One Weird Trick
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
It's weird but—once immigration policies turn your country into a seething cauldron of intractable inter-ethnic conflicts—it begins to feel like you're living in a seething cauldron of intractable inter-ethnic conflicts. pic.twitter.com/wGw1VTcEW1
— J Burton (@JBurtonXP) March 6, 2018
https://twitter.com/mentalmillenni1/status/970876504170270720
He’s quoting Amy Chua. She has new book out basically letting whites off the hook for being racist. You need watch her real time with bill Maher segement where she gets DESTROYED by Eric Holder
white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. No group should ever feel comfortably dominant. What gross privilege is this that thinks it’s a necessity?
“...white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. …”Tiny Duck:
“white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them.”
A semi-colon after “dominant” then “; they ARE” with ARE capitalized and the “&” ampersand (not the word and) along with the exact words seems to be an unattributed quotation. Bad, Bad!!https://web.archive.org/web/20180306222734/https:/twitter.com/Lily_Warrior/status/970688681404260352
Tiny Duck wrote:Here is the longer quote from Professor Chua:Another statement in the book:This lady is playing a very, very dangerous and very courageous game: she is trying to tell the truth in a society where telling the truth can destroy one's career and even one's life.
Please note: I am not suggesting that Professor Chua is "alt right." She probably considers herself a liberal in good standing and, in a sane society, would be accepted by other liberals as such. But, if liberals do actually read this book... Ms. Chua has some interesting experiences ahead of her!
Incidentally, a while back my wife had a brief email exchange with Professor Chua: she was of course a courteous and pleasant person.
Courage is admirable, and, indeed, moral courage is much less common than raw physical courage. Amy Chua deserves the respect of anyone who cares about the truth.
Divide and conquer is a very old strategy.
Does that include Africans in Africa? Since I think Cecil Rhodes admirably prevented African dominance in Africa. President Xi hopes to repoeat that onbe weird trick.
Asking for a friend.
Anyway this is just my opinion but I think most Americans will look the other way while xi does what Rhodes did....the chicoms dont have the qualms we do about fixing Africa
Well, that was the whole objective of the 1965 immigration act, wasn’t it? Now Ezra’s group can rest easier among the division, although Kristalnacht 2 is always lurking just around the corner. Everyone knows that every White American a jackbooted SS member-in-waiting.
I think Amy Chua is right in one way – the condition she describes may be objectively true. But she is wrong in another way. Some groups (e.g. Jews, blacks) could never be the majority and, yet, for some reason appear to harbor an irrational hostility toward the existing majority. Therefore, given the choice between living under that majority comfortably and stably or Balkanizing the society so their relative power improves vis-à-vis that majority, despite the increase in general instability, they seem to favor policies that lead to the latter.
For me, not only is the dominant Angl0-American culture (and the native white majority that enables it) appealing and desirable, it is also objectively beneficial for non- and part-whites who live in it, so it’s also in the interests of non-whites to want to maintain the native white majority.
So I find the political behaviors of these groups irrational, short-sighted, and quite incomprehensible.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
I thought your view was that the division is between whites and the coalition of the fringes? Which would make America about as divisive as it’s always been.
From regionalism to nationalism to universalism to tribalism.
The US used to be a union of states, each with considerable autonomy. This was before highways and telephones, so local community was the reality that most people knew. This regional localism could take on tribal coloring because different ethnic groups dominated different areas. Welsh here, Germans there, Scots-Irish over there, etc. From all these differences, there rose nationalism to bring everyone together. Two major agents were Westward expansion and Civil War. While the Eastern states were more rooted in ethnic heritage and dominance, the westward expansion brought many peoples together in the great scramble for land and search for gold and other riches. And the Civil War decided once and for all that American Nationhood trumped regionalism, localism, and semi-tribalism.
Nationalism wasn’t quite tribalism. It had a sense of our nation vs other nations, but its effect was anti-tribal because a people of a nation could feel secure in their own nation(as long as the nation is organic). After all, tribalism is as much a state of mind as a cultural or political practice. For instance, if there are People A, B, and C and if each people had their own nation, each people wouldn’t feel very tribal since their nation would be made up of people like themselves. People A could relax in Nation A, people B could relax in Nation B, and people C could relax in Nation C. Even if we argue nationalism is a form of ‘tribalism’, it decreases the tribalist mindset within the nation because people feel secure in their own domain. But suppose people A, people B, and people C were made to live in the same nation. Then, tribal mindset will come into play since no one will feel comfortable and at ease. Each group will feel that the OTHERS are working against them.
Nationalism is somewhere between tribalism and universalism/imperialism. If organic, it is the ideal Goldilocks rule.
And the US went from regionalism to nationalism. And this was more easily done in the US, unlike in Latin America, because the dominant folks in the US were mostly from Anglos. As for those who came from Germany and Scandinavia, they were racially so similar that they could easily assimilate into the Anglo model. Granted, some degree of compromise was necessary. Germans and Scandies would give up their cultures and become Anglo-Americanized BUT Anglo-Americans would ease up on Anglo-ness so that even non-Anglos would feel comfortable in making the change. After all, it’s easier to assimilate to a looser culture than a rigid culture. It was easier to become Anglo-American than Anglo-British with their hoity-toity ways.
And this served as the Template of future American nationalism… and it worked, for the most part, even with Europeans from Eastern and Southern parts, though it was rather difficult with Southern Italians, among the most corrupt people on Earth. And I’m not sure it worked all that well with white Hispanics with the possible exception of Cuban exiles. Too many white Hispanics from places like Puerto Rico seem hopelessly lacking in character.
Anyway, fast-forward to the post-65 era… and we learn everything has a breaking point.
In the 19th century, Anglo-Americans made the national identity and character a bit blander and looser so as to accommodate non-Anglos. Americanism became a more generic form of Anglo identity, one that would appeal to Germans, Scandies, Irish, and later others. Still, it retained enough of its original character and meaning.
But in the age of Diversity when huge numbers of non-whites must be made to ‘feel at home’ the minute they get off the boat, Americanism had to be made totally generic and bland and meaningless. The McAmerica. The Universal Nation. This way, anyone can feel at home since there is no specific Core Americanism. Americanism is just a way of life. People come here, watch TV, listen to Rap, go shopping, and play videogames….
… except that people need some kind of meaning in their lives. When Americanism has been made so bland, inclusive, comprehensive, and utterly flavorless, people crave meaning and identity. So, naturally, this gives rise to tribalism or some kind of identity politics based on genitalia(though with even penis and balls counting as ‘female’, it gets ever more confusing). When Anglo-Americanism was Americanism, those who became Anglo-Americanized felt some kind of meaningful identity of history and heritage, even if they weren’t Anglo. But with Anglo- totally detached from Americanism, many people simply didn’t find it satisfying to be just a Generic-American or McAmerican.
Also, some turn to tribalism out of great success and pride. Jewish success and power had led to new tribalism. Among blacks, it’s more complicated. In many areas, blacks have failed, and there is the tribalism of resentment. But they have dominated in sports and pop music, and that fills them with pride. Blacks feel better and worse than everyone else. Generally, those in the middle tend to be least tribal. Since they are not at the top, they don’t have pride of power. And since they aren’t are the bottom, they don’t have identity of resentment. But when the middle class status is threatened, it can lead to a kind of nascent quasi-fascist consciousness.
There is also self-generated tribalism and imposed ‘tribalism’ of ideology. Alt Right and nationalist whites have self-generated tribalism. They want autonomy of narrative and identity. They want to control their own destiny. The SJW’s follow the imposed ‘tribalism’ of ideology foisted upon them by the big media, academia, and entertainment, most of them controlled by Jewish elites. They are like Greek boys turned into Janissary against their own kind.
One major difference between Anglos and Jews. Anglos were both more inclusive and exclusive than Jews. They were obviously exclusive in the sense they favored Anglo and Northern European immigration. And Wasps had their own country club castles that made Jews feel like pop Kafkas.
BUT, Anglos were more inclusive in the sense that they were willing to share the Anglo template as an Americanizing tool for non-Anglos. Especially to assimilate huge numbers of Eastern and Southern Europeans, Anglo-Americans were willing to offer Anglo-ism as a means for them to become Americans. Though only Anglos were real Anglos, even non-Anglos could become Anglo-ized and become like ersatz members of Anglo-America. And even many Jews, esp German ones, took up the bait and decided to become like Anglo-Americanized Jews.
This was the inclusive Anglo-Template when the US was Anglo-ruled.
But Jews came to rule America. In some ways, via massive increase in immigration, Jews made America more inclusive to the world. BUT, if Anglos put forth their own culture as the template to be shared by OTHER peoples, Jews have not done this. Jewishness is only for Jews. Since Jews are the new elites of the US, shouldn’t they present Jewishness as the new template of Americanism for all? But Jews are unwilling to do this since they want to guard Jewishness for their own Tribe.
This poses a problem. When Anglos let in lots of people, the Anglo model was put forth for others to study, appreciate, and emulate. Also, Anglos weren’t only interested in making people assimilate culturally but help them improve themselves morally. The idea was there was something advanced and useful about the Anglo model. So, Anglos wanted Greeks, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, and etc to become more Anglo in identification, manners, attitude, and values.
In contrast, as pervasive as Jewishisms are in American culture(especially in comedy), Jews don’t put forth Jewishness as a template for non-Jews to follow. Jews don’t want non-Jews to become ersatz Jews. Also, if Anglos wanted non-Anglos to improve themselves by following the more successful Anglo model, Jews don’t offer such constructive advice but rather encourage non-Jews to indulge in all sorts of vices such as gambling, whoring, decadence, pornography, drug abuse, swinging, tattooing, piercing, and dyeing hair green.
So, there is no more unifying template. Unlike Anglo elites who offered Anglo-ism(generously as well as threateningly) for all newcomers to partake of, Jewish elites tell the world to COME HERE but offer no unifying vision or values except WE NEED MORE AND MORE AND MORE, SO KEEP COMING.
For me, not only is the dominant Angl0-American culture (and the native white majority that enables it) appealing and desirable, it is also objectively beneficial for non- and part-whites who live in it, so it's also in the interests of non-whites to want to maintain the native white majority.
So I find the political behaviors of these groups irrational, short-sighted, and quite incomprehensible.
“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” – Lee Kuan Yew
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html
J Burton is great to follow on Twitter. He only tweets once or twice per day, but he makes up in quality what he lacks in quantity.
We were trying to play a nice simple game of “civilization”. It was a lot of fun.
Now we’re up to our balls in munchkins, griefers, scrubs, casuals and noobs.
Western Civ v0.1965 sucks. Everything was better before the patch.
LEE KUAN KEW WAS RIGHT
BAN BUBBLE GUM NOW
It was literally impossible to wake anyone up to the immigration threat thirty years ago. And that is when it mattered.
Because Americans are largely innumerate and unable to understand population growth dynamics they were unable to detect the threat until it was too late. Also the unprecedented affluence of modern America made it easy to ignore whatever threat was detected.
If you rewound the clock it would all happen all over again.
For me, not only is the dominant Angl0-American culture (and the native white majority that enables it) appealing and desirable, it is also objectively beneficial for non- and part-whites who live in it, so it's also in the interests of non-whites to want to maintain the native white majority.
So I find the political behaviors of these groups irrational, short-sighted, and quite incomprehensible.
Jews and other American whites have a very strong mutual affection. You are disconnected from reality, too much Unz.com I’d say.
Jews are sort of an abstraction to most gentile white Americans. An abstraction that's generally viewed positively or at least not negatively. On the other hand, a lot of the political and cultural trends and figures that many ordinary gentile white Americans view negatively tend to be Jewish. I never knew Jews personally, nor did I know anybody that knew Jews personally, until I went to school and worked in New York. If I had never gone to New York, I may have never met Jews.
The following is an actual conversation I had with a politically conservative Jewish VIP in DC:
Me: Why don’t you support this (a pro-gun measure)? I thought you were a real conservative!
Him: (Laughing) I am, but, come on, you know my people are not into guns!
Me: (Puzzled) “My people”? What do you mean?
Him: Jews are not into guns. That’s for rednecks and hillbillies. Why would we make it easier for them to have guns?
Me: (Flabbergasted) Rednecks and hillbillies are Americans too. They are all our people. THEY vote our way!
Him: (Laughing embarrassingly) You know what I mean. Are you into guns?
Me: Yes. Wasn’t that obvious?
Him: (Looks at me oddly) Oh...
And that’s the last time I spoke with that guy even though I did him several helpful favors.
Ever since college, I’ve heard numerous Jews disparage “other whites.” It happened in academia, in government, and in business. I suspect they were open with me about this largely because they thought - as a nonwhite immigrant - I must be sympathetic to their view about the gentile white majority (though I also have a pretty good knack for getting people to speak freely, which came in handy when I did investigations). Almost always, the overtone, and often the actual substance, of what my Jewish interlocutor would say about Christian whites, especially those in “flyover country” was that they were less clever than Jews, but were liable to be dangerous/anti-Semitic. It was fear and loathing or, to paraphrase Amy Chua, a sense of superiority combined with insecurity.
Of course, I am by no means suggesting that all or even most Jews are like this. It’s just that in my particular experience, only large fractions among Jews and blacks* were openly hostile to gentile whites in conversations (though lately I’ve heard similar talk from Indians, i.e. South Asians).
