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

 Remember My Information



=>

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

As I mentioned below, there’s a growing myth in 21st Century America that white Southerners sympathized with Hitler. In reality, the South was most anti-Nazi part of the country. Commenter CCZ finds for me the Nicholas Lemann passage I was trying to recall:

You are correct about Nicholas Lemann’s comments. They appeared in his September 26, 2013 NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson (Liveright, 706 pp.):

“As the South was turning away from solidarity with Roosevelt on domestic issues, Roosevelt’s own attention was turning to the coming of World War II—and there, in Katznelson’s telling, the South was completely supportive, far more so than the rest of the country. The dominant strain in the Republican Party in those days was isolationist, and, as Katznelson reminds us, the northern, urban wing of the Democratic Party included many Italian-Americans, German-Americans, and Irish-Americans who were skeptical about the war.

“The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—Adolf Hitler was a big fan of Gone With the Wind, and many prominent Nazis assumed that many in the South would find their racial views sympathetic, but they didn’t. The crucial steps before the Pearl Harbor attack that made the United States as prepared for the war as it was—including large increases in military spending, military aid to Great Britain, and the establishment of a draft—would all have been impossible without the enthusiastic backing of southerners in Congress. In return, the South got some assurances that the militarization of the United States would proceed in ways that did not threaten Jim Crow, such as the maintenance of segregated army units.”

Commenter Anonymouse2 cites an example of Southern bellicosity before Pearl Harbor brought the whole country around:

The Lend-Lease Act passed in March 1941 on a vote of 60-31. Only one Southern senator – Robert Reynolds of North Carolina – voted against it. Every other region of the country was much more divided – 5 of 12 New England senators voted against it, as did 3 of the 6 senators from the Left Coast.

Of course if you read the Wikipedia article on the Act it only discusses partisan differences in support (Democrats were much more supportive of Lend-Lease than Republicans), but makes no mention of regional ones.

Commenter Indiana Jack points to a Gallup Poll:

In January, 1941, almost a year before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question “Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do – to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?”

Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war.

Southerners were the most pro-England / anti-Germany with 76% agreeing that helping England win was more important than staying out of the war, while only 55% of Midwesterners prioritized England winning.

One contributing source to this growing myth of Southern sympathy for Hitler is Philip Roth’s 2004 bestseller The Plot Against America, an alternative history story in which aviator Charles Lindbergh, who was the son of a Swedish-American Republican Congressman, runs against FDR on an isolationist platform in the 1940 presidential election. From Wikipedia:

After making a surprise appearance on the last night of the 1940 Republican National Convention, [Lindbergh] is nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for President. Although criticized from the left, and hated by most Jewish-Americans, Lindbergh musters a strong tide of popular support from the South and Midwest … Lindbergh wins the election over incumbent president Franklin D. Roosevelt in a landslide under the slogan ‘Vote for Lindbergh, or vote for war.’ … With Lindbergh as president, the Roth family begin increasingly to feel like outsiders in American society.

… A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them. Philip’s brother Sandy is one of the boys selected, and after spending time on a farm in Kentucky he comes home showing contempt for his family, calling them ‘ghetto Jews.’ … Philip’s shy and innocent school friend Seldon Wishnow, an only child, is moved to Kentucky with his mother. In protest against the new act, radio broadcaster Walter Winchell openly criticizes the Lindbergh administration and is fired from his station. He then decides to run for President and begins a speaking tour. His candidacy causes anger and antisemitic rioting in southern and Midwestern states, and mobs begin targeting him. Making a speech in Louisville, Kentucky he is shot to death.

Boy, Roth really has it in for Kentucky.

Here’s Roth’s account of how Lindbergh wins:

The November election hadn’t even been close. Lindbergh got fifty-seven percent of the popular vote and, in an electoral sweep, car­ried forty-six states, losing only FDR’s home state of New York and, by a mere two thousand votes, Maryland, where the large population of federal office workers had voted overwhelmingly for Roo­sevelt while the president was able to retain—as he could nowhere else below the Mason-Dixon Line—the loyalty of nearly half the Democrats’ old southern constituency.

Roth’s notion that a Republican Swedish isolationist from Minnesota could have carried the Solid South against FDR in 1940 is just nuts. Here’s what happened in the South in this universe when Republican businessman Wendell Wilkie of Indiana ran against FDR:

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Democratic
Wendell Willkie
Republican
State electoral
votes
# % electoral
votes
# %
Mississippi 9 168,267 95.70 9 7,364 4.19
South Carolina 8 95,470 95.63 8 4,360 4.37
Louisiana 10 319,751 85.88 10 52,446 14.09
Alabama 11 250,726 85.22 11 42,184 14.34
Georgia 12 265,194 84.85 12 46,360 14.83
Texas 23 909,974 80.92 23 212,692 18.91
Arkansas 9 158,622 79.02 9 42,121 20.98
North Carolina 13 609,015 74.03 13 213,633 25.97
Florida 7 359,334 74.01 7 126,158 25.99
Virginia 11 235,961 68.08 11 109,363 31.55
Tennessee 11 351,601 67.25 11 169,153 32.35

FDR won at least two-thirds of the vote in every old Confederate state, with over 95% in hyper-Confederate South Carolina.

Kentucky was a Union state in the Civil War. In any case, FDR carried Kentucky with over 57% of the vote.

My impression is that the South has always been more pro-Semitic on the whole than the WASP North.

Here’s an interview today in the NYT with Roth, who has retired from writing novels but is approaching his 85th birthday in decent health. He has some eloquent things to say about the pleasures of being old but alive.

Not long ago he had a visit from David Simon, the creator of “The Wire,” who is making a six-part mini-series of “The Plot Against America,” and afterward he said he was sure his novel was in good hands.

In discussing his current reading, Roth praises Yuri Slezkine’s fine book:

“Pogrom” led me to find a recent book of interpretive history, Yuri Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century,” which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

 
Hide 504 CommentsLeave a Comment
504 Comments to "Retconning History"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon • Disclaimer says:

    which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

    I’ve seen enough episodes of Welcome Back, Kotter to know that this is probably true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    James Joyce: The Jewish century is a nightmare from which the goyim are trying to wake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. TGGP says: • Website

    I’m heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the “relevance” of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville’s “The Confidence-Man”.

    Roth was born in 1933, so he’s no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he’d have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don’t know how reliable I’d be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It’s worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn’t win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Roth was born in 1933, so he’s no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he’d have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don’t know how reliable I’d be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    Or if, you know. You were deliberately trying to slander a group of people you considered to be your enemy.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Steven Wiesenburger, in his book on Gravity's Rainbow, suggested that Pynchon was influenced by The Confidence Man too:

    The literary precursors of this design, at least those that come most directly to mind, are Joyce's Ulysses and Melville's great satire, The Confidence Man. Both involve cyclical plots unfolding over exactly three-fourths of a solar year. And like Melville, Pynchon sets the decisive action of his book, the firing of Rocket 00000, on Easter/April Fool's. As in The Confidence Man, this one detail renders hopelessly equivocal any theme of salvation.
     

     
    , @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie's mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there's a line in the movie "Quiz Show" about her having been Wendell Wilkie's mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace's yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.
    , @guest
    Confidence-Man Masquerade may or may not be "relevant" (what politician isn't a confidence man? Is that book therefore perpetually in line with the times?), but it is Melville's second-worst novel. Not as bad as Pierre Ambiguities (though bear in mind I have an acute aversion to incest and incest-adjacent material), but bad.

    The problem with the book is really the way it's structured. The actual confidence man isn't much of a character, so you can't pull much relevance out of him. My guess is Roth thinks contemporary America is like a wild riverboat ride with a trickster running around pulling all of our legs.

    I submit the possibility that America isn't actually like that, and Roth--along with many others--is merely confused himself.
    , @DCThrowback
    If my memory serves, Willkie's campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government's "pump priming" during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called "The Forgotten Man".

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should've been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the "Good" war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson…

    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude
     
    Voltaire said something along the lines that Jews have" most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched."

    In other words, long before the Holocaust was blamed on American whites (especially Southern whites), Voltaire noted that Jews tended to hate those who are kindest to them. Not for nothing to Jews constantly comment that Voltaire was anti-Semitic for noticing that.
    , @CCZ
    One of historian Katznelson's other books, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE, An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, presents his interpretation of 1930-1940s American racial history, an interpretation that Ta Neshi Coates invokes with his demand for reparations.

    From the NY Times book review:

    “Ira Katznelson, the Ruggles professor of political science and history at Columbia University, enters this fray with a provocative new book, "When Affirmative Action Was White," which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.”
     
    , @Dave Pinsen

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males
     
    Isn't this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II "the good war" and lionize the "Greatest Generation" that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army, and neither America nor Russia went out of its way to ameliorate the genocide. On the contrary, Russia initially facilitated it, by allying itself with Nazi Germany, and the U.S. closed its borders to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.
    , @Corvinus
    "The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude."

    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. J.Ross says: • Website

    Good thing they’re misrepresenting basic facts about WWII in the United States, I hear they jail you for that in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Naah, it's not that bad. They just jail you for asking too many questions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Bubba says:

    Roth’s bizarre fantasy is just like The NYT’s diligently “reporting” the Communist propaganda on the Ukraine famine in that it is all lies. Dead goy Durante still has a Pulitzer for this “reporting” and the Sulzbergers have never apologized.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. snorlax says:

    Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good job Snorlax. I was just going to say something--it needed an additional table cell inserted into the beginning of the first row.

    It's one heck of a table. Showing just how strongly partisan identification can bind people. Sorta scary.

    , @Steve Sailer
    Wow, thanks.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Why do you have two identical electoral vote columns?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.’s and arguably America’s most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX’s ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.
    , @fnn
    The leading pro-Axis American intellectual of the pre-Pearl Harbor period was the mulatto Lawrence Dennis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Dennis
    , @Twodees Partain
    SOTT has an excerpt from Dave McGowan's book with his photos and text about the Murphy Ranch:

    https://www.sott.net/article/221499-Inside-The-LC-The-Strange-but-Mostly-True-Story-of-Laurel-Canyon-and-the-Birth-of-the-Hippie-Generation-Part-X
    , @Bliss

    The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.’s and arguably America’s most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive.
     
    Very interesting. Didn’t know about Paul R. Williams so googled him. A very creative architect who had a huge impact on his home town Los Angeles:

    https://www.npr.org/2012/06/22/155442524/a-trailblazing-black-architect-who-helped-shape-l-a

    A Trailblazing Black Architect Who Helped Shape L.A.

    Paul Revere Williams began designing homes and commercial buildings in the early 1920s. By the time he died in 1980, he had created some 2,500 buildings, most of them in and around Los Angeles, but also around the globe.

    His granddaughter, Karen E. Hudson, has been chronicling Williams' life and work for the past two decades. Her latest book, Paul R. Williams: Classic Hollywood Style, focuses on some of the homes of his celebrity clients. They feature many characteristics that were innovative when he used them in the 1920s through the '70s and are considered common practice now — like the patio as an extension of the house, and hidden, retractable screens.

    His work has come to signify glamorous Southern California to the rest of the country — and to the world. One of his hallmarks — a luxuriantly curving staircase — has captivated many a potential owner.

    Bret Parsons is head of the architectural division of John Aaroe Group, a Beverly Hills real estate brokerage handling multimillion-dollar properties. He says when Williams homes come up for sale, real estate agents scramble to get the listing. "They're gobbled up in seconds," he says. "They're an absolute pedigree for someone to have in their arsenal." Parsons says Williams homes posses grace, design and elegant proportions, which attracted people with money and taste.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. ivvenalis says:

    Philip K. Dick’s 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There’s a specific line about “connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else”, or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But I'd hold Roth, who is extremely sane, to a higher standard than Dick, who was a crazy man who accomplished a lot despite his severe troubles.
    , @whorefinder
    To the Jews, every goyim who complains about Jews---or even notices their activities---is deep down a Jew-hater allied with every other Jew-hater in a worldwide conspiracy to bring Auschwitz to every town in America. As a result, they must be brought low in public humiliation/prison time/torture/excommunication, or the Nazis will win!

    Jewish paranoia and sociopathy are a lethal combination....for Jews. Despite their high IQs, their paranoia about being hated and their sociopathic tendencies make them a lot more enemies than they would without it, and also lends them far fewer allies when non-Jews get really pissed at them.
    , @Bugg
    "The Man.." is far and away the most boring cable/Netflix major show ever produced. Plodding, ponderous garbage.But figure Simon working on Roth's alternate is going to top that.

    Robert Harris" "Fatherland" was way more plausible than either. Brits come to an armistice after a long hard losing slog without the US, Churchill gets dumped, the Duke of Windsor gets restored to the throne. And Joseph Kennedy, after his falling out with FDR, becomes president with an isolationist foreign policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    Roth was born in 1933, so he’s no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he’d have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don’t know how reliable I’d be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    Or if, you know. You were deliberately trying to slander a group of people you considered to be your enemy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax
    Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    Good job Snorlax. I was just going to say something–it needed an additional table cell inserted into the beginning of the first row.

    It’s one heck of a table. Showing just how strongly partisan identification can bind people. Sorta scary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Opinion polls from the time also confirm southern sympathy for Britain. Gallup conducted opinion polls on the subject during the early years of the war.

    In January, 1940, almost two years before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question “Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do – to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?”

    Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war. The “help England” position was supported by a majority of respondents in all parts of the country, but southerners were the most enthusiastic about helping the British war effort (people in the midwest were the least enthusiastic). Broken down by region, the percentages who thought that it was more important to help England, even if it risked the U.S. entering the war:

    New England 63%
    Middle Atlantic 63%
    East Central 55%
    West Central 55%
    South 76%
    West 66%

    http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @Barnard
    Gallup's analysis of the election is interesting also. Women were expected to vote for the more conservative candidate and it surprised Gallup they went for Roosevelt. I wonder if this election caused a permanent trend toward the Democrats among women.


    http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/FDR_1940_presidential_gallup_poll_information-pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    Steven Wiesenburger, in his book on Gravity’s Rainbow, suggested that Pynchon was influenced by The Confidence Man too:

    The literary precursors of this design, at least those that come most directly to mind, are Joyce’s Ulysses and Melville’s great satire, The Confidence Man. Both involve cyclical plots unfolding over exactly three-fourths of a solar year. And like Melville, Pynchon sets the decisive action of his book, the firing of Rocket 00000, on Easter/April Fool’s. As in The Confidence Man, this one detail renders hopelessly equivocal any theme of salvation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. eah says:

    Retconning History

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I hate to defend the odious Kennedy, but "lie" and "falsehood" obviously have very different meanings, as anyone with the most basic grasp of English knows. Obviously what Kennedy said turned out to be false, but his claims cannot honestly be called lies without evidence that Kennedy knew his claims were likely to be proven false. The world in 1965 was very different and it certainly would not have been unreasonable for Kennedy to have truly believed his claims, so to say that his claims were "lies" requires evidence.

    Retconning history is a deplorable practice that is certainly not limited to the left.

    One fact I rarely hear mentioned from immigration-skeptics is that the provisions of the act that encourage chain migration were originally intended in order to maintain the ethnic balance of the nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie’s mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there’s a line in the movie “Quiz Show” about her having been Wendell Wilkie’s mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace’s yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.
    , @Whitehall
    The progressives tried to dent him with the short story "The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt" about a tryst on a long distance train.

    I still wear Brooks Brothers shirts..

    Wilkie also was a respected executive of a power company subsumed by TVA so he had some recognition in the South.

    Nowadays I wish that the segregationists had been smarter politically. They had a useful analysis of the social issues but only crude tools to cope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Mr. Blank says:

    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly “liberal” and “cosmopolitan,” in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people’s heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It’s always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @Thomas

    When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.
     
    A century of Hollywood movies rotted away most people’s ability to understand life or process complexity.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Apropos your point, is this (actually, pretty good) movie

    The Phenix City Story

    About the crime-busting reformer, John Patterson, who fought the criminal syndicate that controlled Phenix City and had tentacles stretching into the government of Alabama and the state's Democratic political machine.

    He was a good-government boy-scout-type politician that even yankees could be proud of.

    And he ran for governor of Alabama and won on a segregationist platform, defeating George Wallace, whom Patterson painted as soft on the issue.

    , @S. Anonyia
    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.
    , @Antlitz Grollheim
    Spot on.

    I think the major difference was seeing yourself as a historical person, being connected with your elderly and knowing second-hand the complexity of life. Being culturally literate in the morality plays of the Bible, Shakespeare, great literature. Humanist in the best sense.

    Most people today, OTOH, are actively severing themselves from all the ties that bind them to the past. They are totally unmoored in an eternal present, and the Narrative machine provides them with a new context for each issue to push them to precisely the correct conclusion.
    , @Bill

    it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.
     
    The movements for prohibition and suffrage weren't like SJW Twitter mobs?
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    Excellent post; many thanks.

    This is exactly the point of view I'm trying to Daughter C, i.e. that human nature -- in both its created-in-the-image-of-God glory, and its broken, skewed sinfulness -- is both constant and infinitely complex.
    , @Bubba
    Wonderful erudite comment. Thank you.
    , @utu

    people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs
     
    Excellent comment.
    , @JackOH
    Mr. Blank, I'll second the other replies here. Brilliant comment.

    I've heard those dreary, cartoonish, stick-figure views of people and peoples from high and low alike. Seems like education, travel, and so on need not necessarily have any power to modulate the world-as-MTV-video either, nor does lack of education bar many folks from holding generous, genuinely liberal, views of the world.

