propensities of ethnic north west Europeans. If he was right he wouldn’t have got anywhere. He didn’t, unlike Derrida who was feted by the people MacDonald tried to reach.”

    But that’s the whole point, dear fellow. KM feels that Nordic Man is genetically driven to such things. Hence, the lack of evidence for Nordic moral universalism 1,000 years ago is rather telling…

    “It seems to me, my dear syon, that you think (a la Derrida) you can always show there is no actual meaning of a word . ”

    To the contrary, dear boy. That’s why I have to be so circumspect around my colleagues.

    ‘However, in White mythology Derrida is talking about the proto-Nazi style of actual biological white men (the essay specifically excludes women )”

    Probably has something to do with Derrida’s silly notions about phallogocentrism; as DH Lawrence would have said, the poor man has sex in the head….

    “and their supposed claims that each word has a proper meaning , which Derrida clearly implies is connected to white men being worse human beings, what with all their colonising and conquering (which you explicitly brought in too). So I am afraid, my dear syon, you don’t understand Derrida very well, or you are trolling.”

    Does anyone understand Derrida very well? He did, after all, devote his career to the goal of being as obscure and ambiguous as possible.

  190. syon says:

    @reiner Tor

    There is no paradox here. Nobody said Nordics never, ever were (or are) capable of moral particularism. It’s just that – according to MacDonald – moral universalism comes easier to them than to most other peoples and races in the world. I think this is one of his least controversial and easiest to accept propositions.

    MMM, well, based on things like the Conquest of Australia, The Thirty Years War, The Holocaust, the Nazi mass murder of Soviet POWs, England’s role in the Atlantic Slave Trade during the 18th century, General Plan Ost, the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, etc, etc, I would say that the evidence points away from the notion that Nordics come more readily to moral universalism than do other peoples…

  191. syon says:

    @Bill

    “We’re talking about KM’s academic work. His academic work is based on things like evolutionary biology and social identity theory. In his academic work, he doesn’t talk about partisan politics or describe Jews or anyone in else in moral or emotive terms like “good” or “bad” or “incubus”. ”

    But KM argues in his academic work that that the output of academics (Adorno, Boas, etc) is driven by their ethnic concerns. Hence, their private opinions are very germane to KM’s critique. Hence, by looking at KM’s obiter dicta, I’m simply using KM’s own methodology….

    “Have you even read his academic work? ”

    If I hadn’t, dear fellow, I wouldn’t be at all interested in his, shall we say, off the cuff comments

    “If you have a problem with his academic work, you have a problem with evolutionary biology or with the inferences he draws from evolutionary biology, not with his partisan politics.”

    But again, dear fellow, KM argues that there is no such thing as disinterested scholarship. Hence his efforts to show how Jewish thinkers like Boas are merely serving the Jewish agenda. Why should KM be immune to his own theories?

    “I’m familiar with the POC narrative. The POC narrative is not identical with any and all anti-colonial, nationalist narratives, nor with any and all domestic non-white nationalist narratives, such as that of some separatist flavors of Nation of Islam black nationalism. The contemporary POC narrative is anti-majoritarian i.e. anti-White majoritarian.”

    which is to say that it is globally majoritarian…..

    ” It’s a globalist, morally supremacist, anti-separatist narrative that’s modeled on a certain leftist Jewish diaspora narrative, and even some of its earliest articulation came from people like Sontag i.e. “The white race is the cancer of human history”.”

    MMMM, well, in true in SWPL fashion she did remove people like Pete Seegar from the “cancer” list…

    “I never said that no White Gentiles traded in opium. Nor is this about the trading of commodities in general. Your posts said nothing about the domination of the opium trade. See Eze Nathan’s “History of Jews in Singapore” and Musleah’s On the Banks of the Ganga” for the Jewish domination of the opium trade.”