*One work colleague of mine was a black woman with advanced degrees (father was an Ivy Leaguer; second husband was a corporate executive). She did very well for herself. After we had a few drinks together at a party, though, she told me that “White women are the enemy!” I had to break the subsequent awkward silence with, “My wife is white, you know. I don’t think she is your enemy.” This is the same woman, by the way, who later told me - sober - that Korean merchants stole from the black community in L.A. (whence she hailed) and deserved what came to them during the riots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ&bpctr=1520346031
I would not say Jews have a strong affection for gentile white Americans in general. If that were the case, our politics and culture would look quite different.
Jews are sort of an abstraction to most gentile white Americans. An abstraction that’s generally viewed positively or at least not negatively. On the other hand, a lot of the political and cultural trends and figures that many ordinary gentile white Americans view negatively tend to be Jewish. I never knew Jews personally, nor did I know anybody that knew Jews personally, until I went to school and worked in New York. If I had never gone to New York, I may have never met Jews.
I like him too but stopped reading because of his annoying habit of tweeting screenshots to things without links. When he has anything good Coulter will just RT and I can see it there.
Is that in case the perp then deletes the tweet? Or because he doesn't want to drive traffic to a site?
It’s always a ‘zero sum game.’ That’s why you don’t invite hordes of people who don’t much care for you to live in your country, and why nobody has ever considered such an idea before, let alone advocated for it.
Mass immigration to the West is sabotage combined with greed and one of the dirtiest deeds ever perpetrated, and we haven’t even seen the beginnings of the worst of it.
white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. No group should ever feel comfortably dominant. What gross privilege is this that thinks it's a necessity?
That’s right, Tiny. Now get back to work.
Yes, tovarish! Every day our production surpasses quotas by higher margins! Every year more and more young people vounteer to farm at the koloniyot!
In true Economist style, the answer is……..*More Immigration*
I’d say, in general, the affection is one-way, not mutual.
The following is an actual conversation I had with a politically conservative Jewish VIP in DC:
Me: Why don’t you support this (a pro-gun measure)? I thought you were a real conservative!
Him: (Laughing) I am, but, come on, you know my people are not into guns!
Me: (Puzzled) “My people”? What do you mean?
Him: Jews are not into guns. That’s for rednecks and hillbillies. Why would we make it easier for them to have guns?
Me: (Flabbergasted) Rednecks and hillbillies are Americans too. They are all our people. THEY vote our way!
Him: (Laughing embarrassingly) You know what I mean. Are you into guns?
Me: Yes. Wasn’t that obvious?
Him: (Looks at me oddly) Oh…
And that’s the last time I spoke with that guy even though I did him several helpful favors.
Ever since college, I’ve heard numerous Jews disparage “other whites.” It happened in academia, in government, and in business. I suspect they were open with me about this largely because they thought – as a nonwhite immigrant – I must be sympathetic to their view about the gentile white majority (though I also have a pretty good knack for getting people to speak freely, which came in handy when I did investigations). Almost always, the overtone, and often the actual substance, of what my Jewish interlocutor would say about Christian whites, especially those in “flyover country” was that they were less clever than Jews, but were liable to be dangerous/anti-Semitic. It was fear and loathing or, to paraphrase Amy Chua, a sense of superiority combined with insecurity.
Of course, I am by no means suggesting that all or even most Jews are like this. It’s just that in my particular experience, only large fractions among Jews and blacks* were openly hostile to gentile whites in conversations (though lately I’ve heard similar talk from Indians, i.e. South Asians).
*One work colleague of mine was a black woman with advanced degrees (father was an Ivy Leaguer; second husband was a corporate executive). She did very well for herself. After we had a few drinks together at a party, though, she told me that “White women are the enemy!” I had to break the subsequent awkward silence with, “My wife is white, you know. I don’t think she is your enemy.” This is the same woman, by the way, who later told me – sober – that Korean merchants stole from the black community in L.A. (whence she hailed) and deserved what came to them during the riots.
BAN BUBBLE GUM NOW
Kew?
“his annoying habit of tweeting screenshots to things without links”
Is that in case the perp then deletes the tweet? Or because he doesn’t want to drive traffic to a site?
For me, not only is the dominant Angl0-American culture (and the native white majority that enables it) appealing and desirable, it is also objectively beneficial for non- and part-whites who live in it, so it's also in the interests of non-whites to want to maintain the native white majority.
So I find the political behaviors of these groups irrational, short-sighted, and quite incomprehensible.
Why do so many of the commenters here state that jews hate white American Christians? I am a jew and have known many other jews and I have never heard anyone express that sentiment. I grant that if I think back to my childhood in the 40′s, I recall occasionally hearing someone pop off about discrimination against jews, but that was in a time when, in fact, jews were discriminated against in hiring and in other ways. That reality ebbed away after WW II and jews were accepted for the most part as participants in the general enterprise.
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one’s own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
I have a number of readers that I call alt-jew. They hold all of the same opinions you find on the alt-right, even with regards to liberal Jews. In fact, their analysis of liberal Jews is even more harsh. I suspect American Jews are going through a generational change in outlook, similar to what we are seeing with whites. The further you get from Boomers, the more hostile to Progressivism you get, but Boomers still dominate for now.
Hope lies in the actuarial tables.
And unlike some commenters here I don’t blame them for every ill in this world, like they are some sort of a nefarious cabal that acts in unison.
Regarding your claim that so many commentators here state they Jews hate white American Christians, I think that you're taking too literally what many of us mean when we says Jews. In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren't kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews' policies. But, of course, that's incredibly cumbersome so we just say "Jews."
Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren't too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil, but they do nothing to stop it. And, importantly, they are in a position - unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables - to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.
1. Yglesias Responds to My Post on How Jewish Nostalgia Drives Jewish Immigration Support:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/yglesias-responds-to-my-post-on-how/?highlight=matt+yglesias
2. In the United States of America, the main obstacle to an immigration deal is that anti-limitationists like Mr. Yglesias are mostly driven by old ethnic animuses that they constantly express but throw a fit whenever anybody else points out their irrational, hate-driven motivations
https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/959233487457808384?lang=en
Go do a Google Images search for "as a jew my fellow whites".
"Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one’s own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?"
Hey, what a goddamned surprise! AGAIN, it's all the goyim's fault!
Not ONCE can you people admit anything you do that bothers people, and you wonder why people have a problem with you.
Because Americans are largely innumerate and unable to understand population growth dynamics they were unable to detect the threat until it was too late. Also the unprecedented affluence of modern America made it easy to ignore whatever threat was detected.
If you rewound the clock it would all happen all over again.
Not just Americans. Europeans, too. And not just 30 years ago. Everyone is still asleep.
As Mr. Sailer has repeatedly pointed out, what he rightly describes as “the world’s most important graph”, is studiously ignored.
adequate food and medical care for them. When white societies collapse shortly,
we will see the largest famine in world history occur in Africa.
We want whites dead.
Once whites are wiped out= no more conflict.
We can finally have peace in a white-free world.
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
I don’t know if a lot of the commenters think all Jews hate white American Christians, but some of us (myself included) think that quite a few Jews in power, particularly in the entertainment industry, do have a great deal of contempt for and irrational fear of white Christians. Just look at what they choose to mock in movies, sit-coms, and comedy shows. And it’s ironic, given that white Christians are typically some of the strongest supports of Jews and defenders of Israel.
But if they get what they think they want, they'll be living in a Muslim country and will have eliminated Israel's main ally. So it goes.
The Christians at the same time have their seat assignment on Jesus 1, going to heaven.
I've seen Zyd opinion polling where 85% of them loathe christians, while 85% of Jesus freaks love the Zyds. So the Zyds can't support a group that is praying for them to get snuffed....
I've had lots of Zyd contact, and almost 100% of it is negative. A bigger group of con-men, swindlers, and all round low lifes you'd be hard to find. If you or I treated Zyds like they treat us, they'd be revving up everything in the SPLC to get the word out about how much we hate Zyds....
It seem Chua’s pushing more of the same bad ideas. Paraphrasing: “America’s various tribes need to come together and embrace American identity. To this end, different races need to be forced to interact with each other, like in an integrated military unit.”
Oh goody, more school busing and destruction of white neighborhoods. How am I not surprised that these are the prescriptions of a Chinese woman who’s married to a Jew? I have an idea for Amy, let’s disperse 800 million Indians, Africans and Hispanics throughout China, and when the Chinese revolt say: “You just need to learn to love each other and be inclusive. Stop being tribalistic bigots, and embrace your new multi-culturalism identity. Too bad we destroyed your old identity. Oh well.” Obviously, this is a recipe for disaster and civil war, and this is exactly what’s happening to the West today.
If it’s done to Tibet, it’s called ethnic cleansing. If it’s done to white people it’s called “multi-culturalism, love and inclusion.”
Let’s do the same to Israel. Let’s reduce the Jews to a minority in their own ethnostate, and integrate every facet of Israeli life: neighborhood, school, military, daycare — religious services. Let’s force Jews at every level to interact with Arabs and the other rainbow people we import. How well will that go over with Amy’s husband, or the average Jew? The long term consequence of this is genocide, and it is evil. But somehow it’s okay when it’s done to white people in America and all other white countries?
Also, Amy pretends not to understand why what worked for the Irish, Germans and Italians, groups she loves to cite as having assimilated to American identity, doesn’t work for other groups. Hmm, could it be because the Irish, Germans and Italians are white, and the other groups aren’t? Obviously, race is the hard barrier, and Amy should stop pretending it isn’t.
Long story short, this is all an elaborate rationalization for what they’re really after: redistribution of land, wealth and power away from whites and into the hands of non-whites and Jews. If they were honest, they’d just come out and say this. Whites built and conquered the modern world, and you want to redistribute what they have to the brown masses, and make whites weak and defenseless to stop you. It’s revenge, reconquista and reparations masquerading as “love and inclusion.”
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
Jewish exceptionalism. Jews are wildly over represented in all sorts of areas of society. That includes some ugly parts like pornography, multiculturalism and anti-white hostility. People tend to notice the bad stuff, because that’s what they feel on a daily basis. Jewish contributions to science are simply taken for granted, while Jewish over-representation in cultural anthropology makes for a nice career as an anti-Semite.
I have a number of readers that I call alt-jew. They hold all of the same opinions you find on the alt-right, even with regards to liberal Jews. In fact, their analysis of liberal Jews is even more harsh. I suspect American Jews are going through a generational change in outlook, similar to what we are seeing with whites. The further you get from Boomers, the more hostile to Progressivism you get, but Boomers still dominate for now.
Hope lies in the actuarial tables.
The brazen philo-Semitic lies and apologetics on here are extremely tiresome to read. This is one of the reasons I rarely read or comment anymore. Steve continually dances around the truth, while the weird hasbara teams of commenters give each other pats on the back (Asian women! IQ testing! Talmudic movie reviews! Etc., etc.)
Which is on par to American exceptionalism, or Alt Right elitism, or black pride, or La Raza.
"Jews are wildly over represented in all sorts of areas of society."
Says who? Praytell, what is this magic number? Why?
"That includes some ugly parts like pornography, multiculturalism and anti-white hostility."
False categorization on your part. Multiculturalism is not an "ugly part" here. And. per usual, you are overplaying this "anti-white hostility" angle. Need more blog traffic, eh.
"People tend to notice the bad stuff, because that’s what they feel on a daily basis."
I thought feelings of victimization was an SJW trait.
"I suspect American Jews are going through a generational change in outlook, similar to what we are seeing with whites."
To what, the Alt Right? Surely you jest. According to Alan Dershowitz, "[t]he bad news is that American Jews--as a people--have never been in greater danger of disappearing through assimilation, intermarriage, and low birthrates." Looks like their is a generational change all right, but not the one you think.
"The further you get from Boomers, the more hostile to Progressivism you get, but Boomers still dominate for now."
You are peddling Fake News.
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/meet-gen-z-progressive-conscientious-connected-generation-date/1347852
Besides, why on earth would Generation Z, or even normies for that matter, be remotely willing to support a return to patriarchy, a society squarely based on ethnic nationalism, and a government predicated an aristocracy with limits on who is eligible for political participation--ideas promoted by various leaders of the Alt Right? If and when the apocalypse occurs, there will be several competing groups vying for power. Does the Alt Right have the boots on the ground to emerge victorious?
Most Jewish congressman, on the other hand, have an "F" Numbers USA score.
Evangelical Christian congressmen have the highest average Numbers USA score of any religio-ethnic group, and Jewish congressmen have the worst average Numbers USA score of any religio-ethnic group.
So it isn't true that Jews are wildly over represented in all movements.
They are massively over-represented in the open borders movement, and they are also massively under-represented in the immigration restriction movement.
Similarly, the were massively over-represented among the Bolsheviks, especially the higher levels, the secret police, and the Trotsky's extremist left-Communist faction, beyond anything that IQ levels could predict. But they were almost completely absent from the White movement which fought to prevent the horrors of communism.Science, invented by Europeans, now has enough momentum that it will continue to advance at a faster or slower pace with or without any given individual's contribution. European Christian civilization would continue to advance scientifically without the contribution of Jewish scientists, but European Christian civilization cannot survive the activism of Jewish supremacists motivated by Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism.Their only contribution has been to loudly and repeatedly demand that no, ever, under any circumstances ever criticize the Jews as a group, not even slightly. (But they don't mind if other groups are criticized as groups).
And before you say it, yes I do enjoy the taste of lox and bagels and pastrami on rye, but I fail to see why you and Jim Goad think this is relevant.
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
Not in my case. I grew up in NYC and was highly philo-Semitic through high school. I still don’t harbor an ill feeling toward them – I mostly wish that Jews were less tribal and more patriotic (and harbored more noblesse oblige toward whites who are less well-off). And I have warm feelings toward my Israeli hosts who kept me safe when I was in Israel. I consider some of them friends. I don’t, of course, confuse my friendship with my country’s national interests.