    Merle H., a West Virginia native and WWII combat veteran who'd served under Patton, had no problem openly saying the Germans under Hitler had genuine grievances, and that he was glad to have contributed to Hitler's defeat. Merle was a neighbor during my growing-up years in the 1960s. Contrariwise, you can find university-educated intersectionality commandos who can't make sense of the complexity many ordinary folks handle easily.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @snorlax
    Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    Wow, thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Mother Night" by Kurt Vonnegut contains a scene in which Hitler discusses the merits of Lincoln and ends up expressing concern that Lincoln may have been Jewish due to his first name. It's a little comical.

    One famous Jew in the Confederate cabinet was Judah Benjamin, the Secretary of Treasury. Somehow, the gold of the treasury vanished at the end of the war.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    GWTW depicts Melanie's baby being nursed by Prissie's mother, Dilcey. Nazis would consider this race pollution.
    The racism of the pre-War South was exploitive, but rarely murderous (pace Mrs. Stowe, but slaves were expensive), and often involved considerable mutual affection with house servants.
    , @The Man From K Street

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.
     
    As did every German nationalist at the time from Bismarck on down through the 20th century. The German right has always pretty much seen right through the whole moonlight-and-magnolias BS and deprecated the CSA as opposed to what they saw as the blood-and-iron national-conservative triumph of the Union.
    , @Jeremy Cooper

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.
     
    Where can I find this? I was interested so I got out my Kindle version of Main Kampf and searched for "Lincoln", "confederacy", and "United States" and found nothing on the civil war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Indiana Jack
    Opinion polls from the time also confirm southern sympathy for Britain. Gallup conducted opinion polls on the subject during the early years of the war.

    In January, 1940, almost two years before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question "Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do - to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?"

    Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war. The "help England" position was supported by a majority of respondents in all parts of the country, but southerners were the most enthusiastic about helping the British war effort (people in the midwest were the least enthusiastic). Broken down by region, the percentages who thought that it was more important to help England, even if it risked the U.S. entering the war:

    New England 63%
    Middle Atlantic 63%
    East Central 55%
    West Central 55%
    South 76%
    West 66%

    http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn’t tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Millennial
    The founding myth of Massachusetts used to be fighting the Indians and the French.

    Pequot War
    King Philips War
    King Williams War
    Queen Anne's War
    Dummer's War
    King George's War
    French and Indian War

    Nearly a full century of either active frontier warfare or a frontier "cold war."

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.

    Of course, after mass immigration, WWII and the 1960s, generations of colonial New England frontier defenders simply became "witch-hunters" and "Nazis" - their battles likened to Einsatzgruppe actions, if remembered at all.

    , @LondonBob
    The North was the region that strongly opposed the War of 1812. Probably most relevant would be to look at the attitudes of oldline WASPs in the North rather than as a region as a whole.
    , @Thomas

    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States... Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.
     
    This was somewhat covered in David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, the coastal South was settled originally by South of England Cavaliers and gentry (and, later, by Northerners and Scots-Irish), while the North got Puritans and Quakers (and, much later, Germans). Also, Britain’s mills were the main customer for King Cotton, and Britain had been an arms supplier to the Confederacy (as much as anything could get past the Union blockade), so the South had a number of reasons to have been relatively pro-British.
    , @Art Deco
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have 'medieval worldviews' in your imagination only.



    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else's).
    , @Anonymous
    Ed Hood from Alabama, the Queen of Harvard Square for many years in the 60s, told me he was an anti-semite (his word) until he fell in love with Peter Wolfe of the Ed Geils band who married Faye Dunaway.

    Anecdote being the singular of data, that anecdote suggests a fair degree of inveterate jew hatred in the south in years past. Thoughtful commenters in these quarters deriving conclusions about how southerners didn't hate jews in the mid 20th century miss the mark because they weren't around then.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.
     
    Really. Can you give any examples? The founders of St. Grottlesex and various hunt clubs likely would have been surprised at your assertion.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English.
     
    Massachusetts, founded by the English, is a bit older than the American Revolution. See Millennial’s comment. The Massachusetts founding event that is most recognized and mythologized is the Plymouth Thanksgiving.

    P.S., For those to whom Yankee claims to Thanksgiving are a perennial perineal sore spot, read this past subthread. (#12… )

    , @peterike

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

     

    The key word there is "claim." What they are doing is lying, making it up. Jews of a certain generation really like playing up persecution fantasies and imaginary health problems (a different kind of persecution fantasy). It's that generation's version of virtue signaling.
    , @S. Anonyia
    Evangelical preachers are far from being medieval. It’s more like a mishmash of modern heresies, like an even less intellectual version of Mormonism. It’s true that they don’t know much about Jews but it’s more in the opposite direction, erring on the side of ridiculous near comical Philosemitism- drive through the rural upper South or Texas and you will see Israeli flags on the outside of churches and even occasionally homes. These people do everything short of worship Jews and Israel. They preach almost exclusively from the Old Testament and Revealations.
    , @Bill

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.
     
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Jews haven't met many Southerners, and the ones they've met are mostly happy to play into Jews' prejudices (c.f. the idiotic fantasies you mention about Southerners).
    , @Wade

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.
     
    I grew up in the south (the benighted Arkansas, no less) and was raised in a conservative Christian home. I can tell you with certainty that I have *never* heard any southerner suggest that, or ask whether or not, Jews have horns whether in jest or in ignorance. If anyone had ever made such a statement I can assure you that it would've been met with stares of disbelief and laughter directed at the speaker who suggested such a preposterous thing.
    , @Mr. Blank
    The handful of Jews I knew growing up in Alabama were culturally indistinguishable from white Protestants. They drove pickup trucks sporting Confederate flag stickers, owned guns, spoke with a drawl, listened to country music, voted Republican. Oh, and they could tell you all about their illustrious Confederate ancestors — they weren't the least bit ashamed of them.

    I didn't meet a classic "New York style" Jewish person until well into my 20s. Up until then, I wasn't sure they really existed outside of movies.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Michelangelo's statue of Moses, which is easily a top ten all time greatest statue, has horns. This probably has to do wit St. Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin. Early Christians understood that "horns" was supposed to be understood metaphorically to depict something like a halo or rays of light shining from Moses's head when he came down from Mt. Sinai, but in the last millennium the word chosen by Jerome started to be taken literally. But it was usually understood to be complimentary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)#Horns
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. WHAT says:

    So, american south played an obedient shabbos goy to the international jewry to its own demise. After being literally raped at the instigation of the same, no less.

    If you see their belicosity through this lens, it becomes very clear why they were so anti-Hitler – he succeeded where they have failed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    If you see their belicosity through this lens, it becomes very clear why they were so anti-Hitler – he succeeded where they have failed.
     
    Hitler failed on a colossal scale.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @ivvenalis
    Philip K. Dick's 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There's a specific line about "connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else", or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    But I’d hold Roth, who is extremely sane, to a higher standard than Dick, who was a crazy man who accomplished a lot despite his severe troubles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    bored identity always had a feeling that something's really rothen in Kentucky:
    Every. Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. Single.Time.

    Yet, Philip somehow manages not only to ride safely on his paranoia engined, retconquisling log flume aaaaaall the way through Splash Mountain* , but also to softly land his tribal tempered fiction-faction right into the briar's patch of lasting fame & glory - regardless of Slezkine's Confession of The Century.


    *BTW, Maurice Rapf , the same guy that was hired by Disney to niggle and fiddle with "Song of the South" script ( remember that video of fat mouse Gus with Phrygian cap hording shekels shiny, golden kernels of corn - that you censored last week... on a wimp ? ) was uncredited for his work on giving the character of Cinderella a spirit of class struggle.

    If Maurice was still to be among US, he would have a weekly column in any of Mother Washington Forward Globe Slate Wall publications, providing the perfect opportunity for industrious lamenting over the need for Kentuckian Bubba to understand what any Good War is really good for;

    In order to maintain Fake Pax Americana, it is again time for Cletus to voluntarilly get rid of a few budding twigs on his family tree.

    Because nothing screams, by echoes encased patriotism louder than a decent Southerner spilling his guts on Vladivostok's Mean Street while saving Private Gessen...


    ....Every. Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. Single.Time.



    https://youtu.be/6bWyhj7siEY
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn’t have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    http://blogs.kcrw.com/music/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Frank-Sinatra-reel-to-reel.jpg
    , @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.
    , @Clifford Brown
    On the larger commercial projects, Williams contributed as part of a team at his architectural firm, so again, there is no signature style. There is some debate about how much he contributed to the Theme Building for example.

    Tragically, Williams' business records (letters, drawings and contracts) were stored in Watts and destroyed in the Rodney King Riots.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    Good thing they're misrepresenting basic facts about WWII in the United States, I hear they jail you for that in Europe.

    Naah, it’s not that bad. They just jail you for asking too many questions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well, one thing leads to another. Any details catch your eye here?

    "Frank Sinatra's living room at Villa Maggio."

    https://wdcassets.blob.core.windows.net/images/content/203e0690-aac3-40ac-b6df-148450e9a7ce/vm_livingroom.jpg

    A later version of this same photo, from the same real-estate agency, replaces the blanket with a somewhat blander alternative.
    , @europeasant
    A rich man man like Sinatra had a lot of fancy and expensive audio/video equipment for his time. These days even the common man has affordable access to that and much more. 7.1 surround systems featuring dual 12" powered sub-woofers. 60 and 70 inch Hi-def screens, blue ray players, amplifiers delivering 100 watts to 7 surround speakers.
    But the high end of audio/video these days is insane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. black sea says:

    Roth, who is extremely sane . . .

    There is no such thing as an extremely sane novelist, or at least, not one who’s any good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. whorefinder says: • Website

    When it comes to history, it pays for the left to be as ignorant as possible. Get them to start studying and investigating, and who knows how many leftist bromides might fall?

    For example, one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow to be heard in any medium; neither film nor TV nor debate. If someone raises it they are immediately blackballed and cut off. Then the Left says that all that caused Jim Crow was evil whitey/exploitation by the rich.

    Yet when you look at black violent crime rates and rioting and the actual tales of whites dealing with black misbehavior during the era—all of which sound startlingly familiar to tales today we can watch performed live on World Star Hip-Hop—Jim Crow starts to sound a lot more defensible and appealing and humane than the alternatives of letting whites be terrorized by black crime or having blacks be ethnically cleansed by angry whites.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bubba, Bill
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    It's interesting to contemplate the origins of Jim Crow, since it was established first in Delaware, due to concerns that freed slaves would behave as badly as they were doing in South Carolina under the rule of the military occupation (euphemistically referred to as "Reconstruction") since Delaware was a slave state that didn't secede.

    Ironically, Delaware was the site of the last of the black riots of the "civil rights era".
    , @Luke Lea
    "one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow "

    I have no wish to defend Jim Crow but this does remind me of a recent article I read about the origins of white flight and the development of inner city ghettos in the north: https://devinhelton.com/why-urban-decay

    The writer argues (and attempts to document, I don't know how successfully) that high rates of black-on-white violence in northern cities preceded and drove the process.

    Separately, I think he also argues (unless I am getting him mixed up with another writer) that the ratio of black-to-white lynchings throughout the nation was roughly the same as the ratio of black to white rates of crime, suggesting that lynching may not have been driven by racial animus or discrimination, as is generally assumed, but rather by actual disparities in criminal behavior (which does not mean there were not miscarriages of vigilante justice, which, given the lack of due process, there must have been).

    I only report this because the information and the arguments are new to me. That said, I emphatically do NOT support legal segregation and would like to see the vote extended even to convicted felons of whatever race who have served their sentences. People who are free to walk on the streets and to work should have the right to vote, in my opinion, which is not the case in many places.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. whorefinder says: • Website
    @ivvenalis
    Philip K. Dick's 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There's a specific line about "connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else", or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    To the Jews, every goyim who complains about Jews—or even notices their activities—is deep down a Jew-hater allied with every other Jew-hater in a worldwide conspiracy to bring Auschwitz to every town in America. As a result, they must be brought low in public humiliation/prison time/torture/excommunication, or the Nazis will win!

    Jewish paranoia and sociopathy are a lethal combination….for Jews. Despite their high IQs, their paranoia about being hated and their sociopathic tendencies make them a lot more enemies than they would without it, and also lends them far fewer allies when non-Jews get really pissed at them.

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

    New York Times: Extremely Wealthy Old Jew Says Trump is a Nazi!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. guest says:
    @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    Confidence-Man Masquerade may or may not be “relevant” (what politician isn’t a confidence man? Is that book therefore perpetually in line with the times?), but it is Melville’s second-worst novel. Not as bad as Pierre Ambiguities (though bear in mind I have an acute aversion to incest and incest-adjacent material), but bad.

    The problem with the book is really the way it’s structured. The actual confidence man isn’t much of a character, so you can’t pull much relevance out of him. My guess is Roth thinks contemporary America is like a wild riverboat ride with a trickster running around pulling all of our legs.

    I submit the possibility that America isn’t actually like that, and Roth–along with many others–is merely confused himself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson...
     
    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction--Anglo-American White Males--have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.
     

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude

    Voltaire said something along the lines that Jews have” most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”

    In other words, long before the Holocaust was blamed on American whites (especially Southern whites), Voltaire noted that Jews tended to hate those who are kindest to them. Not for nothing to Jews constantly comment that Voltaire was anti-Semitic for noticing that.

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

    OT:

    James Thompson has poked his head up with 4 new tweets and a retweet:

    https://twitter.com/JamesPsychol

    He should know better than to try to win an argument with Twitter. Best advice: Shut up and it will blow over in two weeks.

    But he still has his position at University College London to worry about. I wonder if university administrators in the U.K. are as craven as they are in the United States? If so, he’s in trouble.

    There’s also this ominous exchange from last week:

    “Planning to organize a conference this year?” (right-wing English comic)
    “Yes, that’s right.” (Thompson)
    “No, you won’t” (Oberlin alumnus now in London at UCL pursuing degree in philosophy or something)

    I assume that Dr. Thompson is looking for an off-campus venue that can hold a few dozen people, would have reasonable security, and would not be intimidated by wild protestors screaming “Nazis.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    http://blogs.kcrw.com/music/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Frank-Sinatra-reel-to-reel.jpg

    Well, one thing leads to another. Any details catch your eye here?

    “Frank Sinatra’s living room at Villa Maggio.”

    A later version of this same photo, from the same real-estate agency, replaces the blanket with a somewhat blander alternative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe Sinatra was into Judaism and Buddhism.

    I'm wondering if Japanese map makers will replace the reverse swastikas that indicate temples with some other symbol before Tokyo 2020. They're already starting to do away with a bunch of map and signage symbols that are considered insufficiently international, like the onsen hot springs symbol.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. CCZ says:

    Previously, Roth commented on “Plot” and Trump in the January 30, 2017 New Yorker, in the article “Roth on Trump.”

    Many passages in “The Plot Against America” echo feelings voiced today by vulnerable Americans—immigrants and minorities as alarmed by Trump’s election as the Jews of Newark are frightened by Lindbergh’s. The book also chronicles their impulse of denial. Lindbergh’s election makes clear to the seven-year-old “Philip Roth” that “the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything. Turned wrong way around, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as ‘History,’ a harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

    Asked if this warning has come to pass, Roth e-mailed, “My novel wasn’t written as a warning. I was just trying to imagine what it would have been like for a Jewish family like mine, in a Jewish community like Newark, had something even faintly like Nazi anti-Semitism befallen us in 1940, at the end of the most pointedly anti-Semitic decade in world history. I wanted to imagine how we would have fared, which meant I had first to invent an ominous American government that threatened us. As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”

    Maybe Roth’s outlook has been “enhanced” by reading Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter (The History of White People, 2011), and Bruce Springsteen.

    From “Philip Roth calls Trump ‘a massive fraud,’ talks about Springsteen book” in NJ.Com, by Amy Kuperinsky, January 16, 2018:

    “Since he’s not writing, Roth, who currently lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, spends his time reading, seeing friends, going to concerts, watching movies and checking email. Among his recent reads are works by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter, Edmund Morgan, Teju Cole, Stephen Greenblatt, and Bruce Springsteen.”

    Regarding black historian Painter writing about “White People”: “Among the topics Painter discusses are the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life, the racialization of intelligence and of political beliefs, and the relationship between race and conceptions of female beauty.” [Wiki]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”
     
    It's true you know. Nuclear catastrophes are bad for Jews and other living things.
    , @guest
    I know Trump as Nazi is a Thing, of course, but why are they bothering Philip Roth about it? Has there been an uptick in sales of Plot Against America since the '16 election? Were enough journalists spontaneously reminded of the book? Or are they simply bothering everyone for their opinion, and Roth is next on the list?

    Bush the Younger of course was compared to Hitler, and I recall the Handmaid's Tale coming up in connection with him. Probably because he was born-again in addition to being Hitler. Itt has re-emerged under Trump, but that's a coincidence. The t.v. show had to be in the works while Hilary was still inevitable.

    It Can't Happen Here I remember being brought up under Bush II, but not the Plot Against America. Is there a specific Lindbergh connection, because he and Trump are both from outside politics? Is there a hope abroad that Trump could up and fly away, and we could go back to normal?

    Sales of Atlas Shrugged soared in 2008, not because of Obama specifically but because of the economic meltdown and the bipartisan response to it. Has there been a response to Trump like that anywhere, Plot Against America-related or otherwise?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. guest says:

    I find this strange Myth of Southern Anti-Semitism in the case of Leo Frank, which incidentally led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League. Much like BLM launched off of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    There actually was injustice in the Frank case. He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury. But he was also pardoned (on who knows what grounds), and should not have been subsequently lynched. Still, I don’t consider the lynching of a guilty man crime enough to merit endless nonsense about the plight of you-know-who.