    MMM, but those White Gentile trading houses were the dominant players in the China Trade, and their most profitable commodity was opium (cf The First Opium War)….Seems to me that you need to provide some actual quotes that show that Jews controlled the opium trade, dear fellow. Right now, they are badly outnumbered by White Gentiles…

  192. Anonymous says:

    @syon

    Your comment history suggests otherwise.

  193. Anonymous says:

    @syon

    Yes, that would be unfair since the topic is MacDonald’s professional research, which I don’t think you’ve read. It would be like criticizing Newtonian mechanics without reading Newton’s work on physics and simply focusing on Newton’s mystical and religious writings.

    Tolkien was explicitly influenced by Nordic mythology, so that’s not too controversial.

  194. Anonymous says:

    @Sean

    Those aren’t the best examples.

    The Brits didn’t fight the Colonials to protect American Indians from “Ben Franklin George Washington and their pals”.

    The British Empire may have formally ended slavery, but it still liked and pursued de facto slave labor via policy instruments like the hut tax. In fact after the Boer War, the British Empire introduced the hut tax in South Africa. The hut tax was where the British would go to every hut in a village and impose taxes to be paid in some commodity or British currency, which of course the villagers didn’t have but now needed. The villagers would be thus forced to work in British owned gold and diamond mines and plantations to get the shillings to pay the taxes. This was extortion and de facto slavery. When the Mafia extorts people, nobody cites that as evidence of Sicilian “moral universalism”.

    The Federal Government didn’t fight the Civil War for “moral universalism”. Lincoln and others in the Union didn’t see blacks as moral equals and wanted to return blacks to Africa.

    Most of the European opposition to the Nazis was motivated by good old fashioned nationalism and concern for imperial interests. The Nazis and the Axis threatened both the national independence and sovereignty of the European nations in Europe, and the European empires. The British started offering concessions to the Indians because of Nazi and Japanese support for anti-British Indian nationalists. In the US, there was much greater support and interest in fighting Japan rather than Germany, and not just because of Pearl Harbor, but because of racial reasons and Japan being more foreign.

  195. Bill says:

    @syon

    You haven’t addressed KM’s ethnic concerns or his academic work.

    I don’t know if you have read KM’s academic work. There’s no indication you have since you don’t address anything about his academic work.

    KM never argues that “there is no such thing as disinterested scholarship.” And KM never claims that he or anyone else is immune to his theories. If you’ve read his academic work, you should know this, since he discusses other groups besides Jews in his professional academic work.

    There is no such thing as “global majoritarianism” since there is no “global” race. “Global majoritarianism” is minority supremacism on a global scale.

    I’ve already pointed out two very good sources that document how Jewish traders dominated the opium trade.

  196. syon says:

    @Anonymous

    Yes, that would be unfair since the topic is MacDonald’s professional research, which I don’t think you’ve read.

    Oh, I’ve read it, dear fellow. As for it being unfair, I’ve changed my thinking on that. So much of KM’s work involves examining things that lie outside the sphere of professional work (Freud’s private letters, Boas’ personal comments, etc). Hence, looking at KM’s non-theoretical writings seems fair game. I am, after all, simply following the example of the master.

    “Your comment history suggests otherwise.”

    To the unobservant, perhaps….

  197. syon says:

    @Bill

    “You haven’t addressed KM’s ethnic concerns or his academic work.”

    Seems to me that I’ve been doing nothing but addressing KM’s “ethnic concerns.” As for his academic work, my comments have followed KM’s methods. In other words, I have approached them indirectly via his obiter dicta.

    “I don’t know if you have read KM’s academic work. There’s no indication you have since you don’t address anything about his academic work.”

    You’ve simply not been paying attention, dear boy…

    “KM never argues that “there is no such thing as disinterested scholarship.” And KM never claims that he or anyone else is immune to his theories. If you’ve read his academic work, you should know this, since he discusses other groups besides Jews in his professional academic work.”

    Actually he does, dear boy. His whole work on the, ahem, Culture of Critique is predicated on the notion that “disinterested scholarship” does not exist.