And unlike some commenters here I don’t blame them for every ill in this world, like they are some sort of a nefarious cabal that acts in unison.
Perhaps living in a rough neighborhood produces a more reality-oriented approach?
white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. No group should ever feel comfortably dominant. What gross privilege is this that thinks it's a necessity?
Voltaire wrote that one knows who rules by seeing whom one cannot criticize. By this metric, minorities now rule the US and whites are subjugated. Only a dolt like Tiny D*ck could see otherwise.
Once whites are wiped out= no more conflict.
We can finally have peace in a white-free world.
Welcome, TDF! Who says iSteve doesn’t encourage diversity?
Yeah, I can just feel the strong mutual affection.
The English mastered it, until it all fell apart. Now, the blowback is about to make England a land ruled of, by, and for Jews, Arabs/Moslems, and gays.
Oh goody, more school busing and destruction of white neighborhoods. How am I not surprised that these are the prescriptions of a Chinese woman who's married to a Jew? I have an idea for Amy, let's disperse 800 million Indians, Africans and Hispanics throughout China, and when the Chinese revolt say: "You just need to learn to love each other and be inclusive. Stop being tribalistic bigots, and embrace your new multi-culturalism identity. Too bad we destroyed your old identity. Oh well." Obviously, this is a recipe for disaster and civil war, and this is exactly what's happening to the West today.
If it's done to Tibet, it's called ethnic cleansing. If it's done to white people it's called "multi-culturalism, love and inclusion."
Let's do the same to Israel. Let's reduce the Jews to a minority in their own ethnostate, and integrate every facet of Israeli life: neighborhood, school, military, daycare -- religious services. Let's force Jews at every level to interact with Arabs and the other rainbow people we import. How well will that go over with Amy's husband, or the average Jew? The long term consequence of this is genocide, and it is evil. But somehow it's okay when it's done to white people in America and all other white countries?
Also, Amy pretends not to understand why what worked for the Irish, Germans and Italians, groups she loves to cite as having assimilated to American identity, doesn't work for other groups. Hmm, could it be because the Irish, Germans and Italians are white, and the other groups aren't? Obviously, race is the hard barrier, and Amy should stop pretending it isn't.
Long story short, this is all an elaborate rationalization for what they're really after: redistribution of land, wealth and power away from whites and into the hands of non-whites and Jews. If they were honest, they'd just come out and say this. Whites built and conquered the modern world, and you want to redistribute what they have to the brown masses, and make whites weak and defenseless to stop you. It's revenge, reconquista and reparations masquerading as "love and inclusion."
I haven’t read her latest, but I regard Chua highly for her first book, “World on Fire.” If her motives were as base as you assume, she wouldn’t have written it.
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
Can we please give the projection argument a rest. It’s far overused. Maybe white gentiles have a problem with establishment and influential Jews because they push policies that are harmful white gentiles. It’s not projection; it’s noticing things.
Regarding your claim that so many commentators here state they Jews hate white American Christians, I think that you’re taking too literally what many of us mean when we says Jews. In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies. But, of course, that’s incredibly cumbersome so we just say “Jews.”
Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren’t too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil, but they do nothing to stop it. And, importantly, they are in a position – unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables – to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.
No, it is projection. OR, at the very least, it is noticing things that is influenced by a number of biases, most notably confirmation and recency.
"In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies. But, of course, that’s incredibly cumbersome so we just say “Jews.”"
Now why is it the responsibility of "rank and file" Jews to "keep in check" establishment and influential Jews? Moreover, one needs to:
1) define "rank and file", "establishment", and "influential" Jews'
2) explain how and why the "establishment" and "influential" Jews are engaging in actions that require them to be "kept in check"'
3) explain what is required to keep this group "in check" -and-
4) explain how is able to tell if those requirements are working.
Furthermore, would it be acceptable for "rank and file" whites to "keep in check" their fellow whites like those who espouse the Alt Right, OR would this group be subject to virtue signaling and shaming by the Alt Right for being "race traitors"?
"Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren’t too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil..."
False premise. You ASSUME that the U.S. will turn into a 3rd world shithole.
"but they do nothing to stop it."
As a "rank and file" white, what are YOU doing to stop it? Are you running for political office? Are you a foot soldier for the Alt Right, passing out literature on street corners to inform the ignorant white masses of the graves they are unwittingly digging for their people?
"And, importantly, they are in a position – unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables – to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job."
More assumptions on your part. Basically, your argument is gloom and doom. Woe to white people, they are going to be bred out of existence and be enslaved by non-whites. We are doomed to Jewish control.
Change your handle to "The Sky Is Falling" and be done with it.
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
I would also add that, even after you point this out to a Jewish person, they still just refuse to admit it, and just tell you that you're "projecting", which is also tacit support for them.
Remember Eric Rudolph? It's absolutely certain that not everyone in the Appalachians supports bombing people, yet he still found a lot of places to hide. The extremist can not exist without the tolerance of the moderate. White genocidal Jews could not openly wage their pogroms if their brethren were to cast them out, but they will not.
Yeah, it’s totally weird. I mean, how could you ever predict something like that from say the history of Sudan, Congo, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Trinidad, Indonesia, the partition of India, Nigeria, Yugoslavia.
It’s like America is this glaring historical exception. We’ve never seen anything like this in the 1840′s or the 1880′s through the 1920′s.
Looking at history, Jews have a very strong affection for wherever the money and power lie.
Once whites are wiped out= no more conflict.
We can finally have peace in a white-free world.
Congradulations, you finally got an internet connection in Mogadishu!
BTW, Amy Chau is brilliant for a Yale Law School Professor. Since Gumplowicz’s Rassenkampf has *never* been translated into English, and was only published yesterday (c. 1883), thank God Amy can give us the Cliff Notes.
The US used to be a union of states, each with considerable autonomy. This was before highways and telephones, so local community was the reality that most people knew. This regional localism could take on tribal coloring because different ethnic groups dominated different areas. Welsh here, Germans there, Scots-Irish over there, etc. From all these differences, there rose nationalism to bring everyone together. Two major agents were Westward expansion and Civil War. While the Eastern states were more rooted in ethnic heritage and dominance, the westward expansion brought many peoples together in the great scramble for land and search for gold and other riches. And the Civil War decided once and for all that American Nationhood trumped regionalism, localism, and semi-tribalism.
Nationalism wasn't quite tribalism. It had a sense of our nation vs other nations, but its effect was anti-tribal because a people of a nation could feel secure in their own nation(as long as the nation is organic). After all, tribalism is as much a state of mind as a cultural or political practice. For instance, if there are People A, B, and C and if each people had their own nation, each people wouldn't feel very tribal since their nation would be made up of people like themselves. People A could relax in Nation A, people B could relax in Nation B, and people C could relax in Nation C. Even if we argue nationalism is a form of 'tribalism', it decreases the tribalist mindset within the nation because people feel secure in their own domain. But suppose people A, people B, and people C were made to live in the same nation. Then, tribal mindset will come into play since no one will feel comfortable and at ease. Each group will feel that the OTHERS are working against them.
Nationalism is somewhere between tribalism and universalism/imperialism. If organic, it is the ideal Goldilocks rule.
And the US went from regionalism to nationalism. And this was more easily done in the US, unlike in Latin America, because the dominant folks in the US were mostly from Anglos. As for those who came from Germany and Scandinavia, they were racially so similar that they could easily assimilate into the Anglo model. Granted, some degree of compromise was necessary. Germans and Scandies would give up their cultures and become Anglo-Americanized BUT Anglo-Americans would ease up on Anglo-ness so that even non-Anglos would feel comfortable in making the change. After all, it's easier to assimilate to a looser culture than a rigid culture. It was easier to become Anglo-American than Anglo-British with their hoity-toity ways.
And this served as the Template of future American nationalism... and it worked, for the most part, even with Europeans from Eastern and Southern parts, though it was rather difficult with Southern Italians, among the most corrupt people on Earth. And I'm not sure it worked all that well with white Hispanics with the possible exception of Cuban exiles. Too many white Hispanics from places like Puerto Rico seem hopelessly lacking in character.
Anyway, fast-forward to the post-65 era... and we learn everything has a breaking point.
In the 19th century, Anglo-Americans made the national identity and character a bit blander and looser so as to accommodate non-Anglos. Americanism became a more generic form of Anglo identity, one that would appeal to Germans, Scandies, Irish, and later others. Still, it retained enough of its original character and meaning.
But in the age of Diversity when huge numbers of non-whites must be made to 'feel at home' the minute they get off the boat, Americanism had to be made totally generic and bland and meaningless. The McAmerica. The Universal Nation. This way, anyone can feel at home since there is no specific Core Americanism. Americanism is just a way of life. People come here, watch TV, listen to Rap, go shopping, and play videogames....
... except that people need some kind of meaning in their lives. When Americanism has been made so bland, inclusive, comprehensive, and utterly flavorless, people crave meaning and identity. So, naturally, this gives rise to tribalism or some kind of identity politics based on genitalia(though with even penis and balls counting as 'female', it gets ever more confusing). When Anglo-Americanism was Americanism, those who became Anglo-Americanized felt some kind of meaningful identity of history and heritage, even if they weren't Anglo. But with Anglo- totally detached from Americanism, many people simply didn't find it satisfying to be just a Generic-American or McAmerican.
Also, some turn to tribalism out of great success and pride. Jewish success and power had led to new tribalism. Among blacks, it's more complicated. In many areas, blacks have failed, and there is the tribalism of resentment. But they have dominated in sports and pop music, and that fills them with pride. Blacks feel better and worse than everyone else. Generally, those in the middle tend to be least tribal. Since they are not at the top, they don't have pride of power. And since they aren't are the bottom, they don't have identity of resentment. But when the middle class status is threatened, it can lead to a kind of nascent quasi-fascist consciousness.
There is also self-generated tribalism and imposed 'tribalism' of ideology. Alt Right and nationalist whites have self-generated tribalism. They want autonomy of narrative and identity. They want to control their own destiny. The SJW's follow the imposed 'tribalism' of ideology foisted upon them by the big media, academia, and entertainment, most of them controlled by Jewish elites. They are like Greek boys turned into Janissary against their own kind.
One major difference between Anglos and Jews. Anglos were both more inclusive and exclusive than Jews. They were obviously exclusive in the sense they favored Anglo and Northern European immigration. And Wasps had their own country club castles that made Jews feel like pop Kafkas.
BUT, Anglos were more inclusive in the sense that they were willing to share the Anglo template as an Americanizing tool for non-Anglos. Especially to assimilate huge numbers of Eastern and Southern Europeans, Anglo-Americans were willing to offer Anglo-ism as a means for them to become Americans. Though only Anglos were real Anglos, even non-Anglos could become Anglo-ized and become like ersatz members of Anglo-America. And even many Jews, esp German ones, took up the bait and decided to become like Anglo-Americanized Jews.
This was the inclusive Anglo-Template when the US was Anglo-ruled.
But Jews came to rule America. In some ways, via massive increase in immigration, Jews made America more inclusive to the world. BUT, if Anglos put forth their own culture as the template to be shared by OTHER peoples, Jews have not done this. Jewishness is only for Jews. Since Jews are the new elites of the US, shouldn't they present Jewishness as the new template of Americanism for all? But Jews are unwilling to do this since they want to guard Jewishness for their own Tribe.
This poses a problem. When Anglos let in lots of people, the Anglo model was put forth for others to study, appreciate, and emulate. Also, Anglos weren't only interested in making people assimilate culturally but help them improve themselves morally. The idea was there was something advanced and useful about the Anglo model. So, Anglos wanted Greeks, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, and etc to become more Anglo in identification, manners, attitude, and values.
In contrast, as pervasive as Jewishisms are in American culture(especially in comedy), Jews don't put forth Jewishness as a template for non-Jews to follow. Jews don't want non-Jews to become ersatz Jews. Also, if Anglos wanted non-Anglos to improve themselves by following the more successful Anglo model, Jews don't offer such constructive advice but rather encourage non-Jews to indulge in all sorts of vices such as gambling, whoring, decadence, pornography, drug abuse, swinging, tattooing, piercing, and dyeing hair green.
So, there is no more unifying template. Unlike Anglo elites who offered Anglo-ism(generously as well as threateningly) for all newcomers to partake of, Jewish elites tell the world to COME HERE but offer no unifying vision or values except WE NEED MORE AND MORE AND MORE, SO KEEP COMING.
This is a very good diagnosis, and yes innumeracy and a lack of self-awareness play large roles. When the US was 88% white (and Anglo super-majority) and 12% black with a few Hispanics, Asians etc. Anglo-America was literally water for fish. In two generations we’ve added 120M people and reduced Anglo-America by almost one-quarter as a share of the population.
Here’s a brief comment which unintentionally demonstrates (from 2012) Trump’s use of the Sailer strategy.
Politics are territorial now.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/reagans-cure-for-america-s-debt-disease-1520292447
Bryan Caplan argues that this inter-ethnic conflict is a feature, not a bug. Ethnic diversity will undermine solidarity. He’s right and in this case, he’s shockingly honest. His argument would horrify normal supporters of liberal immigration who argue that diversity is our strength and argue for unity, not division.
His argument is based on the idea that it is deeply immoral to preference an in-group over an out-group, such as preferencing citizens over outsiders, so you blow up the solidarity of nations by forced injection of ethnocultural diversity. There are more, but here are two quick quotes if you think I’m mis-representing this outrageous position.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/ethnic_diversit.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/05/nationalism_won.html
The linked Amy Chua book, “Political Tribes” sounds good for a liberal. It sounds like Samuel Huntington’s classic, “Clash of Civilizations”, which I’d strongly recommend as a quick, easy, fun read for this crowd. I’d request Steve Sailer reviews of both.