    Part of the Frank Mythos is the idea that racists white racist Southern racists went after Frank because racism. Which is borne out by the long history of anti-semitism in the South that actually doesn’t exist. Or at least not in comparison to the rest of the country.

    Southerners have the reputation of being “backwards” and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That’s the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Speaking of that particular minority group, the authorities could’ve pinned the murder on a black janitor. He was the only other suspect. Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury.

    He wasn't. Frank effectively had to demonstrate his innocence by accounting for every minute of his time during the late morning and early afternoon that day, which of course he couldn't do because no one similarly situated could. He was convicted on the testimony of one very disreputable character. (Contradicted many decades later by another factory employee).
    , @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. I have relatives from both sides of the Mason Dixon, and the Southern ones are much more pro-Jewish than the northern ones. I can’t imagine them being pro-German in the war; Germans were the enemy in WWI and that attitude still carried weight in the South.

    I swear, some people don’t get out and meet enough people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts used to be fighting the Indians and the French.

    Pequot War
    King Philips War
    King Williams War
    Queen Anne’s War
    Dummer’s War
    King George’s War
    French and Indian War

    Nearly a full century of either active frontier warfare or a frontier “cold war.”

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.

    Of course, after mass immigration, WWII and the 1960s, generations of colonial New England frontier defenders simply became “witch-hunters” and “Nazis” – their battles likened to Einsatzgruppe actions, if remembered at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @EvolutionistX
    I have relatives from both sides of the Mason Dixon, and the Southern ones are much more pro-Jewish than the northern ones. I can't imagine them being pro-German in the war; Germans were the enemy in WWI and that attitude still carried weight in the South.

    I swear, some people don't get out and meet enough people.

    Philip Roth’s ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn’t fun at all. He’d write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I’m giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy’s Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

     

    Roth might be an expert on all things Jewish in Newark, New Jersey, or the Eastern portion of northern New Jersey, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's an expert on the northern half of New Jersey.

    Northwestern New Jersey is mostly White and mostly Christian. Unfortunately, there is now an Asian and Mestizo invasion underway. New Jersey is one of the states that must be reclaimed by White Core American Patriots when the time comes.

    OFF TOPIC

    FELDSTEIN FORECASTS FLOP FOR STOCKS

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-are-headed-for-a-fall-1516145624
    , @guest
    My experience of Roth is entirely from his second-act: Plot Against America, American Pastoral, Indignation. I tried reading Portnoy but couldn't get into it. It made me feel gross. Indignation was too much about hand-jobs, but at least I didn't feel gross.

    American Pastoral, on the other hand, was to much about the manufacture of gloves. Which I didn't find all that interesting a topic.
    , @Benjaminl

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.
     
    Perhaps in second place, after The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_in_Dedham_for_Apprehending_Horse_Thieves
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. CCZ says:
    @Anonymous

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson...
     
    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction--Anglo-American White Males--have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.
     

    One of historian Katznelson’s other books, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE, An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, presents his interpretation of 1930-1940s American racial history, an interpretation that Ta Neshi Coates invokes with his demand for reparations.

    From the NY Times book review:

    “Ira Katznelson, the Ruggles professor of political science and history at Columbia University, enters this fray with a provocative new book, “When Affirmative Action Was White,” which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson’s principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Harry Truman’s Fair Deal in the 1930′s and 1940′s. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans — judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960′s.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960′s.”
     
    Let's see, the '60s ended in 1970....and 1970 was 48 years ago.....Which means that we've had 48 years of Black affirmative action, as opposed to only 30 years of White affirmative action.....
    , @Anonymous
    Thank you. There are in fact several such books out lately, explaining how FDR's policies were actually about holding down the Black Man, and need to be compensated for today over and above all the compensation we've been engaged in for fifty years. Each and every one of these books is lauded in the Establishment Media (NPR, NYT etc) and every single one was written by a FWP tribeman. They are busy helping to lay the groundwork for dispossession.

    'Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.'

    Rothstein gives this passage the appearance of a syllogism, but it is actually an assertion.


    https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    From the NYT interview with Roth:

    There is a cameo of Virginia Woolf in all her terrifying genius and there are especially gripping pages about the initial evening meeting in badly bombarded Leningrad in 1945 with the magnificent Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, when she was in her 50s, isolated, lonely, despised and persecuted by the Soviet regime. Berlin writes, “Leningrad after the war was for her nothing but a vast cemetery, the graveyard of her friends. … The account of the unrelieved tragedy of her life went far beyond anything which anyone had ever described to me in spoken words.” They spoke until 3 or 4 in the morning. The scene is as moving as anything in Tolstoy.

    Anna Akhmatova comes up in Antony Beevor’s book about the fall of Berlin:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parsifal
    As pointless bloodshed goes Dresden takes the cake. And Ehrenburg is hardly worse than US anti-Japanese propaganda.
    , @inertial
    Beevor has to be taken with a grain of salt. His books are Cold War propaganda (and are banned in modern Russia.) Even that little quote that you give about the Soviets "stoking the desire for vengeance" is full of half truths, omissions, and highly questionable "facts."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    I’ve never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    It’s been said that President McKinley leaned slightly Anglophobe, while Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson were undoubtedly Anglophile. Seen in that light, McKinley’s assassination may have been the single most influential event of the 20th century.
    , @Anonymous

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark.
     
    Their best propagandist was Alfred Hitchcock.

    e.g.

    Foreign Correspondent

    The Lady Vanishes (a tad oblique)

    Saboteur

    Shadow of a Doubt (a tad oblique)

    Lifeboat

    The Fighting Generation

    Notorious (even after the war was over....Nazis!)

    , @Barnard
    There were a number of Northern WASP families who had daughters that married into British nobility. Winston Churchill's mother is the most famous example.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    David Niven always got on my nerves when I watched him in a movie. James Mason was better, he checked out of everybody's program; maybe because he was an aloof Yorkshireman.
    , @Luke Lea

    I’ve never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.
     
    Well, there was the English language. Shared history. Literature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. fnn says:
    @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    The leading pro-Axis American intellectual of the pre-Pearl Harbor period was the mulatto Lawrence Dennis:

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. George says:

    “Roth really has it in for Kentucky. ”

    A common theme, Al Capp’s Lil Abner takes place in two backward places Dogpatch KY and Lower Slobbovia Eastern Europe Russia.

    The South voted consistently D until Nixon because the Rs burned Atlanta to the ground while singing “Marching through Georgia”. Harding did surprisingly well in the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    re: Al Capp’s Lil Abner

    There's something we haven't talked about! Hilarious stereotypes that you would think would be as un-pc as blackface and minstrel shows. Though I'm glad it isn't.

    Lincoln, America's first stand-up comedian, was once in conversation with his black washerwoman, who was complaining about some indignity or other connected with being a black person in Springfield. He told that he himself had come from what was colloquially known as white trash — adding he had to admit that some of them were "pretty trashy."

    Where would comedy be without stereotypes? I submit there is something wholesomely healthy about stereotypes, even (or perhaps especially) for the groups being satirized. Let's hear it for more Jewish jokes!

    I say this as a Southern white Protestant male (and yes I did go barefoot to school, at least once).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. fnn says:

    Not surprisingly, the South was the only part of the country without a chapter of the America First Committee.

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

    but Roth is a great man of sorts

    A great man who wrote about whacking his pee pee five times a day.
    Now eats salad three times a day, hoping this pointless exercise gives him two more years until he finally gets bent over and buggered by the barbed baloney of Beelzebub. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Well, one thing leads to another. Any details catch your eye here?

    "Frank Sinatra's living room at Villa Maggio."

    https://wdcassets.blob.core.windows.net/images/content/203e0690-aac3-40ac-b6df-148450e9a7ce/vm_livingroom.jpg

    A later version of this same photo, from the same real-estate agency, replaces the blanket with a somewhat blander alternative.

    Maybe Sinatra was into Judaism and Buddhism.

    I’m wondering if Japanese map makers will replace the reverse swastikas that indicate temples with some other symbol before Tokyo 2020. They’re already starting to do away with a bunch of map and signage symbols that are considered insufficiently international, like the onsen hot springs symbol.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. LondonBob says:

    Nothing to do with Jews, the South was still dominated by the original British settler groups, they loved fighting, had an emphasis on honour and felt a strong kinship with Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. LondonBob says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The North was the region that strongly opposed the War of 1812. Probably most relevant would be to look at the attitudes of oldline WASPs in the North rather than as a region as a whole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. whorefinder says: • Website

    We also can’t forget the impact of Hollywood causing this.

    Movies and TV are extremely influential on the human mind, more so than print. And Hollywood for years has churned out a steady diet of Nazis-as-bad-guys and Klan-as-bad-guys films because of the various needs of the times:

    Nazi films: Holocaust guilt reasons, celebration of WW2 vets to make money, need of white actors to play villains, etc.

    Klan films: pushing integration, making blacks into saints, explaining black crime away, etc.

    It’s unsurprising that as of today, these two separate histories are being conflated, because the movies/TV shows are so embedded in our culture that they’ve amalgamated in many minds.

    Think of how many people believe Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were innocents wrongly gunned down. Our media effects our minds.

    It’s unsurprising that people would start to seriously conflate the South and the Nazis after they’ve been the go-to bad guys in film since the 1940s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Behold the results:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcXuafe2y-Y
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Thomas says:
    @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    A century of Hollywood movies rotted away most people’s ability to understand life or process complexity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    True. Some movies do a good job evoking what the past may have been like - at least giving some indication of it. But they are no way to learn history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Thomas says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States… Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    This was somewhat covered in David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, the coastal South was settled originally by South of England Cavaliers and gentry (and, later, by Northerners and Scots-Irish), while the North got Puritans and Quakers (and, much later, Germans). Also, Britain’s mills were the main customer for King Cotton, and Britain had been an arms supplier to the Confederacy (as much as anything could get past the Union blockade), so the South had a number of reasons to have been relatively pro-British.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Cavaliers in Virginia and the Carolinas were always pro-British. The Revolution in the South was also a concurrent civil war between the Tory Cavaliers and the Patriot Scots-Irish with the turning point at King's Mountain. If Ferguson hadn't trash-talked the rednecks the Revolution would have failed. After Yorktown, the most fervent Tories became Canadians. If you order iced tea in Toronto it comes sweetened, just like down south.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Mr. Anon says:
    @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    Apropos your point, is this (actually, pretty good) movie

    The Phenix City Story

    About the crime-busting reformer, John Patterson, who fought the criminal syndicate that controlled Phenix City and had tentacles stretching into the government of Alabama and the state’s Democratic political machine.

    He was a good-government boy-scout-type politician that even yankees could be proud of.

    And he ran for governor of Alabama and won on a segregationist platform, defeating George Wallace, whom Patterson painted as soft on the issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomas

    When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.
     
    A century of Hollywood movies rotted away most people’s ability to understand life or process complexity.

    True. Some movies do a good job evoking what the past may have been like – at least giving some indication of it. But they are no way to learn history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Mr. Anon says:

    One contributing source to this growing myth of Southern sympathy for Hitler is Philip Roth’s 2004 bestseller The Plot Against America, an alternative history story in which aviator Charles Lindbergh, who was the son of a Swedish-American Republican Congressman, runs against FDR on an isolationist platform in the 1940 presidential election.

    Imagine the chutzpah involved in that: writing a book about Americans running around being Americans, doing american things, and calling it “The Plot Against America”.

    Read More
    • LOL: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Anonymouse says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie's mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there's a line in the movie "Quiz Show" about her having been Wendell Wilkie's mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace's yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.

    Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prosa123
    "Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie."

    A train trip was Willkie's undoing. In September 1944, while riding a train from Indiana to New York, he suffered a heart attack as it passed through western Pennsylvania. He disregarded the pleas of his companions to get off in Pittsburgh and go to a hospital and instead insisting on going all the way to New York. Although he went straight to the hospital from the train station he died within a few weeks.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life

    This observation seems to be considered a big gotcha by the left, but they fail to consider that by “assimilate” it is meant that they married and procreated with the previous white clan such that the admixture became absolutely complete, irreversible, and mostly invisible to most whites. Whatever the older white clan genome was, it no longer is the same. This has never been the case with black Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Parsifal says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    From the NYT interview with Roth:

    There is a cameo of Virginia Woolf in all her terrifying genius and there are especially gripping pages about the initial evening meeting in badly bombarded Leningrad in 1945 with the magnificent Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, when she was in her 50s, isolated, lonely, despised and persecuted by the Soviet regime. Berlin writes, “Leningrad after the war was for her nothing but a vast cemetery, the graveyard of her friends. … The account of the unrelieved tragedy of her life went far beyond anything which anyone had ever described to me in spoken words.” They spoke until 3 or 4 in the morning. The scene is as moving as anything in Tolstoy.
     
    Anna Akhmatova comes up in Antony Beevor's book about the fall of Berlin:

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/953544159616471040

    As pointless bloodshed goes Dresden takes the cake. And Ehrenburg is hardly worse than US anti-Japanese propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    Indeed. I remember right after I got married my new brother-in-law gave me an "inspiring, patriotic" book to read, "God is My Co-pilot" by Robert L. Scott. I indeed found it to be a wonderful, inspiring story, that is until I got to the part where Scott puts in his two-minutes of hate against the Japanese.

    As a boomer raised on the myth of the good war, a myth that at the time I still believed and followed, I still found the anti-Japanese screed in his book rather off-putting, and any time I read about or read quotes from Ehrenburg, I'm reminded of Scott's over the top hate which makes the title of his otherwise inspiring book almost into blasphemy.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Pretty much all the strategic bombing in 1945 was pointless bloodshed.

    As Beevor notes (quoting some astonishing stats from a speech by Speer in January, 1945), the strategic bombing did nothing to stop Germany from producing armaments. It's main impact on the war effort was in wearing down the Luftwaffe, and there wasn't much left of German airpower in 1945.

    There was a book by a German historian, Jörg Friedrich, on the scope of the allied bombing of Germany in World War II, particularly in the last few months: The Fire.


    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/952081937816084480
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Whitehall says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie's mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there's a line in the movie "Quiz Show" about her having been Wendell Wilkie's mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace's yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.

    The progressives tried to dent him with the short story “The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt” about a tryst on a long distance train.

    I still wear Brooks Brothers shirts..

    Wilkie also was a respected executive of a power company subsumed by TVA so he had some recognition in the South.

    Nowadays I wish that the segregationists had been smarter politically. They had a useful analysis of the social issues but only crude tools to cope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    It’s been said that President McKinley leaned slightly Anglophobe, while Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson were undoubtedly Anglophile. Seen in that light, McKinley’s assassination may have been the single most influential event of the 20th century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Dr. X says:

    “Pogrom” led me to find a recent book of interpretive history, Yuri Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century,” which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

    I believe this is true. Contrary to the (very powerful) Holocaust-victimology industry, I think it’s more accurate to say that the Jews actually won World War II (despite having an obviously high casualty rate).

    Jews were disproportionately influential in the three countries that defeated the Third Reich — Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. And while their archenemy Hitler failed to achieve his German ethnostate and had his country divided up and occupied by the victors, the Jews finally got their Promised Land after two thousand years of stateless exile, thanks to the Balfour Declaration and the UN ( and the deaths of a lot of Joes, Tommies and Ivans).

    Holocaust casualties aside, the Jews actually ended up doing pretty well for themselves during the 20th century… and they remain firmly in control of the important institutions in the U.S. in the 21st.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CCZ
    Previously, Roth commented on “Plot” and Trump in the January 30, 2017 New Yorker, in the article “Roth on Trump.”

    Many passages in “The Plot Against America” echo feelings voiced today by vulnerable Americans—immigrants and minorities as alarmed by Trump’s election as the Jews of Newark are frightened by Lindbergh’s. The book also chronicles their impulse of denial. Lindbergh’s election makes clear to the seven-year-old “Philip Roth” that “the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything. Turned wrong way around, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as ‘History,’ a harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

    Asked if this warning has come to pass, Roth e-mailed, “My novel wasn’t written as a warning. I was just trying to imagine what it would have been like for a Jewish family like mine, in a Jewish community like Newark, had something even faintly like Nazi anti-Semitism befallen us in 1940, at the end of the most pointedly anti-Semitic decade in world history. I wanted to imagine how we would have fared, which meant I had first to invent an ominous American government that threatened us. As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”
     
    Maybe Roth's outlook has been “enhanced” by reading Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter (The History of White People, 2011), and Bruce Springsteen.

    From “Philip Roth calls Trump 'a massive fraud,' talks about Springsteen book” in NJ.Com, by Amy Kuperinsky, January 16, 2018:

    “Since he's not writing, Roth, who currently lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, spends his time reading, seeing friends, going to concerts, watching movies and checking email. Among his recent reads are works by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter, Edmund Morgan, Teju Cole, Stephen Greenblatt, and Bruce Springsteen.”
     
    Regarding black historian Painter writing about “White People”: “Among the topics Painter discusses are the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life, the racialization of intelligence and of political beliefs, and the relationship between race and conceptions of female beauty.” [Wiki]

    As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”

    It’s true you know. Nuclear catastrophes are bad for Jews and other living things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. AndrewR says:
    @eah
    Retconning History

    https://twitter.com/westland_will/status/953514951561297920

    I hate to defend the odious Kennedy, but “lie” and “falsehood” obviously have very different meanings, as anyone with the most basic grasp of English knows. Obviously what Kennedy said turned out to be false, but his claims cannot honestly be called lies without evidence that Kennedy knew his claims were likely to be proven false. The world in 1965 was very different and it certainly would not have been unreasonable for Kennedy to have truly believed his claims, so to say that his claims were “lies” requires evidence.

    Retconning history is a deplorable practice that is certainly not limited to the left.