    “There is no such thing as “global majoritarianism” since there is no “global” race. “Global majoritarianism” is minority supremacism on a global scale.”

    MMM, you’ve not been keeping up with the avant garde, dear boy. According to current thinking, Mankind (may the PC saints forgive my gendered phrasing) is divided into two: the People of Color and Whites. Since the POC are the majority of the world’s population, they are the voice of Humanity. Whites are simply an oppressive minority.

    “I’ve already pointed out two very good sources that document how Jewish traders dominated the opium trade.”

    No, you’ve simply named two books and said that they say that Jews dominated the Opium Trade. Why don’t you just post a few salient quotes from these texts? Just find a passage that contains something along the lines of “In 1840, Jews controlled 60% of the opium trade in China.”

  198. @syon

    Actually he does, dear boy. His whole work on the, ahem, Culture of Critique is predicated on the notion that “disinterested scholarship” does not exist.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. MacDonald explicitly states the criteria based on which he categorizes scholarship as “ethnic activism”. He even gives examples of Jewish scholars whose work he considers disinterested scholarship, even though the scholars themselved were obviously not disinterested. Apparently you never read The Culture of Critique.

    As to your examples of Nordic ethnocentrism, apparently you didn’t understand my point. My point was that a few or even many examples only prove that Nordics are capable of ethnocentrism. But nobody stated the opposite. You need to put these examples into context, e.g. by comparing Nordics and other races or ethnic groups in similar situations, or create studies comparing their behavior in similar situations from childhood on. Like Germans vs Japanese after WW2, which of these feels more guilt because their own ethnic group broke universal moral standards, and which of them is still ethnocentric regardless. Or studies comparing Norwegian vs Vietnamese children. Or something similar. MacDonald’s thesis needs more research, but can’t be disproved by a few counter-examples.

  199. @reiner Tor

    Just to be more explicit, what needs to be shown is whether Nordics are not any more predisposed to moral universalism than others like Chinese, Jews, Africans, Middle Easterners etc. Because that was MacDonald’s original assertion.

    Obviously MacDonald’s statement about Nordics is a mere statistical assertion, i.e. that on average, Nordics are more predisposed to moral universalism and less predisposed to moral particularism than others, and nowhere did he state that Nordics were incapable of moral particularism.

  200. Sean says:

    Derrida increasingly was playing games in his latter career, but early on, as in White Mythology, he was quite clear. Anyone can read that essay and see for themselves.
    ——
    Apparently non-Jewish Europeans would have to have been committing national suicide for a thousand years for it to be admitted that they have, relatively speaking, had rather universalist ideologies. It is true that emancipatory policies like banning slavery were not national suicide, but the rhetoric was universalist. If you look at it overall, there is a pattern.
    —–

    “But that’s the whole point, dear fellow. KM feels that Nordic Man is genetically driven to such things. Hence, the lack of evidence for Nordic moral universalism 1,000 years ago is rather telling…”

    Apparently you think if non Jewish Europeans were not flying about in jet planes a thousand years ago, that proves subsequent non-Jewish European aerospace technology innovation could have had nothing to do with the genetic traits of non-Jewish Europeans.

  201. syon says:

    @Sean

    Derrida increasingly was playing games in his latter career, but early on, as in White Mythology, he was quite clear. Anyone can read that essay and see for themselves.

    Actually, the reverse is true. Derrida became more plain-speaking towards the end of his career. Cf, for example, SPECTERS OF MARX, where Derrida makes his political views quite clear. It’s also interesting to note that SPECTERS seems to be especially popular nowadays…
    ——

    Apparently non-Jewish Europeans would have to have been committing national suicide for a thousand years for it to be admitted that they have, relatively speaking, had rather universalist ideologies. It is true that emancipatory policies like banning slavery were not national suicide, but the rhetoric was universalist. If you look at it overall, there is a pattern.