So much for Caplan's rubbish.
Permanent ethnic conflict is the result of large ethnocultural diversity, but I don’t think the LBJ administration in 1965 had this goal in mind as some sinister master plan. They helped make this happen, but it wasn’t necessarily planned that way.
LBJ may not have had permanent ethic conflict in mind, but Emmanuel Cellar and his allies, who had been working for 40 years to weaken or destroy the 1924 immigration act that kept America's historic racial and cultural balance, certainly did.
Tiny Dick
Yes white men are dominant its been pretty stable now for about 3000 years we are however pretty generous and so far have let the rest live something no other dominant species has ever done. Its increasingly obvious this is a costly conceit and at some point will be reversed. Pretty silly of you faggots muds bitches etc to keep pushing for that day.All your “progress” is nothing more than our indulgence and could be ended overnight it will in fact be ended overnight because white men have ambitions for another push forward that can not afford the cost of you useless people and can not accommodate you along for the ride.I know you think you have somehow got us into a jedi mind fuck we cant escape lol but it will be amusing one day soon when we simply shrug you all over the side like shaking off dust. There is a reality Tiny dick you commie jews were right it all does come down to power, and all power comes down to force and we have all of it not simply the physical and economic but the intellectual. all your lefty expenditures are simply petitions for mercy not force. But you have long since abandoned the posture of supplicants and demand our demise. Its absurdly stupid your arrogance that you think the dominant species is simply going to be the only organism in the history of evolution to override their primary source code and choose to self destruct for the useless, but of course evolution for the left is only something to beat your former allies the cuck christians with. Its never going to happen it cant our source code is survive by any means necessary. and while words and memes may have helped you useless mouths multiply its not going to help we white men have the means to wipe out a continent in days or if we choose wipe out certain organisms of many on said continent or to alter their dna or any number of things we have all the power all of it. so keep up the good work redpilling and black pilling white men and women.
Asking for a friend.
Are you discussing deporting African immigrants or African Americans a la Tyrone?
Anyway this is just my opinion but I think most Americans will look the other way while xi does what Rhodes did….the chicoms dont have the qualms we do about fixing Africa
Sinister master plan or not is irrelevant. The outcome is the same.
His argument is based on the idea that it is deeply immoral to preference an in-group over an out-group, such as preferencing citizens over outsiders, so you blow up the solidarity of nations by forced injection of ethnocultural diversity. There are more, but here are two quick quotes if you think I'm mis-representing this outrageous position.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/ethnic_diversit.htmlhttp://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/05/nationalism_won.htmlThe linked Amy Chua book, "Political Tribes" sounds good for a liberal. It sounds like Samuel Huntington's classic, "Clash of Civilizations", which I'd strongly recommend as a quick, easy, fun read for this crowd. I'd request Steve Sailer reviews of both.
Just when you think these sociopaths can’t get any lower.
Regarding your claim that so many commentators here state they Jews hate white American Christians, I think that you're taking too literally what many of us mean when we says Jews. In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren't kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews' policies. But, of course, that's incredibly cumbersome so we just say "Jews."
Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren't too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil, but they do nothing to stop it. And, importantly, they are in a position - unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables - to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.
“Maybe white gentiles have a problem with establishment and influential Jews because they push policies that are harmful white gentiles. It’s not projection; it’s noticing things.”
No, it is projection. OR, at the very least, it is noticing things that is influenced by a number of biases, most notably confirmation and recency.
“In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies. But, of course, that’s incredibly cumbersome so we just say “Jews.””
Now why is it the responsibility of “rank and file” Jews to “keep in check” establishment and influential Jews? Moreover, one needs to:
1) define “rank and file”, “establishment”, and “influential” Jews’
2) explain how and why the “establishment” and “influential” Jews are engaging in actions that require them to be “kept in check”‘
3) explain what is required to keep this group “in check” -and-
4) explain how is able to tell if those requirements are working.
Furthermore, would it be acceptable for “rank and file” whites to “keep in check” their fellow whites like those who espouse the Alt Right, OR would this group be subject to virtue signaling and shaming by the Alt Right for being “race traitors”?
“Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren’t too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil…”
False premise. You ASSUME that the U.S. will turn into a 3rd world shithole.
“but they do nothing to stop it.”
As a “rank and file” white, what are YOU doing to stop it? Are you running for political office? Are you a foot soldier for the Alt Right, passing out literature on street corners to inform the ignorant white masses of the graves they are unwittingly digging for their people?
“And, importantly, they are in a position – unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables – to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.”
More assumptions on your part. Basically, your argument is gloom and doom. Woe to white people, they are going to be bred out of existence and be enslaved by non-whites. We are doomed to Jewish control.
Change your handle to “The Sky Is Falling” and be done with it.
Theodore Herzl tried to explain the ultimate futility of being a market dominant minority in foreign lands and proposed a simple solution: aliyah. Pity he was largely ignored and so many of your kinsmen (see, e.g., Barbara Lerner-Specter) have chosen to solve the problem by staying in Exile and diluting the nations of your hosts.
It's ironic really since all I want for gentile whites is what American Jews already have. It's odd that you're so against that. It's odder still that you lurk here with us poor losers who only talk of such things instead spending your time on the boards of Jewish sites telling them how terrible they are for actually having lobby groups, Jewish organizations and, even, Jewish schools.
Why spend your time trying to kill the white identity baby in the crib when you have the Jewish identity adult who shows everyday the advantages of thinking and acting like a group?
It's almost as though you don't really believe what you write.
Btw, Corny, on a personal note, I realize that I focus a bit too much on the doom and gloom side here, but in the real world - the one that counts - things are definitely looking up. As to what I'm doing to help my cause, well, I've joined a number of civic and business groups where I'm slowly working my way up. I've already started to very, very lightly point out policies and initiatives that these groups are following that aren't "color-blind." Everytime that someone pushes back against my concern, I see some white (and Asian) faces perk up. They are beginning to realize that the other side doesn't want color-blind but is fighting for their group.
It's fun to watch. I followed the same path. In time, I'll say fine, if we are going to target groups, there are certainly areas where whites in particular need help. From there, it's not a huge leap to creating a white/European-American oriented group.
You see, Corny, I'm not fighting the tide. The U.S. is headed toward some mix of Brazil/California/Texas/Mexico. Can't be stopped. The question is whether a substantial percentage of whites will start to identify as such and start to act like every other ethnic racial group, and, especially, the Jews.
Will that happen? Who knows, not even you Corny. But I will say that I have a lot more hope than I didn't even a couple of years ago. Tribalism is growing stronger, not weaker. No one knows what American even means anymore so people look elsewhere for their identity.
Anyway, haven't read any of your comments for a long time. Now, I remember why. Keep up the good work. Your "We are all God's children"/libertarian schtick works best, btw. Your strategy of bogging things down by demanding that people define understood terms is pretty ineffective. Stick with the libertarian arguments. They work best around here.
The US used to be a union of states, each with considerable autonomy. This was before highways and telephones, so local community was the reality that most people knew. This regional localism could take on tribal coloring because different ethnic groups dominated different areas. Welsh here, Germans there, Scots-Irish over there, etc. From all these differences, there rose nationalism to bring everyone together. Two major agents were Westward expansion and Civil War. While the Eastern states were more rooted in ethnic heritage and dominance, the westward expansion brought many peoples together in the great scramble for land and search for gold and other riches. And the Civil War decided once and for all that American Nationhood trumped regionalism, localism, and semi-tribalism.
Nationalism wasn't quite tribalism. It had a sense of our nation vs other nations, but its effect was anti-tribal because a people of a nation could feel secure in their own nation(as long as the nation is organic). After all, tribalism is as much a state of mind as a cultural or political practice. For instance, if there are People A, B, and C and if each people had their own nation, each people wouldn't feel very tribal since their nation would be made up of people like themselves. People A could relax in Nation A, people B could relax in Nation B, and people C could relax in Nation C. Even if we argue nationalism is a form of 'tribalism', it decreases the tribalist mindset within the nation because people feel secure in their own domain. But suppose people A, people B, and people C were made to live in the same nation. Then, tribal mindset will come into play since no one will feel comfortable and at ease. Each group will feel that the OTHERS are working against them.
Nationalism is somewhere between tribalism and universalism/imperialism. If organic, it is the ideal Goldilocks rule.
And the US went from regionalism to nationalism. And this was more easily done in the US, unlike in Latin America, because the dominant folks in the US were mostly from Anglos. As for those who came from Germany and Scandinavia, they were racially so similar that they could easily assimilate into the Anglo model. Granted, some degree of compromise was necessary. Germans and Scandies would give up their cultures and become Anglo-Americanized BUT Anglo-Americans would ease up on Anglo-ness so that even non-Anglos would feel comfortable in making the change. After all, it's easier to assimilate to a looser culture than a rigid culture. It was easier to become Anglo-American than Anglo-British with their hoity-toity ways.
And this served as the Template of future American nationalism... and it worked, for the most part, even with Europeans from Eastern and Southern parts, though it was rather difficult with Southern Italians, among the most corrupt people on Earth. And I'm not sure it worked all that well with white Hispanics with the possible exception of Cuban exiles. Too many white Hispanics from places like Puerto Rico seem hopelessly lacking in character.
Anyway, fast-forward to the post-65 era... and we learn everything has a breaking point.
In the 19th century, Anglo-Americans made the national identity and character a bit blander and looser so as to accommodate non-Anglos. Americanism became a more generic form of Anglo identity, one that would appeal to Germans, Scandies, Irish, and later others. Still, it retained enough of its original character and meaning.
But in the age of Diversity when huge numbers of non-whites must be made to 'feel at home' the minute they get off the boat, Americanism had to be made totally generic and bland and meaningless. The McAmerica. The Universal Nation. This way, anyone can feel at home since there is no specific Core Americanism. Americanism is just a way of life. People come here, watch TV, listen to Rap, go shopping, and play videogames....
... except that people need some kind of meaning in their lives. When Americanism has been made so bland, inclusive, comprehensive, and utterly flavorless, people crave meaning and identity. So, naturally, this gives rise to tribalism or some kind of identity politics based on genitalia(though with even penis and balls counting as 'female', it gets ever more confusing). When Anglo-Americanism was Americanism, those who became Anglo-Americanized felt some kind of meaningful identity of history and heritage, even if they weren't Anglo. But with Anglo- totally detached from Americanism, many people simply didn't find it satisfying to be just a Generic-American or McAmerican.
Also, some turn to tribalism out of great success and pride. Jewish success and power had led to new tribalism. Among blacks, it's more complicated. In many areas, blacks have failed, and there is the tribalism of resentment. But they have dominated in sports and pop music, and that fills them with pride. Blacks feel better and worse than everyone else. Generally, those in the middle tend to be least tribal. Since they are not at the top, they don't have pride of power. And since they aren't are the bottom, they don't have identity of resentment. But when the middle class status is threatened, it can lead to a kind of nascent quasi-fascist consciousness.
There is also self-generated tribalism and imposed 'tribalism' of ideology. Alt Right and nationalist whites have self-generated tribalism. They want autonomy of narrative and identity. They want to control their own destiny. The SJW's follow the imposed 'tribalism' of ideology foisted upon them by the big media, academia, and entertainment, most of them controlled by Jewish elites. They are like Greek boys turned into Janissary against their own kind.
One major difference between Anglos and Jews. Anglos were both more inclusive and exclusive than Jews. They were obviously exclusive in the sense they favored Anglo and Northern European immigration. And Wasps had their own country club castles that made Jews feel like pop Kafkas.
BUT, Anglos were more inclusive in the sense that they were willing to share the Anglo template as an Americanizing tool for non-Anglos. Especially to assimilate huge numbers of Eastern and Southern Europeans, Anglo-Americans were willing to offer Anglo-ism as a means for them to become Americans. Though only Anglos were real Anglos, even non-Anglos could become Anglo-ized and become like ersatz members of Anglo-America. And even many Jews, esp German ones, took up the bait and decided to become like Anglo-Americanized Jews.
This was the inclusive Anglo-Template when the US was Anglo-ruled.
But Jews came to rule America. In some ways, via massive increase in immigration, Jews made America more inclusive to the world. BUT, if Anglos put forth their own culture as the template to be shared by OTHER peoples, Jews have not done this. Jewishness is only for Jews. Since Jews are the new elites of the US, shouldn't they present Jewishness as the new template of Americanism for all? But Jews are unwilling to do this since they want to guard Jewishness for their own Tribe.
This poses a problem. When Anglos let in lots of people, the Anglo model was put forth for others to study, appreciate, and emulate. Also, Anglos weren't only interested in making people assimilate culturally but help them improve themselves morally. The idea was there was something advanced and useful about the Anglo model. So, Anglos wanted Greeks, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, and etc to become more Anglo in identification, manners, attitude, and values.
In contrast, as pervasive as Jewishisms are in American culture(especially in comedy), Jews don't put forth Jewishness as a template for non-Jews to follow. Jews don't want non-Jews to become ersatz Jews. Also, if Anglos wanted non-Anglos to improve themselves by following the more successful Anglo model, Jews don't offer such constructive advice but rather encourage non-Jews to indulge in all sorts of vices such as gambling, whoring, decadence, pornography, drug abuse, swinging, tattooing, piercing, and dyeing hair green.