    One fact I rarely hear mentioned from immigration-skeptics is that the provisions of the act that encourage chain migration were originally intended in order to maintain the ethnic balance of the nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's hard to know anything at all about Teddy Kennedy and believe that the accuracy (or not) of his statement was anything more or less than a political calculation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark.

    Their best propagandist was Alfred Hitchcock.

    e.g.

    Foreign Correspondent

    The Lady Vanishes (a tad oblique)

    Saboteur

    Shadow of a Doubt (a tad oblique)

    Lifeboat

    The Fighting Generation

    Notorious (even after the war was over….Nazis!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas

    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States... Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.
     
    This was somewhat covered in David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, the coastal South was settled originally by South of England Cavaliers and gentry (and, later, by Northerners and Scots-Irish), while the North got Puritans and Quakers (and, much later, Germans). Also, Britain’s mills were the main customer for King Cotton, and Britain had been an arms supplier to the Confederacy (as much as anything could get past the Union blockade), so the South had a number of reasons to have been relatively pro-British.

    The Cavaliers in Virginia and the Carolinas were always pro-British. The Revolution in the South was also a concurrent civil war between the Tory Cavaliers and the Patriot Scots-Irish with the turning point at King’s Mountain. If Ferguson hadn’t trash-talked the rednecks the Revolution would have failed. After Yorktown, the most fervent Tories became Canadians. If you order iced tea in Toronto it comes sweetened, just like down south.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Tamaqua says:

    My mother was born in segregated South Carolina. To quote her, “we didn’t sit around all day waving Rebel flags …. We were poor and had a life to live. It wasn’t perfect but it was better than today.”

    A few other points about the Old South, Jews, and Hitler’s racial philosophy-

    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis. You’re never going to hear anything about him from any Jewish group or academics. Overwhelming numbers of less prominent Southern Jews put on uniforms and fought as infantrymen alongside their neighbors in the Confederate Army, and at a much higher rate than their Northern cousins percentage of population that joined the Union Army.

    An entire book has been written-

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1570033633/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1570033633

    Southerners are overwhelmingly descendants of English, Scots and Northern Irish. English support helped the Confederate States fight the war, importing weapons and buying Southern cotton, and building Confederate warships in Liverpool. Is it any wonder that 80 years later Southerners would feel more disposed to their ancestral and cultural homeland than others?

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them. Southerners also didn’t consider other white ethnic groups worthy of enslavement, such as the Germans did to Slavic people in Eastern Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them.
     
    This is a very important and worthy point. Southerners never believed that Negroes should be eradicated en masse because Southerners they were Christians. Although they believed Negroes were inferior, all they really wanted was to be left alone from the depredations of jungle behavior.

    Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages, European Christians held the same views toward Jews: that Jews were morally corrupt but nonetheless worthy of God's grace, and this forbid the massacre and extermination of the Jews.

    To the contrary, Hitler, as a Darwinist and a neo-pagan, had no such limitations.

    The supposed equivalence between Southern segregationists and Nazis is largely a fantasy perpetrated by Hollywood Jews and the $PLC.
    , @Gringo
    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis.

    Judah Benjamin was also the first US Senator of the Jewish faith. David Yulee, his second cousin, had been a US Senator before Judah Benjamin, but Yulee had converted to Christianity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Benjamin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.

    Read More
    • Replies: @njguy73

    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.
     
    Care to provide a link?
    , @Anonymous
    This adds important context. The British and French empires were indeed quintessential white supremacist organizations. Many African and Asian nationalists in the 1930s and 40s admired Hitler for standing up to both.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Sunbeam says:

    “A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them.”

    This is literally the most uninformed thing I’ve ever seen.

    Lessee, let’s rewrite this just for fun:

    “A new government program begins to take black boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them.”

    There’s kind of a point you reach, at least I imagine most people reach.

    And that point is: “These people are supposed to be smart? Really? They’re rich, they get talked about. Everyone says they’re smart. But how did all this happen? I’m not seeing it.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @snorlax
    Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    Why do you have two identical electoral vote columns?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Does the book mention Dwight Morrow? The former Ambassador to Mexico and US Senator from New Jersey was Lindbergh’s father in law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @flip
    And JPMorgan partner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Art Deco says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only.

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else’s).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    Thanks for that. Most Southerners haven't met many Jews, it's true, and rarely think about them, in spite of their presence on TV and in the movies. When they do think about Jews, they generally think about Old Testament Jews, and I can attest they think of them as ancestors of sort. 99.9% of Evangelical preachers are Christian Zionists.
    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century, with significant communities in Camden and Charleston. Charleston had the largest Jewish community in the US until abut 1830, when it was finally eclipsed by New York City. Almost all SC Jews are Sephardic, and while they are very well recorded, they are generally quiet. For instance, I was an adult before I discovered that FDR's "Ambassador at Large," Bernhard Baruch, was born and raised in Camden. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and rode with the KKK during Reconstruction. Ben Bernanke is a descendant of Baruch, and also from Camden.
    The Low Country of South Carolina is very, very German. My mother's family is almost entirely German. Charleston itself was settled from Barbados, not Britain. The old blue bloods there are of English and French descent. The Upstate was settled primarily by the Scotch Irish and Welsh, with some Palatine Germans as well. Dr. Walter Edgar identified 38 different ethnicities among the founding stock of SC. I don't think ancestry had anything much to do with Southern support for Britain in the war, so much as a perception of kinship, perhaps.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only

    Medieval is an unfortunate word, you are right. Medieval Christian theologians were often brilliant and insightful. Evangelicals almost never are, although the myth about Jews having horns has a medieval pedigree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Barnard says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    There were a number of Northern WASP families who had daughters that married into British nobility. Winston Churchill’s mother is the most famous example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    Jerome Avenue is a major thoroughfare in the Bronx and is named for Churchill's grandfather. It takes you to Yankee Stadium.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. DCThrowback says: • Website
    @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    If my memory serves, Willkie’s campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government’s “pump priming” during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called “The Forgotten Man”.

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should’ve been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the “Good” war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    We were a decade into the Depression by the time of that election, the "revolution within the form" had been pulled off by the FDR boys and probably wasn't going anywhere. The war was by far the most important issue. Just look how it dominated the rest of the century. Heck, the rest of our lives. We still talk about it constantly.
    , @David In TN
    Toward the end of the 1940 campaign, Willkie was saying things like "If Roosevelt wins the boys will be on the troop transports."

    After the election Willkie supported FDR's foreign policy and dismissed the above as "campaign oratory."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. I have no idea why Steve feels obligated to go out of his way to cuck for a a person (Roth) who has demonised Steve’s group of people all his life. Roth is not ‘extremely sane’. He’s a typical neurotic Jew with a massive inferiority complex towards Anglos.

    As someone said, no group did more to help Jews than white Anglo-Americans and how did Jews repay that debt? By demonising them and their people nonstop. And yet Steve can’t shake that habit of constantly turning the other cheek. It’s pathetic to watch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    It's interesting how often a comment would have been 10 times better if the last sentence were left off. It's true of my comments way too often, so I'm not casting stones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Art Deco
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have 'medieval worldviews' in your imagination only.



    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else's).

    Thanks for that. Most Southerners haven’t met many Jews, it’s true, and rarely think about them, in spite of their presence on TV and in the movies. When they do think about Jews, they generally think about Old Testament Jews, and I can attest they think of them as ancestors of sort. 99.9% of Evangelical preachers are Christian Zionists.
    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century, with significant communities in Camden and Charleston. Charleston had the largest Jewish community in the US until abut 1830, when it was finally eclipsed by New York City. Almost all SC Jews are Sephardic, and while they are very well recorded, they are generally quiet. For instance, I was an adult before I discovered that FDR’s “Ambassador at Large,” Bernhard Baruch, was born and raised in Camden. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and rode with the KKK during Reconstruction. Ben Bernanke is a descendant of Baruch, and also from Camden.
    The Low Country of South Carolina is very, very German. My mother’s family is almost entirely German. Charleston itself was settled from Barbados, not Britain. The old blue bloods there are of English and French descent. The Upstate was settled primarily by the Scotch Irish and Welsh, with some Palatine Germans as well. Dr. Walter Edgar identified 38 different ethnicities among the founding stock of SC. I don’t think ancestry had anything much to do with Southern support for Britain in the war, so much as a perception of kinship, perhaps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonomy
    A Jew saying he is Hebrew is like an African claiming to be German.
    , @ben tillman

    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century....
     
    Try the turn of the 18th century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Southerners were rather philosemitic, as regular isteve readers should know.

    edit: Second Art Deco. Whatever Gospodin Akuleyev’s informants were smoking, it must have been a good batch.

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

    Yeah many Southerners have always been eager to fight the US empire’s wars. Often to our detriment.

    And even despite being the most hated region of the country by that very empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Thea says:

    Helping the Jews in WWII has left us with the intractable results of Hart Cellar, a Supreme Court that hates Ameticans and our values, a media and academia with White men in their crosshairs. And nasty slanderous books like this.

    It’s such a mystery why these people get kicked out of countries every so often.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Another example of why the jews are always shocked when the peasants arrive with the torches.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Part of the reason for the retconning is that slavery is the new American Holocaust, whereas before it was the Indian Wars (and the Indian-killing perpetrators were usually Yankees).

    Take, for example, the Zorro movies. In the 1998 film the racist villain was a blond Yankee cavalry officer, and the victims were indigenous peasants. In the 2005 sequel, the racist villain was a redneck sidekick to some European exile Confederate agent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. My impression is that the South has always been more pro-Semitic on the whole than the WASP North.

    It is very much a class thing. The upper class, plantation owners, bankers, businessmen, Episcopalians were quite well disposed towards Jews, the farmers and workers who shopped in their stores on credit – not so much.

    I was raised Episcopalian, but have deep roots North and South. One did not say “Jew”, one said “Jewish”, describing ones religious affiliation, not ethnicity. Intermarriage was quite common.

    Most people do not know, but MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was addressed to the religious leaders of major organizations in Birmingham, 5 Christian Churches (IIRC) and one Synagogue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Ed Hood from Alabama, the Queen of Harvard Square for many years in the 60s, told me he was an anti-semite (his word) until he fell in love with Peter Wolfe of the Ed Geils band who married Faye Dunaway.

    Anecdote being the singular of data, that anecdote suggests a fair degree of inveterate jew hatred in the south in years past. Thoughtful commenters in these quarters deriving conclusions about how southerners didn’t hate jews in the mid 20th century miss the mark because they weren’t around then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    That would have been J. Geils. In the context of this thread, it's interesting to note that John Geils was of German ancestry and most of the rest of the band (Peter Wolf, Seth Justman, Richard "Magic Dick" Salwitz) were Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. countenance says: • Website

    1. Wendell Wilkie was as much pro-war as FDR, and in fact, openly praised FDR for instituting the “peacetime” (i.e. war time predication) military draft. Therefore, the 1940 election was straight up on economic and fiscal policy, and of course the South wasn’t going to go for FDR bigly.

    2. The only two states where the John Birch Society has ever had its national headquarters: Massachusetts and Wisconsin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. WWII really isn’t aging well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. Barnard says:
    @Indiana Jack
    Opinion polls from the time also confirm southern sympathy for Britain. Gallup conducted opinion polls on the subject during the early years of the war.

    In January, 1940, almost two years before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question "Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do - to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?"

    Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war. The "help England" position was supported by a majority of respondents in all parts of the country, but southerners were the most enthusiastic about helping the British war effort (people in the midwest were the least enthusiastic). Broken down by region, the percentages who thought that it was more important to help England, even if it risked the U.S. entering the war:

    New England 63%
    Middle Atlantic 63%
    East Central 55%
    West Central 55%
    South 76%
    West 66%

    http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

    Gallup’s analysis of the election is interesting also. Women were expected to vote for the more conservative candidate and it surprised Gallup they went for Roosevelt. I wonder if this election caused a permanent trend toward the Democrats among women.

    http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/FDR_1940_presidential_gallup_poll_information-pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Art Deco says:
    @guest
    I find this strange Myth of Southern Anti-Semitism in the case of Leo Frank, which incidentally led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League. Much like BLM launched off of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    There actually was injustice in the Frank case. He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury. But he was also pardoned (on who knows what grounds), and should not have been subsequently lynched. Still, I don't consider the lynching of a guilty man crime enough to merit endless nonsense about the plight of you-know-who.

    Part of the Frank Mythos is the idea that racists white racist Southern racists went after Frank because racism. Which is borne out by the long history of anti-semitism in the South that actually doesn't exist. Or at least not in comparison to the rest of the country.

    Southerners have the reputation of being "backwards" and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That's the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Speaking of that particular minority group, the authorities could've pinned the murder on a black janitor. He was the only other suspect. Why isn't this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury.

    He wasn’t. Frank effectively had to demonstrate his innocence by accounting for every minute of his time during the late morning and early afternoon that day, which of course he couldn’t do because no one similarly situated could. He was convicted on the testimony of one very disreputable character. (Contradicted many decades later by another factory employee).

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Beene says:

    “Roth’s notion that a Republican Swedish isolationist from Minnesota could have carried the Solid South against FDR in 1940 is just nuts.”

    Of course it is, but not nearly as nuts as the idea that a twice-divorced former Democrat occasional liberal billionaire from New York, with a lot of big government ideas and quite shaky Christian faith, would carry the South in both the primaries and general election. Yet this has apparently happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    2016 was not 1940 and vice versa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Art Deco
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have 'medieval worldviews' in your imagination only.



    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else's).

    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only

    Medieval is an unfortunate word, you are right. Medieval Christian theologians were often brilliant and insightful. Evangelicals almost never are, although the myth about Jews having horns has a medieval pedigree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Evangelicals almost never are,

    You spend time reading how much work by Evangelical academics?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Gunner says:

    I always find it silly when these alternate histories where the Nazis won the war have the South passively or actively supporting them. These guys didn’t want to stop fighting the North and they were mostly English speaking Anglos. If any anti-Nazi rebellion is gonna happen, it would be largely hillbilly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    My grandfather (hailed from Tennessee) joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in early 1940 because he was both pro-England and because he still held a grudge against the Germans from his service in WW1. When the US joined the war most (maybe all, I'm not sure) Americans in other countries' services were called into the US services and he rejoined the US Navy.

    For the rest of his life he disliked the Germans and even gave my father a hard time for buying a Volkswagen in the mid 1960's. He'd say that yeah the Japanese were as bad, but he expected savagery from savages, the Germans should have known better.

    On racial issues he was a segregationist. I never heard him say anything about Jews one way or the other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Sean says:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/308839/

    Tragedy begins with a forceful denial of perpetual peace in favor of perpetual struggle, with great powers primed for offense, because they can never be sure how much military capacity they will need in order to survive over the long run. Because every state is forever insecure, Mearsheimer counsels, the internal nature of a state is less important as a factor in its international behavior than we think. “Great powers are like billiard balls that vary only in size,” he intones. In other words, Mearsheimer is not one to be especially impressed by a state simply because it is a democracy. As he asserts early on, “Whether China is democratic and deeply enmeshed in the global economy or autocratic and autarkic will have little effect on its behavior, because democracies care about security as much as non-democracies do.”

    If America had gone Nazi in the 30′s it would still have gone to war with Hitler’s Germany, which could not be allowed to win and become a world island superpower. There was never any doubt that the US would come in (again) if it looked like Germany was going to win (again).

    The ADL was founded in the aftermath of the Leo Franks case. I suppose Kentucky is where the Roth thinks the supidest white Americans come from, or maybe it is payback a la Roth ‘s novel in which he had a right go at ex wife Claire Bloom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. Numinous says:

    there’s a growing myth in 21st Century America that white Southerners sympathized with Hitler.

    Citation(s)?

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

    Pogrom” led me to find a recent book of interpretive history, Yuri Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century,” which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

    World War I and II, Stalin, Mao, Vietnam and endless empirical wars, black riots in Detroit – sounds like the Jewish Century all right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Southerners have the reputation of being “backwards” and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That’s the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Superb! May I appropriate (due credit given, of course, if shared publicly on the “Net; but I’ll definitely use it in private with my left of center acquaintances at the right time, heh)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. Philip Roth is both anti-White and anti-Christian. Roth is the kind of Jew who gives reasonable people a very clear idea why Jews have been expelled from many kingdoms, nations and regions over the last 2 thousand years. A. Scott Berg is an honest and reasonable Jew who wrote a fine biography of Charles Lindbergh.

    Roth does bring to mind the White government worker problem Alt-Right electoral strategists are struggling with. White government workers and White women voters must be fought over or neutralized, to be blunt. Roth, in an imaginary election between Lindbergh and Roosevelt, says the government workers in Maryland stayed loyal to the Democrat Roosevelt, presumably to protect their jobs.

    Roth’s imagined government worker cohort in Maryland:

    …Maryland, where the large population of federal office workers had voted overwhelmingly for Roo­sevelt…

    The Alt-Right brain trust needs to get their frigging heads out of the clouds and figure out what to do with the millions upon millions of White government workers who vote Democrat to protect their jobs. The GOP response is to spend trillions on wars, armaments and other war-related items to gather in their own loyal government worker cohort to match the Democrats’ government worker cohort.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Jack D says:

    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it’s understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you’ll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don’t know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong – a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson's 'Invisible Empire'. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.
    , @anon
    After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it’s understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it.

    A very good point.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don’t know.

    Yes you do.

    The nicest possible way to answer this question is to ask, where are all the major book reviewers and publishing companies not from?

    The real answer is to ask, who do guys like Philip Roth consider to be their enemies, and who do they want to trash the most?