    And these universalist ideologies have their sources in the non-Nordic Mediterranean world (Paul, Stoic philosophy, etc). This is the reverse of what KM’s Nordic hypothesis would have predicted…
    —–

    Apparently you think if non Jewish Europeans were not flying about in jet planes a thousand years ago, that proves subsequent non-Jewish European aerospace technology innovation could have had nothing to do with the genetic traits of non-Jewish Europeans.

    MMM, as noted above, dear fellow, the problem lies in the fact that the well-spring of these universalist notions lies in the Mediterranean, not in the North. Couple that with the fact that things like the rise of anti-slavery sentiment are less than three centuries old, and KM’s theory that Nordics are innate Kantians starts looking like special pleading….

  202. syon says:

    @reiner Tor

    Nothing could be further from the truth. MacDonald explicitly states the criteria based on which he categorizes scholarship as “ethnic activism”. He even gives examples of Jewish scholars whose work he considers disinterested scholarship, even though the scholars themselved were obviously not disinterested. Apparently you never read The Culture of Critique.

    Oh, I did read it, dear fellow. And I made note of the way in which he carefully examined figures like Boas, scrutinizing their biographies for any sign of what might be taken for ethnocentrism (cf, for example, his dilating on Mead’s Prussian dig regarding Boas).

    As for disinterested scholarship…..Well, he did make reference to Einstein…..Of course, given that Einstein’s field was physics, one suspects that the opportunities for advancing the Jewish evolutionary agenda were somewhat limited, at least in terms of the actual scientific work…

    As to your examples of Nordic ethnocentrism, apparently you didn’t understand my point. My point was that a few or even many examples only prove that Nordics are capable of ethnocentrism. But nobody stated the opposite. You need to put these examples into context, e.g. by comparing Nordics and other races or ethnic groups in similar situations,

    Which is what I did. I see little difference between, say, Stalin and Hitler….Well, Stalin was more cautious and less obviously racially motivated….

    or create studies comparing their behavior in similar situations from childhood on. Like Germans vs Japanese after WW2, which of these feels more guilt because their own ethnic group broke universal moral standards, and which of them is still ethnocentric regardless. Or studies comparing Norwegian vs Vietnamese children. Or something similar. MacDonald’s thesis needs more research, but can’t be disproved by a few counter-examples.

    And such research would need to screen-out the effects of ideology, childhood moral conditioning, etc.

    Just to be more explicit, what needs to be shown is whether Nordics are not any more predisposed to moral universalism than others like Chinese, Jews, Africans, Middle Easterners etc. Because that was MacDonald’s original assertion.

    And also bear in mind that KM’s thesis holds that non-Nordic Europeans are less disposed to moral universalism than Nordics….

    Obviously MacDonald’s statement about Nordics is a mere statistical assertion, i.e. that on average, Nordics are more predisposed to moral universalism and less predisposed to moral particularism than others, and nowhere did he state that Nordics were incapable of moral particularism.

    Which is why events like the Thirty Years War and the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland are important. If Nordics differ on a statistical level, we should expect to see less “other” directed violence committed by Nordics in the distant past.

  203. Sean says:

    “Actually, the reverse is true. Derrida became more plain-speaking towards the end of his career. Cf, for example, SPECTERS OF MARX, where Derrida makes his political views quite clear. It’s also interesting to note that SPECTERS seems to be especially popular nowadays…”

    Then it should be easy for you to quote us some of it, I would be interested in an example of this plain speaking, which you claim for the later Derrida. I have already given my example, and I think it is clear that in White Mythology he was talking about actual genetic white men.
    ———–
    “And these universalist ideologies have their sources in the non-Nordic Mediterranean world (Paul, Stoic philosophy, etc). This is the reverse of what KM’s Nordic hypothesis would have predicted…”

    The Aztecs had the wheel. The Ancient Greeks had a steam engine.

  204. Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


Remember My Information 

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All iSteve Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
ABC's Epic Steel-cage Smackdown
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?