So, there is no more unifying template. Unlike Anglo elites who offered Anglo-ism(generously as well as threateningly) for all newcomers to partake of, Jewish elites tell the world to COME HERE but offer no unifying vision or values except WE NEED MORE AND MORE AND MORE, SO KEEP COMING.
Brevity is the soul of wit. Try it sometime.
From regionalism to nationalism to universalism to tribalism.
I had to explain the wit for the dummies.
Massimo Heitor,
Replace “nation” with “family” and “Nationalism” with “Mom and Dad,” in Bryan Caplan’s breakup letter and it reads like a spoiled, angry runaway child. He’s a Jew who was born into a Gentile nation. Why would he feel an affinity for his fellow American? If he were born in Israel it would probably be a different story, and that’s why ethno-states, like the family unit, make sense. (Tho’ there are still loners in all societies.)
Luke Ford on Caplan on the Goyim: “They (Goyim) Scare Me” where he advocates a divide and conquer strategy to make himself feel safe from from the goys.
What’s Caplan’s stance on Israel? Ayn Rand was rather hypocritically jingoistic for Israel. Strange, considering her being such an “objective” rugged individualist and all, I’d of thought she’d be non-partisan.
Yaron Brooks, the long time head of the Ayn Rand Institute served in the Israeli Military. He also supports open borders immigration for the U.S. Weird, all these “objective” Jewish libertarians advocating the opposite policies for Israel that they support for their Gentile host nations.
The stronger immigration restrictionist argument to make is: intractable inter-ethnic conflicts in the same democratic nation are bad, not good. That's common sense. Open border advocates are actually arguing _for_ undermining solidarity not against it. They are arguing against common sense.
Caplan argues that open borders would deliver some free market nirvana. If I believed that, I would support his ideology. I don't believe that. I view US + Europe as jewels of human civilization that we should be cautious with. These explosive ideas about undermining their existence as nation states sound far more risky than prudent, and I advocate hitting the brakes on open borders and developing alternative models moving forward.
Regarding your claim that so many commentators here state they Jews hate white American Christians, I think that you're taking too literally what many of us mean when we says Jews. In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren't kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews' policies. But, of course, that's incredibly cumbersome so we just say "Jews."
Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren't too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil, but they do nothing to stop it. And, importantly, they are in a position - unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables - to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.
“without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.”
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
Your fringe has enormous power. Our fringe doesn't even rise to the level of a joke.
Face it, Jews won the war. The question is whether they are going to follow a policy of reconstruction for gentile whites or are your betters looking to impose a Treaty of Versailles. Do rank-and-file Jews stand behind Stephen Miller or Schumer?
If Schumer and Barbara Lerner are your standard-bearers, don't be shocked if white gentiles line up behind those in our camp willing to punch back. When a bully continues to beat the shit out of you even after you've fallen to the ground and curled up into a ball, you're not too concerned about the ideology of the guy who pushes the bully off of you.
For a people renowned for your love for and skill in argument, you so seldom get around to making one. MacDonald has a thesis, which he's supported with citations and the like. You might want to address why MacDonald's thesis is wrong despite being compelling, and why that very thesis can be heard to spill from the mouths of Jews in boasts rather than precociously labeling him a NAZI. Since he's such an obvious crank, this shouldn't tax your inherited verbal dexterity too far, should it?
Where do you get off calling MacDonald part of a "Nazi fringe"? Seriously - have you read any of his books? He's a big pattern noticer, but there's a lot of ground between that and 'Nazi.' I'm no Hitler worshiper and while I unconditionally support the 14 part, I'm not so much about the 88 part. However, I am far more likely to support and defend that group of alt-righters you label the "Nazi fringe" than the civic nationalists who "don't see color" and think we can all get along, despite all of human history clearly and repeatedly demonstrating the opposite.
As for others' accusations of 'sperging' or 'purity spiraling,' I would argue that the vast majority of the alt-right would be quite content with a 90% White country, depending on the composition of that other 10%. The problem is that there will always be a few of that minority, or their descendants, who want to agitate for more of others ostensibly like themselves, and you're back to where you started from. People like John Derbyshire can argue for the benefit a bit of a difference makes, but while many might be warmly inclined to someone's Chinese wife personally, they won't feel the same about a Yan Shen-type relative who constantly agitates against White interests. Jonah Goldberg's mother might not be ethnically Jewish, but no one can doubt to which people Jonah's own loyalty is pledged.
Ultimately that's the insoluble problem - either that minority adapts and intermarries and genuinely assimilates leading to their descendents eventually being indistinguishable from the majority, or they remain a determinedly separate minority eternally advocating the entrance of more of their own as marriage partners or whatever, and eventually compose a minority antithetical to the majority.
Assimilation versus separation. Pick any non-White and/or non-Christian group in American history and see how their choices worked out. The vast majority of ethnic Japanese who were in mainland America (not those in non-American Hawaii) prior to WWII, to the best of my knowledge, have chosen assimilation and I've not read of anyone who has any real issues with them. Jews have chosen a bit of outward assimilation but have resolutely identified as separate and distinct from White Americans and their interests in general. How's that working out for them? And please spare me the purported intermarriage statistics - out of every ten half or quarter Jews you pick, I can show you eight or nine who identify as Jewish.
The eternal hyphen. If any hyphen is ever used, it's the word before the hyphen that you identify with first and foremost, every single time. Special or equal (before the law/in standing as an American) - pick ONE.
If my options get whittled down to Nazi or Victim it won't be a hard choice to make. I've already begun to smile a little when I drive by the trailer park and see one of those towheaded little shits out playing in the dirt yard. They point their toy guns at me and pretend to shoot, and I feel better knowing that there's still an army of them out there.
Another thing I’ve been thinking about…..now that there is a JEWISH STATE…..for ppl like Klein….why not liquidate his assets….and he’ll forgive any debts and just deport him to Israel…..let netanyahu deal w these crazies.
This way we can neuter the neonazi crazies, allow law abiding and non insane Jews to stay in the country and actually benefit America while taking the troublemakers out and letting the Likudniks and hasadim deal w their bullshit….this way Israel will gain more citizens and an idf conscription of cucks like Ezra Klein would teach them the importance of the Jewish state and it’s defense.
Liquidate his assets and wire the money to Israel…. that way he stays financially solvent w/o becoming destitute….he keeps his assets but can’t keep troublemaking here stateside
The African population expansion is largely dependent on whites providing
adequate food and medical care for them. When white societies collapse shortly,
we will see the largest famine in world history occur in Africa.
His argument is based on the idea that it is deeply immoral to preference an in-group over an out-group, such as preferencing citizens over outsiders, so you blow up the solidarity of nations by forced injection of ethnocultural diversity. There are more, but here are two quick quotes if you think I'm mis-representing this outrageous position.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/ethnic_diversit.htmlhttp://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/05/nationalism_won.htmlThe linked Amy Chua book, "Political Tribes" sounds good for a liberal. It sounds like Samuel Huntington's classic, "Clash of Civilizations", which I'd strongly recommend as a quick, easy, fun read for this crowd. I'd request Steve Sailer reviews of both.
Elementary Game Theory tells us that ethnies which do not cooperate amongst themselves (chumps) will be absolutely vanquished by those ethnies smart enough to practice in group solidarity.
So much for Caplan’s rubbish.
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
How much influence do MacDonald and Spencer have compared to Soros, Jews in the media, Jews in academia, the ADL, etc., etc., etc.?
Your fringe has enormous power. Our fringe doesn’t even rise to the level of a joke.
Face it, Jews won the war. The question is whether they are going to follow a policy of reconstruction for gentile whites or are your betters looking to impose a Treaty of Versailles. Do rank-and-file Jews stand behind Stephen Miller or Schumer?
If Schumer and Barbara Lerner are your standard-bearers, don’t be shocked if white gentiles line up behind those in our camp willing to punch back. When a bully continues to beat the shit out of you even after you’ve fallen to the ground and curled up into a ball, you’re not too concerned about the ideology of the guy who pushes the bully off of you.
Shouldn’t ‘mutual’ involve some sort of reciprocity or application of the Golden Rule?
white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. No group should ever feel comfortably dominant. What gross privilege is this that thinks it's a necessity?
You need learn English. Get surgery for small thing.
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
They are referring to jews like Matthew Yglesias. Probably not to you.
1. Yglesias Responds to My Post on How Jewish Nostalgia Drives Jewish Immigration Support:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/yglesias-responds-to-my-post-on-how/?highlight=matt+yglesias
2. In the United States of America, the main obstacle to an immigration deal is that anti-limitationists like Mr. Yglesias are mostly driven by old ethnic animuses that they constantly express but throw a fit whenever anybody else points out their irrational, hate-driven motivations
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
I don’t count myself as a fan of either individual, but neither is a “Nazi.”
OT, random trivia from the memory hole:
Twenty years ago, Renee Zellweger was castigated for not looking Jewish enough to play a Hasidic Jew in A Price Above Rubies.
https://www.sfgate.com/style/article/Actress-puts-image-to-the-test-3097535.php
I wonder if Leonardo DiCaprio had similar difficulties when he was making The Wolf of Wall Street.
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
“Why do so many of the commenters here state that jews hate white American Christians? ”
Go do a Google Images search for “as a jew my fellow whites”.
“Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one’s own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?”
Hey, what a goddamned surprise! AGAIN, it’s all the goyim’s fault!
Not ONCE can you people admit anything you do that bothers people, and you wonder why people have a problem with you.
white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. No group should ever feel comfortably dominant. What gross privilege is this that thinks it's a necessity?
Van Morrison famously added some Scotch-Irish vocal defiance to the crybaby crap lyrics from Scottish mope David Gilmour’s and English bonehead Roger Waters’s song COMFORTABLY NUMB.
WHITE RETALIATION AGAINST THE GLOBALIZERS IS ON THE WAY
THE COMFORT IS OVER FOR THE GLOBALIZERS
Because Americans are largely innumerate and unable to understand population growth dynamics they were unable to detect the threat until it was too late. Also the unprecedented affluence of modern America made it easy to ignore whatever threat was detected.
If you rewound the clock it would all happen all over again.
Americans are numerate enough to do the math. It’s just that our schools choose to hide the reality and dish out propaganda instead. You can’t get a majority of voters to make an intelligent decision about a situation if they are being lied to about the reality of that situation.
Intergenerationally chronological, too. Did you catch Feldstein in the Wall Street Journal advocating the increase in the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to be raised to 70. I am sure the WSJ plutocrats want to get the retirement age to 75.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/reagans-cure-for-america-s-debt-disease-1520292447
I’ve always been rather fond of Amy Chua, but I think that her lens needs polishing:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/mar/01/amy-chua-tiger-mom-writer-book-political-tribes
The older regime to which she refers was made possible because the USA was dominated (pre-’60s) by a WASP elite that demanded that other ethnies conform to WASP patterns of conduct. Cf how both Catholicism and Judaism became subtly “Protestantized” (expanded role of laity in RC, Reform Judaism as Protestant version of Judaism, etc) and rival languages were crushed (the Kulturkampf against German America during the Great War).
German beer is chemical free; Germany is alright with me.
The American Empire dopes tried to change french fries to freedom fries because the frogs told us the Iraq War would be a disaster. The frogs were right.
Yew said it.
Regarding your claim that so many commentators here state they Jews hate white American Christians, I think that you're taking too literally what many of us mean when we says Jews. In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren't kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews' policies. But, of course, that's incredibly cumbersome so we just say "Jews."
Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren't too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil, but they do nothing to stop it. And, importantly, they are in a position - unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables - to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.
Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies.
I would also add that, even after you point this out to a Jewish person, they still just refuse to admit it, and just tell you that you’re “projecting”, which is also tacit support for them.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/mar/01/amy-chua-tiger-mom-writer-book-political-tribes
The older regime to which she refers was made possible because the USA was dominated (pre-'60s) by a WASP elite that demanded that other ethnies conform to WASP patterns of conduct. Cf how both Catholicism and Judaism became subtly "Protestantized" (expanded role of laity in RC, Reform Judaism as Protestant version of Judaism, etc) and rival languages were crushed (the Kulturkampf against German America during the Great War).
Hot dog! You got the WASP when the WASPs were proud to be English, and prepared to pound snot out of noses to maintain cultural order. Also, Northern WASPs let the Southern Anglo-Celts conduct business in a manner suitable to them without starting another civil war.
German beer is chemical free; Germany is alright with me.
The American Empire dopes tried to change french fries to freedom fries because the frogs told us the Iraq War would be a disaster. The frogs were right.
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
Instead of whining about terrorism, why not just obey Sharia law?
My fingertips are enormous.
The reflexive, baseless hate which Jews demonstrate toward an increasingly mythical Christian white norm, which reacts to no provocation and which seems to expect a non-existent counterpart, just happens to look an awful lot like Semitic tribal competition let loose in an non-Semitic, non-tribal environment. Or: it sure is funny how every single Jewish outgroup interaction in thousands of years of history is always an existential fight, especially when culminating in a fight to the death with an enemy that never shuts up about how much it loves Jews.
But if they get what they think they want, they’ll be living in a Muslim country and will have eliminated Israel’s main ally. So it goes.
Most of the Zyds understand Christian support is based on Armageddon, the end times, or the Rapture. That’s when the Zyds go back to Israel, then all the Zyds die and go to hell as non-believers.
The Christians at the same time have their seat assignment on Jesus 1, going to heaven.
I’ve seen Zyd opinion polling where 85% of them loathe christians, while 85% of Jesus freaks love the Zyds. So the Zyds can’t support a group that is praying for them to get snuffed….