    , @Sean
    Hitler could have won WW2, and had an atomic bomb by 1945, and did not only because he made two mistakes. The first, against every military professional's advice, was halting before Smolensk for almost two months in 1941, (see the writings of Stolfi for the detailed arguments). The second was in demoralising his main scientific adviser with lack of resources for multiple top priorities to such an extent that he didn't tell Hitler how feasible an atomic bomb was out of fear he would demand a crash program.

    The Confederacy was quite different, even if they had won Gettysburg (as they easily could have) there was never any chance of them achieving final victory over the North. They never had a chance of being allowed to break away, irrespective of their political reasons for wanting to do so.
    , @Desiderius
    You don't have to be German to consider the Monroe Doctrine sound policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Chiron says:

    Some people have said that if you want to understand the Jewish-American mind you just have to read Philip Roth novels, ‘The Plot Against America’ was published during the height of the Iraq War, where America was (and still is) in firm Jewish control and their biggest fear is someone who doesn’t like them gets into power in the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. Art Deco says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only

    Medieval is an unfortunate word, you are right. Medieval Christian theologians were often brilliant and insightful. Evangelicals almost never are, although the myth about Jews having horns has a medieval pedigree.

    Evangelicals almost never are,

    You spend time reading how much work by Evangelical academics?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    Evangelical academics?

    That is an oxymoron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson’s ‘Invisible Empire’. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Sure, and probably half of the members were undercover FBI informers. It's in the interest of some people (SPLC cough cough) to make the KKK/American Nazis seem like a bigger threat than they actually are. If they didn't exist then the SPLC would have to hire guys to play the part. The Globetrotters need the Washington Generals - you can't play against no-one even after you have won the last 3,000 consecutive games.

    And yet we know that the support for Jim Crow in the South was (at least until the '70s with George Wallace) deep rooted and not just confined to a few dozen trailer trash play acting with robes and swastikas and tiki torches. Maybe there's a generational change but some of the old attitudes must linger. When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally. Just as antifas represent the pointy end of the leftist spectrum with millions more behind them who are somewhat in sympathy but not to the extent that they will put on masks and club people, the KKK/Nazis represent the pointy end of a somewhat larger group.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina

     

    ...


    Greensboro massacre
    when members of the Communist Workers' Party and others demonstrated in a "Death to the Klan" march

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. The South was pro-Britain.

    The harsh behavior of British troops in the South during the Revolutionary war, which had driven Southern anti-British sentiment in the early 19th century, was forgotten after Sherman and Sheridan behaved much worse during the Civil War.

    The South was the most old-stock, which is to say the most Anglo-Saxon (English/ Anglo-Irish/ Lowland Scot/ Scotch-Irish), part of America. Images of English cities being bombed evoked a pang of racial sympathy.

    Also, young White men raised on tales of the ancestor’s Civil War heroism wanted a chance to prove themselves, and at some level everyone knew that wartime spending was bound to disproportionately benefit the relatively poor South.

    Furthermore, Sephardic Jewish slave traders and the planter elites of the South and the Caribbean had been partners in crime, together exploiting the Blacks. Antisemitism was slower to take hold among the Southern elite than among the elite Northern WASP descendants of the abolitionists, despite the outrageous behavior of the ADL during the Leo Frank case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Jack D says:
    @Art Deco
    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson's 'Invisible Empire'. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.

    Sure, and probably half of the members were undercover FBI informers. It’s in the interest of some people (SPLC cough cough) to make the KKK/American Nazis seem like a bigger threat than they actually are. If they didn’t exist then the SPLC would have to hire guys to play the part. The Globetrotters need the Washington Generals – you can’t play against no-one even after you have won the last 3,000 consecutive games.

    And yet we know that the support for Jim Crow in the South was (at least until the ’70s with George Wallace) deep rooted and not just confined to a few dozen trailer trash play acting with robes and swastikas and tiki torches. Maybe there’s a generational change but some of the old attitudes must linger. When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally. Just as antifas represent the pointy end of the leftist spectrum with millions more behind them who are somewhat in sympathy but not to the extent that they will put on masks and club people, the KKK/Nazis represent the pointy end of a somewhat larger group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally.

    This year, HRC received ~23% of the votes of white Southerners, so, no, not totally. Local Democrats will do somewhat better. Re federal politics, the partisan realignment took about 40-odd years (1952-94) and longer re state legislatures. There aren't many white Democrats in Congress representing constituencies in the South that are fully Southern (about six in the House and 1 in the Senate, IIRC), but you still have a bloc of white voters who cast ballots for Democrats. Democrats do better among white Southern Democrats than Republicans did among certain white ethnics sixty years ago.

    Interpolating a bit, it looks like Trump collared about 20% of the white vote in the core municipality of the county where I grew up, give or take. (The Republican County Executive candidate the year before did vastly better).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.

    Really. Can you give any examples? The founders of St. Grottlesex and various hunt clubs likely would have been surprised at your assertion.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English.

    Massachusetts, founded by the English, is a bit older than the American Revolution. See Millennial’s comment. The Massachusetts founding event that is most recognized and mythologized is the Plymouth Thanksgiving.

    P.S., For those to whom Yankee claims to Thanksgiving are a perennial perineal sore spot, read this past subthread. (#12… )

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Man From K Street

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.

    Really. Can you give any examples?
     
    Sure. The Louise Woodard case in 1997--the UK press surveyed tons of New Englanders during the trial and were astounded at the results--they called Boston the most historically Anglophobic city in North America. They felt it was all but impossible for an English au pair to get a fair trial.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case
    , @Millennial
    Re: Plymouth/Thanksgiving - it's interesting to compare the three "first-born children" of the three founding English colonies:

    1. Virginia Dare of Roanoke disappeared. If she has descendants, they're most likely part of some Indian tribe.

    2. Virgina Laydon of Jamestown- virtually nothing is known of her. Did she even make it to adulthood?

    3. Peregrine White of Plymouth - grew to manhood, sired a large family, was a soldier and civic leader, and lived into the next century.

    Unsurprisingly, squared-away Plymouth just worked better as a founding symbol.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—

    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

     

    Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors. The Germans came into the colonies on wooden boats through the colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and others. New England was the most homogenous part of colonial America.

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.
    , @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).
    , @Twodees Partain
    The Carolinas have quite a few descendants of German families who arrived there in the 18th century, mine included. The branch of my family that originated in Germany fought on the American side in the revolutionary war and on the Confederate side in the war over secession.

    "[A]lmost no one" is grossly inaccurate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Art Deco
    He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury.

    He wasn't. Frank effectively had to demonstrate his innocence by accounting for every minute of his time during the late morning and early afternoon that day, which of course he couldn't do because no one similarly situated could. He was convicted on the testimony of one very disreputable character. (Contradicted many decades later by another factory employee).

    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    You don't understand. Art Deco knows these things. Art Deco knows all things.

    He's smarter than everyone because he has a degree in library science.
    , @David In TN
    Frank was believed to be guilty. No way would Southerners in 1913 allow a Negro (or a white man for that matter) to get away with killing a white girl while framing a Jew. Wouldn't happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it’s understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it.

    A very good point.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don’t know.

    Yes you do.

    The nicest possible way to answer this question is to ask, where are all the major book reviewers and publishing companies not from?

    The real answer is to ask, who do guys like Philip Roth consider to be their enemies, and who do they want to trash the most?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. peterike says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    The key word there is “claim.” What they are doing is lying, making it up. Jews of a certain generation really like playing up persecution fantasies and imaginary health problems (a different kind of persecution fantasy). It’s that generation’s version of virtue signaling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    The key word there is “claim.”

    Maybe. It is a pretty widespread "urban legend" among Jews.

    E.g. this thread from 2005 - https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jews-have-horns.1880259/

    During the recent Roy Moore debacle, I saw many similar stories on Facebook, usually from people claiming it happened to them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Don John of Austria
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln's side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    “Mother Night” by Kurt Vonnegut contains a scene in which Hitler discusses the merits of Lincoln and ends up expressing concern that Lincoln may have been Jewish due to his first name. It’s a little comical.

    One famous Jew in the Confederate cabinet was Judah Benjamin, the Secretary of Treasury. Somehow, the gold of the treasury vanished at the end of the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Judah Benjamin became a very hardworking lawyer in England, handling many cases and writing a textbook on the law of sales. A successor version of Benjamin on Sales is still in use.

    Far from being welcomed with open arms, Benjamin had to requalify as an attorney in England.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Jack D says:
    @guest
    I find this strange Myth of Southern Anti-Semitism in the case of Leo Frank, which incidentally led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League. Much like BLM launched off of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    There actually was injustice in the Frank case. He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury. But he was also pardoned (on who knows what grounds), and should not have been subsequently lynched. Still, I don't consider the lynching of a guilty man crime enough to merit endless nonsense about the plight of you-know-who.

    Part of the Frank Mythos is the idea that racists white racist Southern racists went after Frank because racism. Which is borne out by the long history of anti-semitism in the South that actually doesn't exist. Or at least not in comparison to the rest of the country.

    Southerners have the reputation of being "backwards" and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That's the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Speaking of that particular minority group, the authorities could've pinned the murder on a black janitor. He was the only other suspect. Why isn't this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won’t throw in the towel to this day – you’ll hear from some of them here – they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with “their” murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of “their own” (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the “outsider” Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don’t really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.

    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases – Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Apparently this was not good enough for the mob.

    Well, he was convicted of raping and murdering a little girl, you know.

    Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with “their” murdered girl) was more important than mere facts.

    Sounds kind of like some of the more bizarre "confessions" from the Nuremberg trial, amirite?

    Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity.

    Kind of like how the Anti-Defamation League is still calling those anti-goyim blood libel hoaxes against Jewish Community Centers "hate crimes".

    For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of “their own” (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the “outsider” Yankee Jew Frank.

    Here is how he was portrayed by Leo Frank's defense attorney, Reuben Arnold:


    The thing that arises in this case to fatigue my indignation is that men born of such parents should believe the statement of Conley against the statement of Frank. Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying n*gger. Black knows that. Starnes knows that. Chief Beavers knows it.
     

    Who was it that made this dirty n*gger come up here looking so slick?
     
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-of-hooper-arnold-and-rosser/

    Weird how the Anti-Defamation League didn't seem to have a problem with that.

    , @Sean
    You might want to read Albert S. Lindemann on the Frank case. The main prejudice against Frank was that he looked like a pervert to observers. If anything being Jewish helped his defence.

    As Lindemann commented, Jewish or not, anyone with the objective evidence against him that Frank had would be very likely to find himself on trial. Whether there was reasonable doubt by contemporaneous or present day standards is a matter of opinion.

    , @Mr. Anon

    Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won’t throw in the towel to this day – you’ll hear from some of them here – they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.
     
    And what defines "respectable historian" in this context? Someone who believes that Frank was innocent? Name these respectable historians. Maybe they have a certain common trait.

    And - of course - the only possible explanation for believing that Frank is guilty is being an anti-semite. Because Jews never commit murder, I suppose.

    There is indeed somebody here acting like the OJ apologists. And it isn't "anti-semites".
    , @guest
    "His sentence had been commuted"

    Sorry, yes. That's what I meant.
    , @guest
    "This was more like the Trayvon trial...Or the O.J. case. Communal solidarity (with the whites of the South in sympathy with 'their' murdered girl)"

    Gimme a break. If they were so blinded by communal wagon-circling, why didn't they pick the black guy? Wouldn't that have been easier? If Frank was an "Other," he wasn't all that Other, relatively speaking. (Though, as another poster pointed out, he had a vibe about him people picked up on, which probably accounted for antipathy as well as his Jewishness.)

    There's nothing wrong with communal solidarity in the face of a slain young girl, in my opinion. So long as it remains within the law. Which it did, until after outside intervention robbed them of what people thought was a just sentence.

    Finally, it's quite obvious Zimmerman was innocent, and pretty inarguable O.J. was guilty. Funny you should pick those two cases. There have to be plenty of cases where black people were fundamentally right yet went overboard. Much like whites with Frank.

    We don't know with absolute certainty that he did it. But there was enough evidence to convince a jury at a fair trial, and neither you nor the ADL can point to any clear and convincing exculpatory evidence as with Zimmerman.

    Frank was consumed by the fire of inordinate hatred and misguided revenge AFTER the commutation. Prior to commutation, he would have been executed by the state in a just matter. Yet, in popular memory it's as if a trial didn't take place, and Frank was plucked out of his life to be killed because anti-semitism.
    , @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Anonymous
    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    http://blogs.kcrw.com/music/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Frank-Sinatra-reel-to-reel.jpg

    A rich man man like Sinatra had a lot of fancy and expensive audio/video equipment for his time. These days even the common man has affordable access to that and much more. 7.1 surround systems featuring dual 12″ powered sub-woofers. 60 and 70 inch Hi-def screens, blue ray players, amplifiers delivering 100 watts to 7 surround speakers.
    But the high end of audio/video these days is insane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @whorefinder
    When it comes to history, it pays for the left to be as ignorant as possible. Get them to start studying and investigating, and who knows how many leftist bromides might fall?

    For example, one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow to be heard in any medium; neither film nor TV nor debate. If someone raises it they are immediately blackballed and cut off. Then the Left says that all that caused Jim Crow was evil whitey/exploitation by the rich.

    Yet when you look at black violent crime rates and rioting and the actual tales of whites dealing with black misbehavior during the era---all of which sound startlingly familiar to tales today we can watch performed live on World Star Hip-Hop---Jim Crow starts to sound a lot more defensible and appealing and humane than the alternatives of letting whites be terrorized by black crime or having blacks be ethnically cleansed by angry whites.

    It’s interesting to contemplate the origins of Jim Crow, since it was established first in Delaware, due to concerns that freed slaves would behave as badly as they were doing in South Carolina under the rule of the military occupation (euphemistically referred to as “Reconstruction”) since Delaware was a slave state that didn’t secede.

    Ironically, Delaware was the site of the last of the black riots of the “civil rights era”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. A reasonable explanation for Roth’s apocalyptic novel is that he conflated his own childhood experience of WWII with the early 2000s political environment that produced Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    If you know anything about the South, the idea that Lindbergh or the Germans would have been popular there is kind of nutty, but most people, probably especially the kind of people who buy the novels that Roth writes, do not know anything relevant about that. It is probably more important for an author who wants to sell a lot of books to write something that seems plausible even if wrong, and the idea that the South would have been anti-Semitic and pro-German in WWII conforms to current prejudices.

    Read More
    • Agree: David In TN
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it's true, I've seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake "Roman" statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even "art experts" couldn't see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed - in the '60s films the actors have '60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing "Roman" costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @ben tillman

    The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—
     
    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors. The Germans came into the colonies on wooden boats through the colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and others. New England was the most homogenous part of colonial America.

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    Apparently this was not good enough for the mob.

    Well, he was convicted of raping and murdering a little girl, you know.

    Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with “their” murdered girl) was more important than mere facts.

    Sounds kind of like some of the more bizarre “confessions” from the Nuremberg trial, amirite?

    Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity.

    Kind of like how the Anti-Defamation League is still calling those anti-goyim blood libel hoaxes against Jewish Community Centers “hate crimes”.

    For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of “their own” (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the “outsider” Yankee Jew Frank.

    Here is how he was portrayed by Leo Frank’s defense attorney, Reuben Arnold:

    The thing that arises in this case to fatigue my indignation is that men born of such parents should believe the statement of Conley against the statement of Frank. Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying n*gger. Black knows that. Starnes knows that. Chief Beavers knows it.

    Who was it that made this dirty n*gger come up here looking so slick?

    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-of-hooper-arnold-and-rosser/

    Weird how the Anti-Defamation League didn’t seem to have a problem with that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. George says:

    “A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living on a farm in Kentucky”

    Roth may have been imagining an America where such laws were extended to ‘German’ Jews like him. So it is not too far fetched.

    Starting with the run up to WWI there were programs to assimilate Americans into one culture. These usually took the form of making English the only acceptable language of instruction in all elementary schools, public and private. Standardization of public school activities. ect James Cox ran for President as a D under an anti Germanic platform in 1920 losing to Warren G Harding.

    http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Ake_Law

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Cox

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_League#Beliefs_and_program

    Southern Whites and the not rich in general (including blacks and Northern White Catholics) are easy to pick on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. Jack D says:
    @ben tillman

    The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—
     
    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South “philo-Semitic”. It’s true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the “white” side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had – although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” –

    The Leo Frank trial is the story of one (1) sleazy Jewish guy getting lynched by a mob.

    You know that that happened a bunch of times, right? To lots of black and white people. You would never have even heard of his story if he hadn't been Jewish.

    There were over a thousand white people who were lynched in the south back then, and can you name a single one? No. You can only name the Jewish one.

    There was nothing even particularly unusual about the Frank case, except that a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to make it into the story of the century.

    Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    Gosh, well, maybe you ought to leave then? I mean, you have a country in the Middle East that was built just for you, don't you?
    , @S. Anonyia
    Southerners never strongly disliked Italians or Jews. A bunch of Lebanese immigrated the MS delta and Gulf Coast around 1900 and they are no longer a community today because intermarriage rates were so high, yet their last names are everywhere. In fact I’d wager the wealthy families of my city are more likely to have some ancestors who immigrated after the Civil War than the poor ones.

    I think you are confusing the Appalachian region (moonshine in hollows region) for the Deep South (moss dripping from oaks region). There was never serious antagonism towards immigrants or minority religions in the Deep South because people of the early 20th century tended to see social divisions solely in terms of black vs. white. Also historically there was more acceptance towards Catholics pre-1920 even if there weren’t that many of them relative to the Eastern seaboard cities, because Catholicism was associated with the French and their historical presence in the region, and it was not necessarily seen as some sudden, dramatically growing import to the U.S.