I’ve had lots of Zyd contact, and almost 100% of it is negative. A bigger group of con-men, swindlers, and all round low lifes you’d be hard to find. If you or I treated Zyds like they treat us, they’d be revving up everything in the SPLC to get the word out about how much we hate Zyds….
Replace "nation" with "family" and "Nationalism" with "Mom and Dad," in Bryan Caplan's breakup letter and it reads like a spoiled, angry runaway child. He's a Jew who was born into a Gentile nation. Why would he feel an affinity for his fellow American? If he were born in Israel it would probably be a different story, and that's why ethno-states, like the family unit, make sense. (Tho' there are still loners in all societies.)
Luke Ford on Caplan on the Goyim: "They (Goyim) Scare Me" where he advocates a divide and conquer strategy to make himself feel safe from from the goys.
What's Caplan's stance on Israel? Ayn Rand was rather hypocritically jingoistic for Israel. Strange, considering her being such an "objective" rugged individualist and all, I'd of thought she'd be non-partisan.
Yaron Brooks, the long time head of the Ayn Rand Institute served in the Israeli Military. He also supports open borders immigration for the U.S. Weird, all these "objective" Jewish libertarians advocating the opposite policies for Israel that they support for their Gentile host nations.
You are barking up the wrong tree. Caplan opposes Israel. Caplan doesn’t identify as Jewish. I’m on Steve Sailer’s side. I also support Israel and I like Jews if that matters to you. I support Israel’s immigration restriction in the same way I support it for Europe or US or China.
The stronger immigration restrictionist argument to make is: intractable inter-ethnic conflicts in the same democratic nation are bad, not good. That’s common sense. Open border advocates are actually arguing _for_ undermining solidarity not against it. They are arguing against common sense.
Caplan argues that open borders would deliver some free market nirvana. If I believed that, I would support his ideology. I don’t believe that. I view US + Europe as jewels of human civilization that we should be cautious with. These explosive ideas about undermining their existence as nation states sound far more risky than prudent, and I advocate hitting the brakes on open borders and developing alternative models moving forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/mar/01/amy-chua-tiger-mom-writer-book-political-tribes
The older regime to which she refers was made possible because the USA was dominated (pre-'60s) by a WASP elite that demanded that other ethnies conform to WASP patterns of conduct. Cf how both Catholicism and Judaism became subtly "Protestantized" (expanded role of laity in RC, Reform Judaism as Protestant version of Judaism, etc) and rival languages were crushed (the Kulturkampf against German America during the Great War).
Recent US leaders have been deliberately blind to group identity. I agree with Amy Chua on that. However, I think Samuel Huntington explained it better in Clash of Civilizations:
Dennis Prager just wrote an op-ed on this exact theme (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/why-christians-support-israel/):
white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. No group should ever feel comfortably dominant. What gross privilege is this that thinks it's a necessity?
So, are you also Lily-Warrior? Pasting major portions of sentences without attribution or quotation is still, dare we say, plagiarism. Did she copy you or did you copy her? Her date stamp is 7:53 AM March 5. Inquiring minds want to know?
Lily:
“…white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. …”
Tiny Duck:
“white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them.”
A semi-colon after “dominant” then “; they ARE” with ARE capitalized and the “&” ampersand (not the word and) along with the exact words seems to be an unattributed quotation. Bad, Bad!!
https://web.archive.org/web/20180306222734/https:/twitter.com/Lily_Warrior/status/970688681404260352
@43 Massimo Heitor: “Permanent ethnic conflict is the result of large ethnocultural diversity, but I don’t think the LBJ administration in 1965 had this goal in mind as some sinister master plan. They helped make this happen, but it wasn’t necessarily planned that way.”
LBJ may not have had permanent ethic conflict in mind, but Emmanuel Cellar and his allies, who had been working for 40 years to weaken or destroy the 1924 immigration act that kept America’s historic racial and cultural balance, certainly did.
adequate food and medical care for them. When white societies collapse shortly,
we will see the largest famine in world history occur in Africa.
I agree. Sub-Saharan Africa is living on handouts and subsidies. It has been living on handouts and subsidies since the days it was colonized. The UN has identified multiple countries in Africa on the verge of famine … with desperate cries to Western countries to send food.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/famine-united-nations-170310234132946.html
When the EU and US economies tank (and the subsidies end), there will be a massive “die off” in sub-Saharan Africa as its demographic falls back toward its Malthusian limit. The scope of the “die off” will be worse than the Black Death in medieval Europe.
FIAT IVSTITIA RVAT CÆLVM
“Brevity is the soul of wit. Try it sometime.”
From regionalism to nationalism to universalism to tribalism.
I had to explain the wit for the dummies.
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
If Richard Spencer didn’t exist, it’d be necessary for Jews to invent him. And one of the ways to invent him would be to pluck him from obscurity and pronounce via the media outlets controlled by no one in particular that he is an important figure on the right.
For a people renowned for your love for and skill in argument, you so seldom get around to making one. MacDonald has a thesis, which he’s supported with citations and the like. You might want to address why MacDonald’s thesis is wrong despite being compelling, and why that very thesis can be heard to spill from the mouths of Jews in boasts rather than precociously labeling him a NAZI. Since he’s such an obvious crank, this shouldn’t tax your inherited verbal dexterity too far, should it?
In a 2009 study in the International Studies Review, Dixon conducted a meta-analysis of various factors that led to civil war. There were a handful of highly significant variables that were correlated with intrastate conflict. Two of them were a rapidly rising population (but not a high population in and of itself) and ethnic heterogeneity, particularly when the dominant ethnic group was less than 80% of the population and the next largest group was of “moderate size.” Of course, correlation is not causation. But still.
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
@50 Lot: “Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.”
Where do you get off calling MacDonald part of a “Nazi fringe”? Seriously – have you read any of his books? He’s a big pattern noticer, but there’s a lot of ground between that and ‘Nazi.’ I’m no Hitler worshiper and while I unconditionally support the 14 part, I’m not so much about the 88 part. However, I am far more likely to support and defend that group of alt-righters you label the “Nazi fringe” than the civic nationalists who “don’t see color” and think we can all get along, despite all of human history clearly and repeatedly demonstrating the opposite.
As for others’ accusations of ‘sperging’ or ‘purity spiraling,’ I would argue that the vast majority of the alt-right would be quite content with a 90% White country, depending on the composition of that other 10%. The problem is that there will always be a few of that minority, or their descendants, who want to agitate for more of others ostensibly like themselves, and you’re back to where you started from. People like John Derbyshire can argue for the benefit a bit of a difference makes, but while many might be warmly inclined to someone’s Chinese wife personally, they won’t feel the same about a Yan Shen-type relative who constantly agitates against White interests. Jonah Goldberg’s mother might not be ethnically Jewish, but no one can doubt to which people Jonah’s own loyalty is pledged.
Ultimately that’s the insoluble problem – either that minority adapts and intermarries and genuinely assimilates leading to their descendents eventually being indistinguishable from the majority, or they remain a determinedly separate minority eternally advocating the entrance of more of their own as marriage partners or whatever, and eventually compose a minority antithetical to the majority.
Assimilation versus separation. Pick any non-White and/or non-Christian group in American history and see how their choices worked out. The vast majority of ethnic Japanese who were in mainland America (not those in non-American Hawaii) prior to WWII, to the best of my knowledge, have chosen assimilation and I’ve not read of anyone who has any real issues with them. Jews have chosen a bit of outward assimilation but have resolutely identified as separate and distinct from White Americans and their interests in general. How’s that working out for them? And please spare me the purported intermarriage statistics – out of every ten half or quarter Jews you pick, I can show you eight or nine who identify as Jewish.
The eternal hyphen. If any hyphen is ever used, it’s the word before the hyphen that you identify with first and foremost, every single time. Special or equal (before the law/in standing as an American) – pick ONE.
I am a civic nationalist. I see color fine. I don't think that we will ALL get along naturally, but I also don't assume that it's going to be war of all against all either. As for human history, all the major races today - Europeans/whites and East Asians included - are hybrids of different migrations, and within the races, the proportions of those source populations vary. Even in the more recent history of our shared country, your own citation of Japanese-American assimilation demonstrates that it IS possible for non-whites to assimilate into the majority population without rancor or disturbance.
And civic nationalism has one important, additional benefit that advocacy for a white ethno-state does not. It operates within the realm of what is possible without mass violence and civil war.That, right there, is a civic nationalist sentiment. A choice.
The Christians at the same time have their seat assignment on Jesus 1, going to heaven.
I've seen Zyd opinion polling where 85% of them loathe christians, while 85% of Jesus freaks love the Zyds. So the Zyds can't support a group that is praying for them to get snuffed....
I've had lots of Zyd contact, and almost 100% of it is negative. A bigger group of con-men, swindlers, and all round low lifes you'd be hard to find. If you or I treated Zyds like they treat us, they'd be revving up everything in the SPLC to get the word out about how much we hate Zyds....
Your eschatology is lacking, badly. Pre-Trib Christians support Israel because they believe the Jews are God’s chosen people, as the Bible says. It doesn’t have anything to do with the end times per se. And the weird and stupid assertion that many state — that Christians WANT the Tribulation to happen — is utterly bizarre. Christians don’t want it to happen, they are just saying it will happen. There is no effort to speed it up, as if that could be done. Pre-Tribbers believe existing Christians will be raptured at the start of the Tribulation. Halfway through it (3.5 years) things will, um, start to not go so well. Any people who convert to Christianity during that time will be subject to severe persecution and death. Post-Tribbers believe the Rapture will happen at the end of the seven-year Tribulation, and all Christians will go through the persecution, with relatively few surviving. So you can see why it is so strange that some feel Christians want that time to come. As for Jews who don’t follow Jesus going to hell, it is the same rule applied to all peoples. As for the Jewish state, it will be the site of the final world shaking battle in the plain of Megiddo.
For a people renowned for your love for and skill in argument, you so seldom get around to making one. MacDonald has a thesis, which he's supported with citations and the like. You might want to address why MacDonald's thesis is wrong despite being compelling, and why that very thesis can be heard to spill from the mouths of Jews in boasts rather than precociously labeling him a NAZI. Since he's such an obvious crank, this shouldn't tax your inherited verbal dexterity too far, should it?
MacDonald is the one with various dumb theories. Burden is in him to prove them. Greg Cochran is far smarter, loves being politically incorrect, and never has taken him seriously, even as he has written extensively about Jewish genetics and evolution.
I would say MacDonald has been much more politically incorrect than Cochran has. MacDonald had tenure and focused on Jews. Cochran hasn't written extensively on Jews. He focused on Jewish intelligence. Otherwise he doesn't comment on other aspects or about Jews in general.
What freakin’ planet to you live on? You really can not believe what you just wrote. Can you? If so, you are out of this world crazy. And it will be the last comment I read of yours.
Absolutely correct.
Twenty years ago, Renee Zellweger was castigated for not looking Jewish enough to play a Hasidic Jew in A Price Above Rubies.
https://www.sfgate.com/style/article/Actress-puts-image-to-the-test-3097535.phpI wonder if Leonardo DiCaprio had similar difficulties when he was making The Wolf of Wall Street.
An additional irony is that Ms Zellweger had surgery and now looks even less Jewish than before!
Is it possible that the expression of that sentiment is an example of what psychologists call projection, that is the projection of one's own feelings towards those others and then reversing them?
Umm, because they do?
Jews hate Evangelicals more than Muslims.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/pf_14-07-16_interreligiousrelations_all/
MacDonald wrote several books supporting his theories. W.D. Hamilton favorably cited MacDonald’s work in the second volume of Narrow Roads of Gene Land.
I would say MacDonald has been much more politically incorrect than Cochran has. MacDonald had tenure and focused on Jews. Cochran hasn’t written extensively on Jews. He focused on Jewish intelligence. Otherwise he doesn’t comment on other aspects or about Jews in general.
OT Remember the Texan foreshadowing of the Blue Wave? Legacy media reported on high turnout for the Texan Democratic party primary. According to this the Republicans got twice as many.
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/163018349
Primary votes for candidate for US Senate
D 192,085 | R 232,486
For Governor
D 80,749 | R 239,278
Lt Gov
D 84,079 | R 224,371
Land Commissioner
D 106,000 | R 156,245
I’m noting that MacDonald is alleged to be “wrong” because “you say so.” You want to add to that or is it MacDonald’s responsibility to defend himself here?
OT follow up to Texan point: there was no serious competition in the Texan Republican primaries. Governor Abbott sent out an email asking for help spooking the Democrats. It was essentially a huge prank. Also those early figures that seemed to presage a blue wave were taken from very heavily populated blue areas.
We win if we’re vigilant.
Regarding your claim that so many commentators here state they Jews hate white American Christians, I think that you're taking too literally what many of us mean when we says Jews. In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren't kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews' policies. But, of course, that's incredibly cumbersome so we just say "Jews."
Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren't too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil, but they do nothing to stop it. And, importantly, they are in a position - unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables - to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job.
“Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies.”
Remember Eric Rudolph? It’s absolutely certain that not everyone in the Appalachians supports bombing people, yet he still found a lot of places to hide. The extremist can not exist without the tolerance of the moderate. White genocidal Jews could not openly wage their pogroms if their brethren were to cast them out, but they will not.
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
“Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe.”
If my options get whittled down to Nazi or Victim it won’t be a hard choice to make. I’ve already begun to smile a little when I drive by the trailer park and see one of those towheaded little shits out playing in the dirt yard. They point their toy guns at me and pretend to shoot, and I feel better knowing that there’s still an army of them out there.
No, it is projection. OR, at the very least, it is noticing things that is influenced by a number of biases, most notably confirmation and recency.
"In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies. But, of course, that’s incredibly cumbersome so we just say “Jews.”"
Now why is it the responsibility of "rank and file" Jews to "keep in check" establishment and influential Jews? Moreover, one needs to:
1) define "rank and file", "establishment", and "influential" Jews'
2) explain how and why the "establishment" and "influential" Jews are engaging in actions that require them to be "kept in check"'
3) explain what is required to keep this group "in check" -and-
4) explain how is able to tell if those requirements are working.
Furthermore, would it be acceptable for "rank and file" whites to "keep in check" their fellow whites like those who espouse the Alt Right, OR would this group be subject to virtue signaling and shaming by the Alt Right for being "race traitors"?
"Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren’t too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil..."
False premise. You ASSUME that the U.S. will turn into a 3rd world shithole.
"but they do nothing to stop it."
As a "rank and file" white, what are YOU doing to stop it? Are you running for political office? Are you a foot soldier for the Alt Right, passing out literature on street corners to inform the ignorant white masses of the graves they are unwittingly digging for their people?
"And, importantly, they are in a position – unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables – to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job."
More assumptions on your part. Basically, your argument is gloom and doom. Woe to white people, they are going to be bred out of existence and be enslaved by non-whites. We are doomed to Jewish control.
Change your handle to "The Sky Is Falling" and be done with it.
You would have to be an idiot – – and maybe in missing the obvious – – to not see the demographic shift in America.
Would be easier if the nationalist right repudiated its Nazi fringe. Many try, while others love or give respectful hearings to MacDonald and Spencer.
Sure. And all Jews should have to publicly disavow their lunatic fringe left. When you/they’ve done that I’ll get around to disavowing people I’ve never met, read, or listened to like Spencer.
Where do you get off calling MacDonald part of a "Nazi fringe"? Seriously - have you read any of his books? He's a big pattern noticer, but there's a lot of ground between that and 'Nazi.' I'm no Hitler worshiper and while I unconditionally support the 14 part, I'm not so much about the 88 part. However, I am far more likely to support and defend that group of alt-righters you label the "Nazi fringe" than the civic nationalists who "don't see color" and think we can all get along, despite all of human history clearly and repeatedly demonstrating the opposite.
As for others' accusations of 'sperging' or 'purity spiraling,' I would argue that the vast majority of the alt-right would be quite content with a 90% White country, depending on the composition of that other 10%. The problem is that there will always be a few of that minority, or their descendants, who want to agitate for more of others ostensibly like themselves, and you're back to where you started from. People like John Derbyshire can argue for the benefit a bit of a difference makes, but while many might be warmly inclined to someone's Chinese wife personally, they won't feel the same about a Yan Shen-type relative who constantly agitates against White interests. Jonah Goldberg's mother might not be ethnically Jewish, but no one can doubt to which people Jonah's own loyalty is pledged.
Ultimately that's the insoluble problem - either that minority adapts and intermarries and genuinely assimilates leading to their descendents eventually being indistinguishable from the majority, or they remain a determinedly separate minority eternally advocating the entrance of more of their own as marriage partners or whatever, and eventually compose a minority antithetical to the majority.
Assimilation versus separation. Pick any non-White and/or non-Christian group in American history and see how their choices worked out. The vast majority of ethnic Japanese who were in mainland America (not those in non-American Hawaii) prior to WWII, to the best of my knowledge, have chosen assimilation and I've not read of anyone who has any real issues with them. Jews have chosen a bit of outward assimilation but have resolutely identified as separate and distinct from White Americans and their interests in general. How's that working out for them? And please spare me the purported intermarriage statistics - out of every ten half or quarter Jews you pick, I can show you eight or nine who identify as Jewish.
The eternal hyphen. If any hyphen is ever used, it's the word before the hyphen that you identify with first and foremost, every single time. Special or equal (before the law/in standing as an American) - pick ONE.
While you decry simplistic portrayals of alt-righters, you simultaneously do the same offense to civic nationalists.
I am a civic nationalist. I see color fine. I don’t think that we will ALL get along naturally, but I also don’t assume that it’s going to be war of all against all either. As for human history, all the major races today – Europeans/whites and East Asians included – are hybrids of different migrations, and within the races, the proportions of those source populations vary. Even in the more recent history of our shared country, your own citation of Japanese-American assimilation demonstrates that it IS possible for non-whites to assimilate into the majority population without rancor or disturbance.
And civic nationalism has one important, additional benefit that advocacy for a white ethno-state does not. It operates within the realm of what is possible without mass violence and civil war.
That, right there, is a civic nationalist sentiment. A choice.
I thought Jew said it.
Should’ve typed “Kee Kuan Kew” – would’ve been KKK.
Meanwhile, in Montreal
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/outrage-over-use-of-yellow-badges-to-protest-use-of-jewish-buses-in-montreal-area-1.3831299
No, it is projection. OR, at the very least, it is noticing things that is influenced by a number of biases, most notably confirmation and recency.
"In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies. But, of course, that’s incredibly cumbersome so we just say “Jews.”"
Now why is it the responsibility of "rank and file" Jews to "keep in check" establishment and influential Jews? Moreover, one needs to:
1) define "rank and file", "establishment", and "influential" Jews'
2) explain how and why the "establishment" and "influential" Jews are engaging in actions that require them to be "kept in check"'
3) explain what is required to keep this group "in check" -and-
4) explain how is able to tell if those requirements are working.
Furthermore, would it be acceptable for "rank and file" whites to "keep in check" their fellow whites like those who espouse the Alt Right, OR would this group be subject to virtue signaling and shaming by the Alt Right for being "race traitors"?
"Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren’t too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil..."
False premise. You ASSUME that the U.S. will turn into a 3rd world shithole.
"but they do nothing to stop it."
As a "rank and file" white, what are YOU doing to stop it? Are you running for political office? Are you a foot soldier for the Alt Right, passing out literature on street corners to inform the ignorant white masses of the graves they are unwittingly digging for their people?
"And, importantly, they are in a position – unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables – to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job."
More assumptions on your part. Basically, your argument is gloom and doom. Woe to white people, they are going to be bred out of existence and be enslaved by non-whites. We are doomed to Jewish control.
Change your handle to "The Sky Is Falling" and be done with it.
Please don’t be troubled. You don’t have a responsibility to do anything of the sort. You can simply let things continue along their current path to their natural, historical conclusion. Consider, e. g., the Ukraine, 1648.
Theodore Herzl tried to explain the ultimate futility of being a market dominant minority in foreign lands and proposed a simple solution: aliyah. Pity he was largely ignored and so many of your kinsmen (see, e.g., Barbara Lerner-Specter) have chosen to solve the problem by staying in Exile and diluting the nations of your hosts.
All you are doing is speculating here.
Now, let us assume that a similar event occurs. What will be your course of action?
Of course there is a demographic shift. Human history is littered with such examples. I never stated nor implied otherwise. But “race realists” bitterly contend that unless the rest of the “white race traitors” get on board with their agenda, the white race is doomed to extinction. Whites will be fine.
No, it is projection. OR, at the very least, it is noticing things that is influenced by a number of biases, most notably confirmation and recency.
"In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies. But, of course, that’s incredibly cumbersome so we just say “Jews.”"
Now why is it the responsibility of "rank and file" Jews to "keep in check" establishment and influential Jews? Moreover, one needs to:
1) define "rank and file", "establishment", and "influential" Jews'
2) explain how and why the "establishment" and "influential" Jews are engaging in actions that require them to be "kept in check"'
3) explain what is required to keep this group "in check" -and-
4) explain how is able to tell if those requirements are working.
Furthermore, would it be acceptable for "rank and file" whites to "keep in check" their fellow whites like those who espouse the Alt Right, OR would this group be subject to virtue signaling and shaming by the Alt Right for being "race traitors"?
"Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren’t too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil..."
False premise. You ASSUME that the U.S. will turn into a 3rd world shithole.
"but they do nothing to stop it."
As a "rank and file" white, what are YOU doing to stop it? Are you running for political office? Are you a foot soldier for the Alt Right, passing out literature on street corners to inform the ignorant white masses of the graves they are unwittingly digging for their people?
"And, importantly, they are in a position – unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables – to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job."
More assumptions on your part. Basically, your argument is gloom and doom. Woe to white people, they are going to be bred out of existence and be enslaved by non-whites. We are doomed to Jewish control.
Change your handle to "The Sky Is Falling" and be done with it.
Looks like I touched a nerve with bringing rank-and-file Jews into the discussion. I wonder why.
It’s ironic really since all I want for gentile whites is what American Jews already have. It’s odd that you’re so against that. It’s odder still that you lurk here with us poor losers who only talk of such things instead spending your time on the boards of Jewish sites telling them how terrible they are for actually having lobby groups, Jewish organizations and, even, Jewish schools.
Why spend your time trying to kill the white identity baby in the crib when you have the Jewish identity adult who shows everyday the advantages of thinking and acting like a group?
It’s almost as though you don’t really believe what you write.
Btw, Corny, on a personal note, I realize that I focus a bit too much on the doom and gloom side here, but in the real world – the one that counts – things are definitely looking up. As to what I’m doing to help my cause, well, I’ve joined a number of civic and business groups where I’m slowly working my way up. I’ve already started to very, very lightly point out policies and initiatives that these groups are following that aren’t “color-blind.” Everytime that someone pushes back against my concern, I see some white (and Asian) faces perk up. They are beginning to realize that the other side doesn’t want color-blind but is fighting for their group.
It’s fun to watch. I followed the same path. In time, I’ll say fine, if we are going to target groups, there are certainly areas where whites in particular need help. From there, it’s not a huge leap to creating a white/European-American oriented group.
You see, Corny, I’m not fighting the tide. The U.S. is headed toward some mix of Brazil/California/Texas/Mexico. Can’t be stopped. The question is whether a substantial percentage of whites will start to identify as such and start to act like every other ethnic racial group, and, especially, the Jews.
Will that happen? Who knows, not even you Corny. But I will say that I have a lot more hope than I didn’t even a couple of years ago. Tribalism is growing stronger, not weaker. No one knows what American even means anymore so people look elsewhere for their identity.
Anyway, haven’t read any of your comments for a long time. Now, I remember why. Keep up the good work. Your “We are all God’s children”/libertarian schtick works best, btw. Your strategy of bogging things down by demanding that people define understood terms is pretty ineffective. Stick with the libertarian arguments. They work best around here.
Didn’t the Chinese cut off their kews in 1911?
Once whites are wiped out= no more conflict.
We can finally have peace in a white-free world.
TD’s alter ego perhaps?
MacDonald made an argument at length. Your response – to the extent that you’ve ceased ignoring it – is “dumb.”
Theodore Herzl tried to explain the ultimate futility of being a market dominant minority in foreign lands and proposed a simple solution: aliyah. Pity he was largely ignored and so many of your kinsmen (see, e.g., Barbara Lerner-Specter) have chosen to solve the problem by staying in Exile and diluting the nations of your hosts.
“Please don’t be troubled. You don’t have a responsibility to do anything of the sort. You can simply let things continue along their current path to their natural, historical conclusion. Consider, e. g., the Ukraine, 1648.”
All you are doing is speculating here.
Now, let us assume that a similar event occurs. What will be your course of action?
And unlike some commenters here I don’t blame them for every ill in this world, like they are some sort of a nefarious cabal that acts in unison.
Twinkie wrote:
My personal experience has been that Israelis were more tolerant of dissenting views on the Mideast than most Americans, whether Jews or Christians.
Perhaps living in a rough neighborhood produces a more reality-oriented approach?
white men not only feel comfortably dominant; they ARE comfortably dominant, and in control of making rules, regulations, & laws that solely benefit them. No group should ever feel comfortably dominant. What gross privilege is this that thinks it's a necessity?
For once the Duck has stumbled upon the truth.
Tiny Duck wrote:
Here is the longer quote from Professor Chua:
Another statement in the book:
This lady is playing a very, very dangerous and very courageous game: she is trying to tell the truth in a society where telling the truth can destroy one’s career and even one’s life.
Please note: I am not suggesting that Professor Chua is “alt right.” She probably considers herself a liberal in good standing and, in a sane society, would be accepted by other liberals as such. But, if liberals do actually read this book… Ms. Chua has some interesting experiences ahead of her!
Incidentally, a while back my wife had a brief email exchange with Professor Chua: she was of course a courteous and pleasant person.
Courage is admirable, and, indeed, moral courage is much less common than raw physical courage. Amy Chua deserves the respect of anyone who cares about the truth.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/will-us-retain-its-market-dominant-majority
In classic fashion, it was by far the most interesting review of that book -- for example, in one single sentence, I learned that Chua's editor was Adam Bellow; Bellow had also edited The Bell Curve; and that Chua and Bellow pointed out the ethnic makeup of the Russian oligarchs, a not widely known HateFact at that time.*
* https://web.archive.org/web/20021026005210/http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.09.13/arts1.html
Further Googling revealed that Adam, the son of Saul Bellow, had written a nice example of the "how I became a conservative" piece a la David Mamet, David Horowitz, Whittaker Chambers etc.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9676/
No, it is projection. OR, at the very least, it is noticing things that is influenced by a number of biases, most notably confirmation and recency.
"In general, what we really mean is this: Establishment and influential Jews who aren’t kept in check by rank-and-file Jews who, through their failure to push back against influential Jews, tacitly support those other Jews’ policies. But, of course, that’s incredibly cumbersome so we just say “Jews.”"