    As for the upper South they disliked outsiders, sure. But that meant everyone including people from 50 miles up the road who didn’t belong there.
    , @istevefan
    There was a documentary film from the late 90's called The Delta Jews. It covered the life of Southern Jews. If I remember correctly one of the people interviewed in the film stated that Southerners liked Jews. It was just that they disliked the Northern ones who came down to the South and agitated during the civil rights era of the '50s and '60s.

    Today, however, people conflate Southerners' attitudes towards those specific Northern Jews with Jews in general.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    murder of the Jewish civil rights workers

     

    ...


    he said: “Those boys were Communists who went to a Communist training school...."

     

    , @AnotherDad
    In other words, they were fine with folks who behaved properly and fit in with the basic mores of their culture, but don't particularly like being lectured (or demeaned) by tedious outsiders.

    Jews on the other hand are well known for how much they love and appreciate outsiders.
    , @Jimi

    "the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers"

     

    A lot of leftwing gentiles go out to the occupied territories to agitate for Civil Rights. They don't end up doing too well wither.
    , @Anon
    "But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual)."

    There is no evidence for that whatsoever. Cite some if you can.
    , @Luke Lea

    stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards
     
    That's true. But if Paul Johnson's History of the Jews is to be believed they did pioneer the use of slave labor on sugar plantations in Brazil in the aftermath of their expulsion from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

    There are no innocent groups in history. Everybody was exploiting and being exploited in a fallen world that was based on exploitation. The miracle is that we have escaped that world, for which every group can take some credit. No pointing fingers!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Evangelical preachers are far from being medieval. It’s more like a mishmash of modern heresies, like an even less intellectual version of Mormonism. It’s true that they don’t know much about Jews but it’s more in the opposite direction, erring on the side of ridiculous near comical Philosemitism- drive through the rural upper South or Texas and you will see Israeli flags on the outside of churches and even occasionally homes. These people do everything short of worship Jews and Israel. They preach almost exclusively from the Old Testament and Revealations.

    Read More
    • Agree: Peter Akuleyev
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. mobi says:

    OT:

    Canadian Economics prof demonstrates that Canada’a immigration system that “screens immigrants to a large degree on merit”, selects immigrants from “shithole” countries who fare slightly better than immigrants from “Norway-like countries”

    Conclusion:

    “Trump’s perception of the differences in the average immigrant from countries like Haiti and Norway is at the very least a consequence ignorance, or as many have suggested, racism.”

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-admits-many-immigrants-from-trumps-shithole-countries-and-they-fare-better-than-those-from-norway

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. @ben tillman

    The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—
     
    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    The Carolinas have quite a few descendants of German families who arrived there in the 18th century, mine included. The branch of my family that originated in Germany fought on the American side in the revolutionary war and on the Confederate side in the war over secession.

    “[A]lmost no one” is grossly inaccurate.

    Read More
    • Agree: Charles Pewitt
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Sure, years later I actually met one of those much ballyhooed Germans from the Orangeburg area out here in Dallas. It was amusing to hear her pronounce my last name with her drawl. It was even funnier ten years later when I learned of her maiden name, which rhymes with my surname both in German and in her drawl. So there are a few.

    But 1 or 2 percent is "virtually none" in my book when it's 20% nationwide.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” –

    The Leo Frank trial is the story of one (1) sleazy Jewish guy getting lynched by a mob.

    You know that that happened a bunch of times, right? To lots of black and white people. You would never have even heard of his story if he hadn’t been Jewish.

    There were over a thousand white people who were lynched in the south back then, and can you name a single one? No. You can only name the Jewish one.

    There was nothing even particularly unusual about the Frank case, except that a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to make it into the story of the century.

    Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    Gosh, well, maybe you ought to leave then? I mean, you have a country in the Middle East that was built just for you, don’t you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Sean says:
    @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    Hitler could have won WW2, and had an atomic bomb by 1945, and did not only because he made two mistakes. The first, against every military professional’s advice, was halting before Smolensk for almost two months in 1941, (see the writings of Stolfi for the detailed arguments). The second was in demoralising his main scientific adviser with lack of resources for multiple top priorities to such an extent that he didn’t tell Hitler how feasible an atomic bomb was out of fear he would demand a crash program.

    The Confederacy was quite different, even if they had won Gettysburg (as they easily could have) there was never any chance of them achieving final victory over the North. They never had a chance of being allowed to break away, irrespective of their political reasons for wanting to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    The South didn't have to achieve military victory, they just needed to persuade the Union that it wasn't worth fighting to keep them from leaving. I bet the South could have ultimately gotten its independence if they were willing to do an Algerian type of guerilla warfare but Lee told everyone to lay down their arms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Jack D says:
    @Benjamin I. Espen
    A reasonable explanation for Roth's apocalyptic novel is that he conflated his own childhood experience of WWII with the early 2000s political environment that produced Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    If you know anything about the South, the idea that Lindbergh or the Germans would have been popular there is kind of nutty, but most people, probably especially the kind of people who buy the novels that Roth writes, do not know anything relevant about that. It is probably more important for an author who wants to sell a lot of books to write something that seems plausible even if wrong, and the idea that the South would have been anti-Semitic and pro-German in WWII conforms to current prejudices.

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it’s true, I’ve seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake “Roman” statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even “art experts” couldn’t see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed – in the ’60s films the actors have ’60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing “Roman” costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Abe

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year.
     
    Yes, which is why it's strange and a little sad how Roth's mind became more and more CURRENT YEAR-occluded over time. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT (1969, I think) is a fairly accurate ethnological portrait of its time. The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP's with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle. By the time of AMERICAN PASTORAL, though, this truth is forgotten in favor of post-SCHINDLER'S LIST retconning. In that later novel, perhaps Roth's least naturalistic/most parablistic one, the main character is nicknamed 'the Swede' because of his anomalously ultra-Nordic good lucks. Thematically the point was to make him as all-American and America-blessed as possible in order to heighten the tragedy of his later fall, and what better way to do that than make him a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Max von Sydow-clone? Except that only in Himmler's fantasies were Swedes considered Americans par excellence. I'm not nearly as old as Roth, but even I remember how Swedes used to come in for their fair share of ethnic humor drubbing, mostly along the lines of 'big dumb Swede' jokes.
    , @peterike

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

     

    You really don't need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth's motives. It's quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth's novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn't have over-rated novelists, they wouldn't have any at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    Southerners never strongly disliked Italians or Jews. A bunch of Lebanese immigrated the MS delta and Gulf Coast around 1900 and they are no longer a community today because intermarriage rates were so high, yet their last names are everywhere. In fact I’d wager the wealthy families of my city are more likely to have some ancestors who immigrated after the Civil War than the poor ones.

    I think you are confusing the Appalachian region (moonshine in hollows region) for the Deep South (moss dripping from oaks region). There was never serious antagonism towards immigrants or minority religions in the Deep South because people of the early 20th century tended to see social divisions solely in terms of black vs. white. Also historically there was more acceptance towards Catholics pre-1920 even if there weren’t that many of them relative to the Eastern seaboard cities, because Catholicism was associated with the French and their historical presence in the region, and it was not necessarily seen as some sudden, dramatically growing import to the U.S.

    As for the upper South they disliked outsiders, sure. But that meant everyone including people from 50 miles up the road who didn’t belong there.

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

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    Which is it, Jack? Are Jews forever stuck in the Nazi era, or can they not remember the Nazi era at all, and are stuck in the current year?

    Because yesterday, when a Jewish guy freaked out over a southern plumber, it was all because of his uncle Natan back in Poland. But today, when Philip Roth goes after southerners, it’s because he can’t remember the 1940s at all, and is stuck in 2004.

    So which is it? And why does it always end up with Jews playing the victim card against those hateful goyim who made the mistake of going off to fight the actual Nazis, no matter which era they’re stuck in?

    And why does it seem like nothing is ever, ever a Jewish person just making the decision to be a prick?

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. Sean says:
    @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    You might want to read Albert S. Lindemann on the Frank case. The main prejudice against Frank was that he looked like a pervert to observers. If anything being Jewish helped his defence.

    As Lindemann commented, Jewish or not, anyone with the objective evidence against him that Frank had would be very likely to find himself on trial. Whether there was reasonable doubt by contemporaneous or present day standards is a matter of opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Altai
    Hmm, it's almost like having a particular opinion about an ethnicity comes along with exposure to conflicts with that group. Thus the South which didn't have the massive Jewish immigration during the late 19th/20th century had little particular antagonism towards Jews (Though it has to be said the novel effects of evangelical obsessions with the Old Testament and later viewing Zionism as necessary to trigger the second coming seem to be a factor in a lot of boomer gentile-zionists, millenial gentile-zionists seem to come almost uniformly from this background) and the presence of large amounts of blacks triggered segregation, with the North having less antagonism towards blacks until the great migrations.

    That and the much lower number of German immigrants (Whose anti-semitism was itself triggered by the same causes, a massive inflow of Russian Jews just 2 or 3 generations prior) in the South with it also being still essentially British ethnically lead to it supporting the war against Germany in alliance with Britain much more vigorously than the North East.
    , @Mr. Blank
    It's often occurred to me that the eclectic mix of views held by my grandparents would be positively baffling to the know-it-all dorks at sites like Slate and Vox. Yet from every indication I've seen, my grandparents were pretty much the norm for their time. It's amazing how many "smart" people have no clue how limited our current range of political opinion is, compared to other eras.

    I suspect, but can't prove, that it's related to greater ethnic diversity. In a multicultural society, most of the political energy is concentrated on first-order questions: Whose tribe gets which goodies? Paradoxically(?), in a more ethnically monocultural society, the first-order questions can be disposed of quickly by establishing a basic framework that everybody more or less agrees to, giving people the freedom to think about second- or third-order questions — which leads to a broader array of responses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. anon • Disclaimer says:

    OT, but Breaking News!

    Jewish leaders occupy Capitol rotunda building to demand that we let the Dreamers stay.

    https://www.hashtagsmania.com/trend/LetMyPeopleStay

    This is why we should have let more of them in back in the 1940s. There just aren’t enough people in this country calling us Nazis and making ridiculous demands of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Desiderius
    Wow, how pathetically white. Doesn't look much like America, does it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder
    We also can't forget the impact of Hollywood causing this.

    Movies and TV are extremely influential on the human mind, more so than print. And Hollywood for years has churned out a steady diet of Nazis-as-bad-guys and Klan-as-bad-guys films because of the various needs of the times:

    Nazi films: Holocaust guilt reasons, celebration of WW2 vets to make money, need of white actors to play villains, etc.

    Klan films: pushing integration, making blacks into saints, explaining black crime away, etc.

    It's unsurprising that as of today, these two separate histories are being conflated, because the movies/TV shows are so embedded in our culture that they've amalgamated in many minds.

    Think of how many people believe Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were innocents wrongly gunned down. Our media effects our minds.

    It's unsurprising that people would start to seriously conflate the South and the Nazis after they've been the go-to bad guys in film since the 1940s.

    Behold the results:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Altai
    But Wolfenstein II is so OTT (Particularly with it's sassy black woman and slightly neurotic nebbish looking New York Jew sidekicks) that it's easy to look at it the same way people look at Reefer Madness. It becomes impossible to tell what ratio of the massive team of people who put it together are true believers, are themselves wrong-thinkers or people in the middle who think Twitter politics is hilarious. The layers of irony and seriousness blend to nothing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. “As I mentioned below, there’s a growing myth in 21st Century America that white Southerners sympathized with Hitler”

    There’s a growing myth that Jewish people who have recently moved down south sympathize with Moslems and blacks and not with the locals.

    OT; Steve I know that you are interested in the topic of “The Gap”. Well a resident of Oak Park will finally tackle that subject in his recently released documentary “America To me” by Steve James.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7768836/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_2

    Steve James is most famous for his documentary “Hoop Dreams”. Well he will finally tackle the GAP subject which has had the United States citizens most perplexed for the last 50/60 years or so.
    The good citizens of Oak Park (Home of the nuclear free zone) have a treat in store for them. After many complaints from blacks and do-gooders, Steve James will do a mini series a la Ken Burns style into that problem which will not go away even after millions upon millions have been spent to remedy that most unjust situation that nature/man has sprung on us. For anyone interested in the local high school ; http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2017&code=0601620000001_e.pdf
    Apparently Illinois no longer uses the ACT test they use the SAT. The Gap lives on. I’ll be waiting for Mr James current explanation for the GAP.
    He currently has a Netflix documentary out by the name of “Abacus” which I haden’t seen yet but plan to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    Spot on.

    I think the major difference was seeing yourself as a historical person, being connected with your elderly and knowing second-hand the complexity of life. Being culturally literate in the morality plays of the Bible, Shakespeare, great literature. Humanist in the best sense.

    Most people today, OTOH, are actively severing themselves from all the ties that bind them to the past. They are totally unmoored in an eternal present, and the Narrative machine provides them with a new context for each issue to push them to precisely the correct conclusion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Bill says:
    @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    The movements for prohibition and suffrage weren’t like SJW Twitter mobs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    Not precisely. I meant that it's hard to imagine people in 1925 taking one single quote or one single fragment of a quote, or one single screw-up, or one badly-phrased joke, and then blowing it up to apocalyptic proportions. They were far too sophisticated for that.

    Every age has its progressive reformist nutjobs. But in the past, they were mostly house-trained.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Bill says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Jews haven’t met many Southerners, and the ones they’ve met are mostly happy to play into Jews’ prejudices (c.f. the idiotic fantasies you mention about Southerners).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Mr. Anon says:
    @ben tillman
    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.

    You don’t understand. Art Deco knows these things. Art Deco knows all things.

    He’s smarter than everyone because he has a degree in library science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Doug says:

    One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corn
    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.
    , @Bliss
    FYI:

    Homosexuals were holocausted by the nazis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

    Nazi Germany was a christian, carnivorous nation not a pagan, vegetarian hippie commune...regardless of the personal preferences of Hitler (vegetarianism) and Himmler (occultism).

    , @unpc downunder
    The Italian fascists were a lot more ideologically coherent than the Nazis, who veered all over the place. The main theme of Italian fascism was trying to find an inspiring middle path between modernism and traditionalism. Hence, they had policies like promoting women's sports to discourage masculine women from becoming fifth columnists, and promoting visual art which fused traditional and modern ideas. Ideologically speaking, Italian fascism was a much more serious threat to Anglo-Saxon liberalism than Nazism, but the Italians lacked the industrial muscle and social cohesion to have much historical impact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Bugg says:
    @ivvenalis
    Philip K. Dick's 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There's a specific line about "connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else", or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    “The Man..” is far and away the most boring cable/Netflix major show ever produced. Plodding, ponderous garbage.But figure Simon working on Roth’s alternate is going to top that.

    Robert Harris” “Fatherland” was way more plausible than either. Brits come to an armistice after a long hard losing slog without the US, Churchill gets dumped, the Duke of Windsor gets restored to the throne. And Joseph Kennedy, after his falling out with FDR, becomes president with an isolationist foreign policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @anon
    OT, but Breaking News!

    Jewish leaders occupy Capitol rotunda building to demand that we let the Dreamers stay.

    https://www.hashtagsmania.com/trend/LetMyPeopleStay

    https://twitter.com/jufj/status/953647600128884736

    This is why we should have let more of them in back in the 1940s. There just aren't enough people in this country calling us Nazis and making ridiculous demands of us.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won’t throw in the towel to this day – you’ll hear from some of them here – they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    And what defines “respectable historian” in this context? Someone who believes that Frank was innocent? Name these respectable historians. Maybe they have a certain common trait.

    And – of course – the only possible explanation for believing that Frank is guilty is being an anti-semite. Because Jews never commit murder, I suppose.

    There is indeed somebody here acting like the OJ apologists. And it isn’t “anti-semites”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Sean says:

    Intimating that people are inimical to Jews is something Roth doesn’t think twice about. His novel about his (Jewish) ex wife Clair Bloom was like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. @Charles Pewitt

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

     

    Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors. The Germans came into the colonies on wooden boats through the colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and others. New England was the most homogenous part of colonial America.

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

    “Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors.”

    No they didn’t. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    I think if you unpack it, you'll discover ethnic Germans down South are commonly drawn from 18th century anabaptist immigration. Brethren, Mennonite, etc, who wanted no part of the Civil War. Never heard of any resentment of same, though.
    , @istevefan

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War.
     
    I think this plays a part in the historical animosity between Kansas City and St. Louis. A lot of 1848 German immigrants settled in St. Louis and helped the Union. KC on the other hand was in a part of the state more aligned with the South. I doubt many modern residents even know this since many don't have roots to that time. But it probably helped lay the foundation for the odd feelings that persist between these cities.

    Here is an excerpt from the Camp Jackson Affair:

    The Camp Jackson affair, also known as the Camp Jackson massacre, was an incident during the American Civil War that occurred on May 10, 1861, when a volunteer Union Army regiment captured a unit of secessionists at Camp Jackson, outside the city of St. Louis, in the divided slave state of Missouri.

    The newly-appointed Union commander in Missouri, Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon, had learned that the ostensibly neutral state militia training in Camp Jackson was planning to raid the federal arsenal in St. Louis. After capturing the entire unit, Lyon marched the captives into town in order to parole them. En route, hostile secessionist crowds gathered, and after an accidental gunshot, Lyon's men fired into the mob, killing at least 28 civilians and injuring dozens of others. Several days of rioting throughout St. Louis followed. Pro-slavery locals were also particularly angered by the presence in Lyon’s force of many German abolitionists who had fled the failed revolutions of 1848. The violence ended only after martial law was imposed and Union regulars were dispatched to the city.
     