Now why is it the responsibility of "rank and file" Jews to "keep in check" establishment and influential Jews? Moreover, one needs to:
1) define "rank and file", "establishment", and "influential" Jews'
2) explain how and why the "establishment" and "influential" Jews are engaging in actions that require them to be "kept in check"'
3) explain what is required to keep this group "in check" -and-
4) explain how is able to tell if those requirements are working.
Furthermore, would it be acceptable for "rank and file" whites to "keep in check" their fellow whites like those who espouse the Alt Right, OR would this group be subject to virtue signaling and shaming by the Alt Right for being "race traitors"?
"Look, I get that a good portion of American Jews aren’t too jazzed up about turning the United States into Brazil..."
False premise. You ASSUME that the U.S. will turn into a 3rd world shithole.
"but they do nothing to stop it."
As a "rank and file" white, what are YOU doing to stop it? Are you running for political office? Are you a foot soldier for the Alt Right, passing out literature on street corners to inform the ignorant white masses of the graves they are unwittingly digging for their people?
"And, importantly, they are in a position – unlike white gentiles who are now considered untouchables – to influence this debate because so much of it comes from their own elites. Jews can actually fight back against turning America into a 3rd world country without being immediately labeled a Nazi and losing their job."
More assumptions on your part. Basically, your argument is gloom and doom. Woe to white people, they are going to be bred out of existence and be enslaved by non-whites. We are doomed to Jewish control.
Change your handle to "The Sky Is Falling" and be done with it.
I’ll summarize Fellow White Person Corvinus’ post:
“Move along. Nothing to see here. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Remain unconscious until your race slips into sweet oblivion. But that’s not happening anyway, so relax.”
Here is Klein’s interview with Amy Chua. It is well worth listening to, on several levels.
Again and again, Chua tries to establish her progressive credibility with phrases like “I think you’re absolutely right!” but then says, just to take one example:
You can actually hear her stammer a bit as she tries to figure out how to tell the truth without opening herself to crucifixion by the SJWs!
This is not an idle concern: it is worth remembering that the Yalie SJWs pushed Erika Christakis out of her position at Yale for remarks that were less controversial.
An unfortunately brief but insightful part of the conversation (45:00-48:00) is Chua’s discussion of why so many Americans supported Trump; a brief sample:
This is an important point I have tried to hammer away at myself: education is now a set of artificial choke points to severely limit the number of people who will be allowed to hold positions of privilege.
Again, let me emphasize that I think Chua truly is a liberal. But she is also trying to tell the truth. This is challenging.
She has many perceptive and truthful comments in this interview. Hopefully, she was careful enough that the SJWs won’t be able to destroy her.
Let the enabling societies burn while their mewling pets starve.
FIAT IVSTITIA RVAT CÆLVM
Tiny Duck wrote:Here is the longer quote from Professor Chua:Another statement in the book:This lady is playing a very, very dangerous and very courageous game: she is trying to tell the truth in a society where telling the truth can destroy one's career and even one's life.
Please note: I am not suggesting that Professor Chua is "alt right." She probably considers herself a liberal in good standing and, in a sane society, would be accepted by other liberals as such. But, if liberals do actually read this book... Ms. Chua has some interesting experiences ahead of her!
Incidentally, a while back my wife had a brief email exchange with Professor Chua: she was of course a courteous and pleasant person.
Courage is admirable, and, indeed, moral courage is much less common than raw physical courage. Amy Chua deserves the respect of anyone who cares about the truth.
A commenter years ago noted that Professor Chua is also one of the best-liked professors at Yale Law School for all the efforts she puts into helping her students.
I have a number of readers that I call alt-jew. They hold all of the same opinions you find on the alt-right, even with regards to liberal Jews. In fact, their analysis of liberal Jews is even more harsh. I suspect American Jews are going through a generational change in outlook, similar to what we are seeing with whites. The further you get from Boomers, the more hostile to Progressivism you get, but Boomers still dominate for now.
Hope lies in the actuarial tables.
It’s not EXCEPTIONALISM, it’s NEPOTISM – and controlling the money supply of the goyim!!!
The brazen philo-Semitic lies and apologetics on here are extremely tiresome to read. This is one of the reasons I rarely read or comment anymore. Steve continually dances around the truth, while the weird hasbara teams of commenters give each other pats on the back (Asian women! IQ testing! Talmudic movie reviews! Etc., etc.)
As a physicist, I have taken classes with or worked for or with five Nobel laureates. All five were very smart and very, very hard-working. I know enough about their work to know that they deserved the prize.
Four of the five were Jewish (the fifth, and most recent, Kip Thorne, is of Mormon descent, though not a practicing Mormon).
Why is that any more of a problem than the fact that the NBA has more black guys than their proportion in the general population? Do we have to have each ethnic group represented in each field of endeavor in proportion to their fraction of the population?
Theodore Herzl tried to explain the ultimate futility of being a market dominant minority in foreign lands and proposed a simple solution: aliyah. Pity he was largely ignored and so many of your kinsmen (see, e.g., Barbara Lerner-Specter) have chosen to solve the problem by staying in Exile and diluting the nations of your hosts.
When your best example is some crazy old cat lady whom nobody has ever hears of, you have no examples. It’d be like using Savitri Devi as an example of why all Europeans are Nazis. Nuts.
Tiny Duck wrote:Here is the longer quote from Professor Chua:Another statement in the book:This lady is playing a very, very dangerous and very courageous game: she is trying to tell the truth in a society where telling the truth can destroy one's career and even one's life.
Please note: I am not suggesting that Professor Chua is "alt right." She probably considers herself a liberal in good standing and, in a sane society, would be accepted by other liberals as such. But, if liberals do actually read this book... Ms. Chua has some interesting experiences ahead of her!
Incidentally, a while back my wife had a brief email exchange with Professor Chua: she was of course a courteous and pleasant person.
Courage is admirable, and, indeed, moral courage is much less common than raw physical courage. Amy Chua deserves the respect of anyone who cares about the truth.
I remember reading Steve’s appreciative review of Chua’s “World on Fire” back in 2003
http://www.vdare.com/articles/will-us-retain-its-market-dominant-majority
In classic fashion, it was by far the most interesting review of that book — for example, in one single sentence, I learned that Chua’s editor was Adam Bellow; Bellow had also edited The Bell Curve; and that Chua and Bellow pointed out the ethnic makeup of the Russian oligarchs, a not widely known HateFact at that time.*
* https://web.archive.org/web/20021026005210/http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.09.13/arts1.html
Further Googling revealed that Adam, the son of Saul Bellow, had written a nice example of the “how I became a conservative” piece a la David Mamet, David Horowitz, Whittaker Chambers etc.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9676/
People with non-European ancestry aren’t white, though. So no, whites won’t be fine if people like you get your way. A mongrelized population won’t be able to create the same living conditions, either. The reason Canada and America turned out so much better than the shitholes south of them is because they didn’t adulterate their bloodlines by mixing with lower IQ savages and negroes.
Except American whites are not monolithic in how they view race and culture. So they will be fine, since it is not about me "getting my way", it is about them choosing what is best for them.
"The reason Canada and America turned out so much better than the shitholes south of them is because they didn’t adulterate their bloodlines by mixing with lower IQ savages and negroes."
Actually, northern/western Europeans mixed with lower IQ savages, those being from eastern/southern Europe. You really need to keep up with the memo.
The brazen philo-Semitic lies and apologetics on here are extremely tiresome to read. This is one of the reasons I rarely read or comment anymore. Steve continually dances around the truth, while the weird hasbara teams of commenters give each other pats on the back (Asian women! IQ testing! Talmudic movie reviews! Etc., etc.)
Marie wrote:
You don’t think some Jews really are smart, really are hard-working, and really do deserve the positions they have achieved??
As a physicist, I have taken classes with or worked for or with five Nobel laureates. All five were very smart and very, very hard-working. I know enough about their work to know that they deserved the prize.
Four of the five were Jewish (the fifth, and most recent, Kip Thorne, is of Mormon descent, though not a practicing Mormon).
Why is that any more of a problem than the fact that the NBA has more black guys than their proportion in the general population? Do we have to have each ethnic group represented in each field of endeavor in proportion to their fraction of the population?
I have a number of readers that I call alt-jew. They hold all of the same opinions you find on the alt-right, even with regards to liberal Jews. In fact, their analysis of liberal Jews is even more harsh. I suspect American Jews are going through a generational change in outlook, similar to what we are seeing with whites. The further you get from Boomers, the more hostile to Progressivism you get, but Boomers still dominate for now.
Hope lies in the actuarial tables.
“Jewish exceptionalism.”
Which is on par to American exceptionalism, or Alt Right elitism, or black pride, or La Raza.
“Jews are wildly over represented in all sorts of areas of society.”
Says who? Praytell, what is this magic number? Why?
“That includes some ugly parts like pornography, multiculturalism and anti-white hostility.”
False categorization on your part. Multiculturalism is not an “ugly part” here. And. per usual, you are overplaying this “anti-white hostility” angle. Need more blog traffic, eh.
“People tend to notice the bad stuff, because that’s what they feel on a daily basis.”
I thought feelings of victimization was an SJW trait.
“I suspect American Jews are going through a generational change in outlook, similar to what we are seeing with whites.”
To what, the Alt Right? Surely you jest. According to Alan Dershowitz, “[t]he bad news is that American Jews–as a people–have never been in greater danger of disappearing through assimilation, intermarriage, and low birthrates.” Looks like their is a generational change all right, but not the one you think.
“The further you get from Boomers, the more hostile to Progressivism you get, but Boomers still dominate for now.”
You are peddling Fake News.
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/meet-gen-z-progressive-conscientious-connected-generation-date/1347852
Besides, why on earth would Generation Z, or even normies for that matter, be remotely willing to support a return to patriarchy, a society squarely based on ethnic nationalism, and a government predicated an aristocracy with limits on who is eligible for political participation–ideas promoted by various leaders of the Alt Right? If and when the apocalypse occurs, there will be several competing groups vying for power. Does the Alt Right have the boots on the ground to emerge victorious?
“People with non-European ancestry aren’t white, though. So no, whites won’t be fine if people like you get your way.”
Except American whites are not monolithic in how they view race and culture. So they will be fine, since it is not about me “getting my way”, it is about them choosing what is best for them.
“The reason Canada and America turned out so much better than the shitholes south of them is because they didn’t adulterate their bloodlines by mixing with lower IQ savages and negroes.”
Actually, northern/western Europeans mixed with lower IQ savages, those being from eastern/southern Europe. You really need to keep up with the memo.
Once whites are wiped out= no more conflict.
We can finally have peace in a white-free world.
Much better than original. Congratulations! May I ask about your diet?
A Barbara Lerner Spectre is haunting the alt-right. Reality is as you say, she has slim to zero influence. Just some youtube videos put up by those who despise her. I doubt she posts her own.
Except American whites are not monolithic in how they view race and culture. So they will be fine, since it is not about me "getting my way", it is about them choosing what is best for them.
"The reason Canada and America turned out so much better than the shitholes south of them is because they didn’t adulterate their bloodlines by mixing with lower IQ savages and negroes."
Actually, northern/western Europeans mixed with lower IQ savages, those being from eastern/southern Europe. You really need to keep up with the memo.
Most of us really didn’t. My DNA analysis only showed British/Irish, German/French and Scandinavian groups. Eastern Euros aren’t much lower IQ either, though. Average is ~99. Have to wonder how much of that’s down to having tens of millions of them murdered by the communist states last century.
YOU are not most, you are an individual. And you do realize that your ancestors engaged in ethnic mixing, right?
"Have to wonder how much of that’s down to having tens of millions of them murdered by the communist states last century."
Just goes to show the cruelty of whites. It's in their DNA.
“Most of us really didn’t. My DNA analysis only showed British/Irish, German/French and Scandinavian groups.”
YOU are not most, you are an individual. And you do realize that your ancestors engaged in ethnic mixing, right?
“Have to wonder how much of that’s down to having tens of millions of them murdered by the communist states last century.”
Just goes to show the cruelty of whites. It’s in their DNA.
I have a number of readers that I call alt-jew. They hold all of the same opinions you find on the alt-right, even with regards to liberal Jews. In fact, their analysis of liberal Jews is even more harsh. I suspect American Jews are going through a generational change in outlook, similar to what we are seeing with whites. The further you get from Boomers, the more hostile to Progressivism you get, but Boomers still dominate for now.
Hope lies in the actuarial tables.
Every congressman with an “A+” Numbers USA is a White Christian.
Most Jewish congressman, on the other hand, have an “F” Numbers USA score.
Evangelical Christian congressmen have the highest average Numbers USA score of any religio-ethnic group, and Jewish congressmen have the worst average Numbers USA score of any religio-ethnic group.
So it isn’t true that Jews are wildly over represented in all movements.
They are massively over-represented in the open borders movement, and they are also massively under-represented in the immigration restriction movement.
Similarly, the were massively over-represented among the Bolsheviks, especially the higher levels, the secret police, and the Trotsky’s extremist left-Communist faction, beyond anything that IQ levels could predict. But they were almost completely absent from the White movement which fought to prevent the horrors of communism.
Science, invented by Europeans, now has enough momentum that it will continue to advance at a faster or slower pace with or without any given individual’s contribution. European Christian civilization would continue to advance scientifically without the contribution of Jewish scientists, but European Christian civilization cannot survive the activism of Jewish supremacists motivated by Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism.
Their only contribution has been to loudly and repeatedly demand that no, ever, under any circumstances ever criticize the Jews as a group, not even slightly. (But they don’t mind if other groups are criticized as groups).
And before you say it, yes I do enjoy the taste of lox and bagels and pastrami on rye, but I fail to see why you and Jim Goad think this is relevant.