    , @Charles Pewitt
    I am half old stocker Southerner. I have Andes, Rader and Reinhard surnames in my ancestry. They came to the colonies before the Secessionary War from the British Empire. I love Krauts!
    , @Charles Pewitt

    “Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors.”

     


    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

     

    Anne Gillespie Mitchell:

    Around 1670 the first significant group of Germans came to the colonies, mostly settling in Pennsylvania and New York. In 1709 a group known as the Palatines made the journey from the Palatinate region of Germany. Many died on the way over on crowded ships, but around 2,100 survived and settled in New York.

     


    Soon after that, multiple waves of Germans arrived in the Southeast and settled in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Another wave came and settled in New England.

     

    https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/10/13/migration-to-america-in-the-1700s/
    , @IBC
    The CSA's Secretary of the Treasury was actually born in Germany:

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

    And one of the Lincoln assassination conspirators was also German-born:

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

    And the commander of the infamous Andersonville prison camp was a Swiss-German.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz

    But yes, there would have been more Germans on the Northern side, if only for immigration reasons.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Don John of Austria
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln's side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    GWTW depicts Melanie’s baby being nursed by Prissie’s mother, Dilcey. Nazis would consider this race pollution.
    The racism of the pre-War South was exploitive, but rarely murderous (pace Mrs. Stowe, but slaves were expensive), and often involved considerable mutual affection with house servants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Gunner
    I always find it silly when these alternate histories where the Nazis won the war have the South passively or actively supporting them. These guys didn’t want to stop fighting the North and they were mostly English speaking Anglos. If any anti-Nazi rebellion is gonna happen, it would be largely hillbilly.

    My grandfather (hailed from Tennessee) joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in early 1940 because he was both pro-England and because he still held a grudge against the Germans from his service in WW1. When the US joined the war most (maybe all, I’m not sure) Americans in other countries’ services were called into the US services and he rejoined the US Navy.

    For the rest of his life he disliked the Germans and even gave my father a hard time for buying a Volkswagen in the mid 1960′s. He’d say that yeah the Japanese were as bad, but he expected savagery from savages, the Germans should have known better.

    On racial issues he was a segregationist. I never heard him say anything about Jews one way or the other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Abe says: • Website

    Excuse this old chestnut of mine; I’ve brought it up several times over the years here, but given the current discussion I think it’s worth bringing up again. From Roth’s cowardly, paranoid fantasizing about what an imagined Lindbergh Administration would possibly do:

    … A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them

    And now, what the real, historical, FDR was hoping to do (hat-tip to commenter “franktremb”):

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/democratic-norway-v-authoritarian-sweden/#comment-702514

    FDR didn’t like “Hyphenate Americans” either. Here’s an extract from a letter to the Prime minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, on the 18th of May 1942. To him, French Canadians and “Hyphenate Americans” are a problem to North America. But he believed in assimilation:

    “When I was a boy in the «nineties», I used to see many deal French Canadians who had rather recently come into the New Bedford area, near the old Delano place, at Fair Haven. They seemed very much out of place in what was still an old New England community. They segregated themselves in the mill towns and had little to do with their neighbours. I can still remember that the old generation shook their heads and used to say, «this is a new element which will never be assimilated. We are assimilating the Irish but these Quebec people won’t even speak English. Their bodies are here, but their hearts and minds are in Quebec».
    Today, forty or fifty years later, the French-Canadian elements in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are at last becoming a part of the American melting pot. They no longer vote as their churches and their societies tell them to. They are inter-marrying with the original Anglo Saxon stock; they are good, peaceful citizens, and most of them are speaking English in their homes.

    All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning – perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy – by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada’s French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.

    In other words, after nearly two hundred years with you and after seventy-five years with us, there would seem to be no good reason for great differentials between the French population elements and the rest of the racial stocks.

    It is on the same basis that I am trying to work out post-war plans for the encouragement of the distribution of certain other nationalities in our large congested centers. There ought not to be such a concentration of Italians and of Jews, and even of Germans as we have today in New York City. I have started my National Resources Planning Commission to work on a survey of this kind.“

    Read More
    • Replies: @flip
    "many deal French Canadians"

    What does he mean by "deal?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. I grew up in Louisville, KY, and while I don’t remember being politically aware then, now it seems like it is way to liberal/democrat for a deplorable like me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. Altai says:
    @Anonymous
    Behold the results:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcXuafe2y-Y

    But Wolfenstein II is so OTT (Particularly with it’s sassy black woman and slightly neurotic nebbish looking New York Jew sidekicks) that it’s easy to look at it the same way people look at Reefer Madness. It becomes impossible to tell what ratio of the massive team of people who put it together are true believers, are themselves wrong-thinkers or people in the middle who think Twitter politics is hilarious. The layers of irony and seriousness blend to nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Wade says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    I grew up in the south (the benighted Arkansas, no less) and was raised in a conservative Christian home. I can tell you with certainty that I have *never* heard any southerner suggest that, or ask whether or not, Jews have horns whether in jest or in ignorance. If anyone had ever made such a statement I can assure you that it would’ve been met with stares of disbelief and laughter directed at the speaker who suggested such a preposterous thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.
    , @Anonymous
    It's a BS story like human lampshades or soap. Why nazis would want to bathe with soap made from jews was never quite explained. Soap is supposed to be cleansing, and cleanliness was one of the nazi obsessions most vilified by jews. Sort of like the poop swastika. Why nazis would use poop to paint their treasured symbol was never quite explained. But then again, it never happened. Not that that matters much. Veracity and accuracy fall by the wayside when there's cultural hay to be baled.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Borat thought Jews have horns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Corn says:
    @Doug
    One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Benjamin I. Espen
    I think Reilly did say something to that effect once, but I don't have the post to hand.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Hitler didn't seem to care much about religion. He didn't care much about domestic policies (other than persecuting Jews) or economics. Hitler really only cared about War. He wanted to be a great warlord and conqueror. He wanted to succeed where Napoleon had failed and succeed where Alexander the Great had succeeded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. I recall these lines from Flannery O’Connor:

    “The old lady said that in her opinion Europe was entirely to blame for the way things were now.
    She said the way Europe acted you would think we were made of money and Red Sam said it was no use talking about it, she was exactly right.”

    And: “Always fighting amongst each other. Disputing. And then get us into it. Ain’t they got us into it twict already and we ain’t got no more sense than to go over there and settle it for them…”

    I assume O’Connor was poking fun at these people, but still it looks like the South had some buyer’s remorse for coming to Britain’s aid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @black sea
    O'Connor is well worth the time, but I wouldn't infer too much politically from the quotations above. The grandmother and "Red Sammy" were more likely to have been passing the time, saying something to say something while waiting for the "Co'-Colas" to arrive at the table. An alternative to discussing the weather.

    O'Connor had a sharp tongue, which she went to some pains to conceal in her social dealings. On the topic of the grotesque in fiction:


    When we look at a good deal of serious modern fiction, and particularly Southern fiction, we find this quality about it that is generally described, in a pejorative sense, as grotesque. Of course, I have found that anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the Northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.
     
    , @Anonymous
    There's something almost breathtaking about how readily you extrapolate from a sample size of one to an entire region of your own country. Not to mention that the sample in question is fictional. But don't let me get in your way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. istevefan says:
    @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    There was a documentary film from the late 90′s called The Delta Jews. It covered the life of Southern Jews. If I remember correctly one of the people interviewed in the film stated that Southerners liked Jews. It was just that they disliked the Northern ones who came down to the South and agitated during the civil rights era of the ’50s and ’60s.

    Today, however, people conflate Southerners’ attitudes towards those specific Northern Jews with Jews in general.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. bored identity always knew that something’s rothen in Kentucky.

    btw, Sailer that Disney Cinderella ( remember that video of rothen fat mouse with Phrygian cap hording shekels shiny, golden corn kernels- that you censored last week with a whimp ? ) was uncredited work

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  147. inertial says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    From the NYT interview with Roth:

    There is a cameo of Virginia Woolf in all her terrifying genius and there are especially gripping pages about the initial evening meeting in badly bombarded Leningrad in 1945 with the magnificent Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, when she was in her 50s, isolated, lonely, despised and persecuted by the Soviet regime. Berlin writes, “Leningrad after the war was for her nothing but a vast cemetery, the graveyard of her friends. … The account of the unrelieved tragedy of her life went far beyond anything which anyone had ever described to me in spoken words.” They spoke until 3 or 4 in the morning. The scene is as moving as anything in Tolstoy.
     
    Anna Akhmatova comes up in Antony Beevor's book about the fall of Berlin:

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/953544159616471040

    Beevor has to be taken with a grain of salt. His books are Cold War propaganda (and are banned in modern Russia.) Even that little quote that you give about the Soviets “stoking the desire for vengeance” is full of half truths, omissions, and highly questionable “facts.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Please. Beevor was given access to Russian archives as well as Western and German ones, and his books are copiously documented. The "stoking the desire for revenge" was accurate, as was the Soviets' late reversal from that, in order to facilitate peaceful postwar occupation of East Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. MarkinPNW says:
    @Parsifal
    As pointless bloodshed goes Dresden takes the cake. And Ehrenburg is hardly worse than US anti-Japanese propaganda.

    Indeed. I remember right after I got married my new brother-in-law gave me an “inspiring, patriotic” book to read, “God is My Co-pilot” by Robert L. Scott. I indeed found it to be a wonderful, inspiring story, that is until I got to the part where Scott puts in his two-minutes of hate against the Japanese.

    As a boomer raised on the myth of the good war, a myth that at the time I still believed and followed, I still found the anti-Japanese screed in his book rather off-putting, and any time I read about or read quotes from Ehrenburg, I’m reminded of Scott’s over the top hate which makes the title of his otherwise inspiring book almost into blasphemy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    A good war is a war you win.

    http://madefrom.com/history/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/08/54224730168b90426825170e6ebf5efb.jpg

    http://j387mediahistory.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/2/2/6422481/9340407_orig.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/9a/c2/5e9ac25b20e9850eeda9fa9867edc219--ww-propaganda-ww-posters.jpg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    The agony of defeat:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qCWf9_V5Cz8

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    Sure, and probably half of the members were undercover FBI informers. It's in the interest of some people (SPLC cough cough) to make the KKK/American Nazis seem like a bigger threat than they actually are. If they didn't exist then the SPLC would have to hire guys to play the part. The Globetrotters need the Washington Generals - you can't play against no-one even after you have won the last 3,000 consecutive games.

    And yet we know that the support for Jim Crow in the South was (at least until the '70s with George Wallace) deep rooted and not just confined to a few dozen trailer trash play acting with robes and swastikas and tiki torches. Maybe there's a generational change but some of the old attitudes must linger. When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally. Just as antifas represent the pointy end of the leftist spectrum with millions more behind them who are somewhat in sympathy but not to the extent that they will put on masks and club people, the KKK/Nazis represent the pointy end of a somewhat larger group.

    When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally.

    This year, HRC received ~23% of the votes of white Southerners, so, no, not totally. Local Democrats will do somewhat better. Re federal politics, the partisan realignment took about 40-odd years (1952-94) and longer re state legislatures. There aren’t many white Democrats in Congress representing constituencies in the South that are fully Southern (about six in the House and 1 in the Senate, IIRC), but you still have a bloc of white voters who cast ballots for Democrats. Democrats do better among white Southern Democrats than Republicans did among certain white ethnics sixty years ago.

    Interpolating a bit, it looks like Trump collared about 20% of the white vote in the core municipality of the county where I grew up, give or take. (The Republican County Executive candidate the year before did vastly better).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Bliss says:
    @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.’s and arguably America’s most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive.

    Very interesting. Didn’t know about Paul R. Williams so googled him. A very creative architect who had a huge impact on his home town Los Angeles:

    https://www.npr.org/2012/06/22/155442524/a-trailblazing-black-architect-who-helped-shape-l-a

    A Trailblazing Black Architect Who Helped Shape L.A.

    Paul Revere Williams began designing homes and commercial buildings in the early 1920s. By the time he died in 1980, he had created some 2,500 buildings, most of them in and around Los Angeles, but also around the globe.

    His granddaughter, Karen E. Hudson, has been chronicling Williams’ life and work for the past two decades. Her latest book, Paul R. Williams: Classic Hollywood Style, focuses on some of the homes of his celebrity clients. They feature many characteristics that were innovative when he used them in the 1920s through the ’70s and are considered common practice now — like the patio as an extension of the house, and hidden, retractable screens.

    His work has come to signify glamorous Southern California to the rest of the country — and to the world. One of his hallmarks — a luxuriantly curving staircase — has captivated many a potential owner.

    Bret Parsons is head of the architectural division of John Aaroe Group, a Beverly Hills real estate brokerage handling multimillion-dollar properties. He says when Williams homes come up for sale, real estate agents scramble to get the listing. “They’re gobbled up in seconds,” he says. “They’re an absolute pedigree for someone to have in their arsenal.” Parsons says Williams homes posses grace, design and elegant proportions, which attracted people with money and taste.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Art Deco says:
    @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    I think if you unpack it, you’ll discover ethnic Germans down South are commonly drawn from 18th century anabaptist immigration. Brethren, Mennonite, etc, who wanted no part of the Civil War. Never heard of any resentment of same, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    On Friday a friend of Mary Phagan friend asked Frank for Phagan's paypacket, but Frank refused and that is why she had to come in to get it herself on Saturday. Phagan was seen approaching the factory and she must have arrived by 12.05.

    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/

    11. Leo Frank claimed that he was in his office continuously from noon to 12:35 on the day of the murder, but a witness friendly to Frank, 14-year-old Monteen Stover, said Frank’s office was totally empty from 12:05 to 12:10 while she waited for him there before giving up and leaving. This was approximately the same time as Mary Phagan’s visit to Frank’s office and the time she was murdered. On Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank told police that Mary Phagan came into his office at 12:03 PM. The next day, Frank made a deposition to the police, with his lawyers present, in which he said he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office between 12:05 and 12:10. Frank would later change his story again, stating on the stand that Mary Phagan came into his office a full five minutes later than that.

    12. Leo Frank contradicted his own testimony when he finally admitted on the stand that he had possibly “unconsciously” gone to the Metal Room bathroom between 12:05 and 12:10 PM on the day of the murder.
     

    Franks defence was that Phagan had went to the second floor office got her pay from Frank, came down the stairs, and was nearing the main door when Jim Conley attacked her and put her down a trapdoor to the basement, but her hair and blood were found in the metal room room near Frank's office on the second floor. Conley (a floor sweeper who was paid more than skilled workers) was not working and just sitting around near the entrance; he said he was asked to come in that day by Frank and he was regularly a lookout while Frank had his way with female workers. Conley was never mentioned by Frank, until after the police eliminated Newt Lee the original black suspect. One last thing, if Conley did it why would he tie a piece of cloth around the neck of Phagan that concealed the strangulation marks? Frank had a motive to do that, because he told Conley that Phagan's death had happened by accident
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Luke Lea says:

    I believe Albert Lindemann discusses the low level of anti-Semitism in the South traditionally in his study of the Leo Frank case: https://goo.gl/Jm5Qms

    For one thing, the Jews were relatively few, and for another they played a needed role as merchants in a largely agricultural (plantation) economy. Nor were they cultural rebels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Yeah, but that's not true, though. Here's the real reason:

    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases – Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).
     
    Listen to that. Can you write as convincingly as that? I can't! That sounds like it came from a really good PBS documentary. Maybe not Ken Burns good, but almost.

    Or at least like someone read it in a magazine article and memorized it.

    Either way, it's hard for me to doubt someone who writes lines like "This was a time when the South was being transformed.".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    Roth might be an expert on all things Jewish in Newark, New Jersey, or the Eastern portion of northern New Jersey, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s an expert on the northern half of New Jersey.

    Northwestern New Jersey is mostly White and mostly Christian. Unfortunately, there is now an Asian and Mestizo invasion underway. New Jersey is one of the states that must be reclaimed by White Core American Patriots when the time comes.

    OFF TOPIC

    FELDSTEIN FORECASTS FLOP FOR STOCKS

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-are-headed-for-a-fall-1516145624

    Read More
    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    You are being pedantic. Steve is referring to part of NJ that is inside 287. No one cares about Sussex and Warren Counties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Art Deco
    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson's 'Invisible Empire'. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.

    the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina

    Greensboro massacre
    when members of the Communist Workers’ Party and others demonstrated in a “Death to the Klan” march

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. syonredux says:

    Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—Adolf Hitler was a big fan of Gone With the Wind,

    What a moronic comment. Everybody liked Gone With The Wind. Indeed, until SJWs took over, it was hailed as the crown jewel of Hollywood’s annus mirabilis, 1939. Nowadays, though, it is the film-that-must-not-be-named.

    RE: Roth’s weird obsession with crypto-Nazi Southerners,

    There’s a pro-Lindbergh rabbi in it. Naturally, he’s a Southerner:

    Perhaps the most striking similarity between the reality of Trump and the fiction of Roth can be found in the character of Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf, a Southern-born radio sermonizer supportive of Lindbergh: “I am here,” the rabbi says, “to crush all doubt of the unadulterated loyalty of American Jews to the United States of America. I offer my support to the candidacy of Colonel Lindbergh because the political objectives of my people are identical with his. America is our beloved homeland. America is our only homeland.”

    http://theweek.com/articles/670634/donald-trump-plot-against-america

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  156. Jack D says:
    @Sean
    You might want to read Albert S. Lindemann on the Frank case. The main prejudice against Frank was that he looked like a pervert to observers. If anything being Jewish helped his defence.

    As Lindemann commented, Jewish or not, anyone with the objective evidence against him that Frank had would be very likely to find himself on trial. Whether there was reasonable doubt by contemporaneous or present day standards is a matter of opinion.

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.

    So, if you lived in a Southern town, and there was a Jewish pervert going around molesting thirteen-year-old girls (You know. Like they do.), and a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to descend on your town and defend this child-molesting Jew just because he was a Jew, and called you and everyone in your town all kinds of horrible names just for being mad about this child-molesting Jew...

    Do you think that would make you more fond of Jews, or less?

    , @Sean
    But what people think happened is due to things that blacks don't control, so we are treated to poor little Mary as tits and ass jiggling slut in They Won't Forget; yes, the original Hollywood sweater girl character was a child who became a murder victim.

    A hundred reasons Frank was very far from innocent, in which number 28 shows a photo of 13 years old Mary the prostitute on the autopsy slab. That was her punishment for refusing to have cunnilingus performed on her by Frank (who was indeed willing to pay as several girls testified).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. istevefan says:
    @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War.

    I think this plays a part in the historical animosity between Kansas City and St. Louis. A lot of 1848 German immigrants settled in St. Louis and helped the Union. KC on the other hand was in a part of the state more aligned with the South. I doubt many modern residents even know this since many don’t have roots to that time. But it probably helped lay the foundation for the odd feelings that persist between these cities.

    Here is an excerpt from the Camp Jackson Affair:

    The Camp Jackson affair, also known as the Camp Jackson massacre, was an incident during the American Civil War that occurred on May 10, 1861, when a volunteer Union Army regiment captured a unit of secessionists at Camp Jackson, outside the city of St. Louis, in the divided slave state of Missouri.

    The newly-appointed Union commander in Missouri, Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon, had learned that the ostensibly neutral state militia training in Camp Jackson was planning to raid the federal arsenal in St. Louis. After capturing the entire unit, Lyon marched the captives into town in order to parole them. En route, hostile secessionist crowds gathered, and after an accidental gunshot, Lyon’s men fired into the mob, killing at least 28 civilians and injuring dozens of others. Several days of rioting throughout St. Louis followed. Pro-slavery locals were also particularly angered by the presence in Lyon’s force of many German abolitionists who had fled the failed revolutions of 1848. The violence ended only after martial law was imposed and Union regulars were dispatched to the city.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    The "Damned Dutch" they were called. (Dutch meaning Deutsch). One of my great grandfathers was a German immigrant who served in the Union Army in St. Louis during the Civil War.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. MarcB. says:

    Southerners in the Memphis, TN area loved the NAZI’s so much that they changed the name of neighboring Germantown to the vaguely Hebrew sounding Neshoba during WWII. German’s were more prevalent West of the Mississippi, so there may have been different sympathies in places like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Not so much in the areas settled by the Scots-Irish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    A lot of Germans settled in the Hill Country of Texas which includes the site of the LBJ ranch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. J.Ross says: • Website

    Mainstream liberal-leaning Canadian Jungian academic Jordan Petersen, forced out of Toronto’s York University for refusing to pretend that gender is what you make of it, on Channel Four.

    (As the Doctor of Common Sense is wont to say, was that not an asskicking?)
    This is on ongoing problem: apart from head fakes like Macron and his Words, the establishment is still the most quarantined of echo chambers. They clearly did no research and assumed that Petersen (who in less decadent times would be a thoroughly mainstream guy praised by these types, and who besides studied at Harvard) was interchangeable with Richard Spencer or RamZPaul (themselves not interchangeable, I know, but that’s the point).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Looks like YouTube has answered in the way that is done when there are no real counterarguments--i.e. by taking the video down (for copyright violation). Is there a summary or alternative video anywhere?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Kentucky was a Union state in the Civil War.

    Kentucky started the war by declaring itself neutral. The General Assembly was pro Union. The Governor at the start of the war was neutral. A group of Kentuckians did vote to secede and petitioned to join the Confederacy. Kentucky was accepted into the Confederacy on December 10, 1861 and was represented by the center star on the Battle Flag. The Yankees did have to institute a military government during the later years of the war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  161. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    murder of the Jewish civil rights workers

    he said: “Those boys were Communists who went to a Communist training school….”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. ErisGuy says:

    One explanation for Roth’s novel is that he accepted and was aware of all the Communists and Stalinist around him, then projected the love of Socialism, Nazism, and Hitler on his enemies. In some circles, taking one’s own stupidity and flaws but putting them on to the lives of others is called imagination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  163. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea
    I believe Albert Lindemann discusses the low level of anti-Semitism in the South traditionally in his study of the Leo Frank case: https://goo.gl/Jm5Qms

    For one thing, the Jews were relatively few, and for another they played a needed role as merchants in a largely agricultural (plantation) economy. Nor were they cultural rebels.

    Yeah, but that’s not true, though. Here’s the real reason:

    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases – Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    Listen to that. Can you write as convincingly as that? I can’t! That sounds like it came from a really good PBS documentary. Maybe not Ken Burns good, but almost.

    Or at least like someone read it in a magazine article and memorized it.

    Either way, it’s hard for me to doubt someone who writes lines like “This was a time when the South was being transformed.”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    I am half old stocker Southerner. I have Andes, Rader and Reinhard surnames in my ancestry. They came to the colonies before the Secessionary War from the British Empire. I love Krauts!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Art Deco
    Evangelicals almost never are,

    You spend time reading how much work by Evangelical academics?

    Evangelical academics?

    That is an oxymoron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That is an oxymoron.

    That you're completely ignorant of something doesn't render it non-existent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.

    So, if you lived in a Southern town, and there was a Jewish pervert going around molesting thirteen-year-old girls (You know. Like they do.), and a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to descend on your town and defend this child-molesting Jew just because he was a Jew, and called you and everyone in your town all kinds of horrible names just for being mad about this child-molesting Jew…

    Do you think that would make you more fond of Jews, or less?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @peterike

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

     

    The key word there is "claim." What they are doing is lying, making it up. Jews of a certain generation really like playing up persecution fantasies and imaginary health problems (a different kind of persecution fantasy). It's that generation's version of virtue signaling.

    The key word there is “claim.”

    Maybe. It is a pretty widespread “urban legend” among Jews.

    E.g. this thread from 2005 – https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jews-have-horns.1880259/

    During the recent Roy Moore debacle, I saw many similar stories on Facebook, usually from people claiming it happened to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    The Klezmer band Klezmatics can't be content to leave the name of their third album Jews With Horns by itself or connect it to the middle ages, they have to make up a ridiculous story about having once been asked about their head horns in the modern era. This was described on NPR but is not on the wiki or the band site.
    Stories about modern goyim looking for horns represent a level of supremacist bigotry that is completely tolerated and has no equivalent in other major cultures. This is part of an inevitable problem when people are negotiating in bad faith to serve tribalist rivalry: give them an inch, and next time they need something, they will have an even worse story. They will repay your service to them with slander, as we see in the Southern Retcon or in Kosinski's Painted Bird.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Jack D says:
    @Wade

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.
     
    I grew up in the south (the benighted Arkansas, no less) and was raised in a conservative Christian home. I can tell you with certainty that I have *never* heard any southerner suggest that, or ask whether or not, Jews have horns whether in jest or in ignorance. If anyone had ever made such a statement I can assure you that it would've been met with stares of disbelief and laughter directed at the speaker who suggested such a preposterous thing.

    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn’t always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 – I assume you are much younger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Possibly something else was meant: http://www.strangehistory.net/2014/05/16/cuckolds-horns/
    , @Anonymous
    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.
    , @anon
    When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns.

    World War II was well into the era of film...
    , @Johann Ricke

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.
     
    I'd say it's not out of character for men. Or women.
    , @Johann Ricke

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).
     
    I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn't eligible, but this was the subtext. Given the significant amount of support Cruz got in the South, a good chunk of the electorate obviously held no truck with those traditional views. But enough did to torpedo his run.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I frankly don't believe that. Perhaps you misheard her. I've known lots of southerners, including relations, and of that era, and I have never heard of such a thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Austrian says:

    OT, but important:
    Trump just took the MoCA mental aptitude test and scored 30/30. Liberals say the test is too easy and doesn’t count.

    I found a study from Arizona performed on senior citizens that includes a racial breakdown:

    http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/537658/2/Parsons%2C+Christine+Poster.pdf

    Average age: 72
    Mean, std
    overall: 23.7, 4.4
    whites: 24.5, 3.7
    blacks: 20.7, 5.4

    83% of blacks failed the test. (threshold = 26)

    Cognitive impairment was more prevalent in certain races, however it is unclear if other variables such as cultural factors necessitate score adjustment or adjustment in the test itself.

    Muh cultural factors. LOL

    Trump is 1.43 std above the mean which would translate to an IQ of 121,47.
    The Arizona study is likely not representative and the MoCA test score distribution is negatively skewed (to the left). So take with a large grain of salt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The general feeling is that some people lose a few IQ points as they age. If you are the average billionaire, like Trump, chances are that you started out as a pretty sharp guy. So even if you lose a few points due to aging, you still have a lot left, just like Jack Nicklaus could probably play better golf than you can even at age 70. OTOH if you are a black that starts out at IQ85, losing a few points to old age could easily put you below the threshold. Hell, you might have been below the MOCA threshold at 25.
    , @res
    26 or above is considered "normal" per https://www.bmc.org/sites/default/files/For_Medical_Professionals/Pediatric_Resources/Pediatrics__MA_Center_for_Sudden_Infant_Death_Syndrome__SIDS_/Montreal-cognitive-assessment-MoCA.pdf

    The study you cited was about cognitive impairment so I don't think you can equate the score SDs from the study with IQ as you do. Then there is the ceiling issue. In fairness, your last paragraph makes clear you understand this.

    Whether or not the test is too easy depends on what it is being used for. Trump's score is a good argument that he is not impaired, but that he chose that (relatively low ceiling) test result to advertise makes me think he is less smart (in an IQ sense) than I thought before.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Luke Lea says:
    @whorefinder
    When it comes to history, it pays for the left to be as ignorant as possible. Get them to start studying and investigating, and who knows how many leftist bromides might fall?

    For example, one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow to be heard in any medium; neither film nor TV nor debate. If someone raises it they are immediately blackballed and cut off. Then the Left says that all that caused Jim Crow was evil whitey/exploitation by the rich.

    Yet when you look at black violent crime rates and rioting and the actual tales of whites dealing with black misbehavior during the era---all of which sound startlingly familiar to tales today we can watch performed live on World Star Hip-Hop---Jim Crow starts to sound a lot more defensible and appealing and humane than the alternatives of letting whites be terrorized by black crime or having blacks be ethnically cleansed by angry whites.

    “one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow ”

    I have no wish to defend Jim Crow but this does remind me of a recent article I read about the origins of white flight and the development of inner city ghettos in the north: https://devinhelton.com/why-urban-decay

    The writer argues (and attempts to document, I don’t know how successfully) that high rates of black-on-white violence in northern cities preceded and drove the process.

    Separately, I think he also argues (unless I am getting him mixed up with another writer) that the ratio of black-to-white lynchings throughout the nation was roughly the same as the ratio of black to white rates of crime, suggesting that lynching may not have been driven by racial animus or discrimination, as is generally assumed, but rather by actual disparities in criminal behavior (which does not mean there were not miscarriages of vigilante justice, which, given the lack of due process, there must have been).

    I only report this because the information and the arguments are new to me. That said, I emphatically do NOT support legal segregation and would like to see the vote extended even to convicted felons of whatever race who have served their sentences. People who are free to walk on the streets and to work should have the right to vote, in my opinion, which is not the case in many places.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Civil rights are a cynical plot to gradually end constitutional rights and everything about it was probably a lie. Fourth amendment went out right away, Zimmerman shows the plan for the Second, they're working industriously on the First through hate speech laws and an end run by way of social media, and the Third is coming once a Ninth Circuit judge agrees that whites are so inherently dangerous that we need to be supervised. Go down the line of what the racists warned and what the anti-racists promised, the racists have largely been proven inarguably correct, and nothing the anti-racists claimed has come to pass. Individual incidents were often probably Alinskyite stunts although some happened as claimed, but even the true incidents became subject to media massaging. The fact that Hollywood tried to get away with a major film starring Denzel Washington long after the Dylan song "Hurricane" was proven to be wildly dishonest tells us everything. Some lies need to be prohibited by the government and by restricting freedom of the press, and some lies are not a big deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. guest says:
    @CCZ
    Previously, Roth commented on “Plot” and Trump in the January 30, 2017 New Yorker, in the article “Roth on Trump.”

    Many passages in “The Plot Against America” echo feelings voiced today by vulnerable Americans—immigrants and minorities as alarmed by Trump’s election as the Jews of Newark are frightened by Lindbergh’s. The book also chronicles their impulse of denial. Lindbergh’s election makes clear to the seven-year-old “Philip Roth” that “the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything. Turned wrong way around, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as ‘History,’ a harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

    Asked if this warning has come to pass, Roth e-mailed, “My novel wasn’t written as a warning. I was just trying to imagine what it would have been like for a Jewish family like mine, in a Jewish community like Newark, had something even faintly like Nazi anti-Semitism befallen us in 1940, at the end of the most pointedly anti-Semitic decade in world history. I wanted to imagine how we would have fared, which meant I had first to invent an ominous American government that threatened us. As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”
     
    Maybe Roth's outlook has been “enhanced” by reading Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter (The History of White People, 2011), and Bruce Springsteen.

    From “Philip Roth calls Trump 'a massive fraud,' talks about Springsteen book” in NJ.Com, by Amy Kuperinsky, January 16, 2018:

    “Since he's not writing, Roth, who currently lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, spends his time reading, seeing friends, going to concerts, watching movies and checking email. Among his recent reads are works by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter, Edmund Morgan, Teju Cole, Stephen Greenblatt, and Bruce Springsteen.”
     
    Regarding black historian Painter writing about “White People”: “Among the topics Painter discusses are the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life, the racialization of intelligence and of political beliefs, and the relationship between race and conceptions of female beauty.” [Wiki]

    I know Trump as Nazi is a Thing, of course, but why are they bothering Philip Roth about it? Has there been an uptick in sales of Plot Against America since the ’16 election? Were enough journalists spontaneously reminded of the book? Or are they simply bothering everyone for their opinion, and Roth is next on the list?

    Bush the Younger of course was compared to Hitler, and I recall the Handmaid’s Tale coming up in connection with him. Probably because he was born-again in addition to being Hitler. Itt has re-emerged under Trump, but that’s a coincidence. The t.v. show had to be in the works while Hilary was still inevitable.

    It Can’t Happen Here I remember being brought up under Bush II, but not the Plot Against America. Is there a specific Lindbergh connection, because he and Trump are both from outside politics? Is there a hope abroad that Trump could up and fly away, and we could go back to normal?

    Sales of Atlas Shrugged soared in 2008, not because of Obama specifically but because of the economic meltdown and the bipartisan response to it. Has there been a response to Trump like that anywhere, Plot Against America-related or otherwise?

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

    which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”
     
    I've seen enough episodes of Welcome Back, Kotter to know that this is probably true.

    James Joyce: The Jewish century is a nightmare from which the goyim are trying to wake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Altai says:
    @S. Anonyia
    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.

    Hmm, it’s almost like having a particular opinion about an ethnicity comes along with exposure to conflicts with that group. Thus the South which didn’t have the massive Jewish immigration during the late 19th/20th century had little particular antagonism towards Jews (Though it has to be said the novel effects of evangelical obsessions with the Old Testament and later viewing Zionism as necessary to trigger the second coming seem to be a factor in a lot of boomer gentile-zionists, millenial gentile-zionists seem to come almost uniformly from this background) and the presence of large amounts of blacks triggered segregation, with the North having less antagonism towards blacks until the great migrations.

    That and the much lower number of German immigrants (Whose anti-semitism was itself triggered by the same causes, a massive inflow of Russian Jews just 2 or 3 generations prior) in the South with it also being still essentially British ethnically lead to it supporting the war against Germany in alliance with Britain much more vigorously than the North East.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. J1234 says:

    The Plot Against America, an alternative history story in which aviator Charles Lindbergh, who was the son of a Swedish-American Republican Congressman, runs against FDR…

    Not long ago he had a visit from David Simon, the creator of “The Wire,” who is making a six-part mini-series of “The Plot Against America,” and afterward he said he was sure his novel was in good hands.

    A Charles Lindbergh inspired evil character has already made it to the screen, in the form of Charles F. Muntz, the hateful aviator who piloted a dirigible called The Spirit of Adventure in the animated Up. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, my high school aged kids have never heard about Lindbergh in any of their American history classes. It’s very likely these two things are related.

    Also, a dirigible crossed the Atlantic before Lindbergh did in his airplane. Probably an additional subtle jab at Lindbergh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  175. guest says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    My experience of Roth is entirely from his second-act: Plot Against America, American Pastoral, Indignation. I tried reading Portnoy but couldn’t get into it. It made me feel gross. Indignation was too much about hand-jobs, but at least I didn’t feel gross.

    American Pastoral, on the other hand, was to much about the manufacture of gloves. Which I didn’t find all that interesting a topic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Bliss says:
    @Doug
    One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    FYI:

    Homosexuals were holocausted by the nazis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

    Nazi Germany was a christian, carnivorous nation not a pagan, vegetarian hippie commune…regardless of the personal preferences of Hitler (vegetarianism) and Himmler (occultism).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    The Nazis didn't persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute. Locking up gays was more about cementing Himmler's position in the party. (Similar story holds true for labor unions and the Strasserites)

    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, a significant fraction of the Nazi party was openly gay. More than half of the SA, up to and including Ernst Rohm, openly engaged in gay sex. There's zero record of Hitler having any moral objection to this. In fact this group was much more militantly radical than Himmler and Goring's conciliatory faction.

    Rohm and the gays weren't purged for being gay, or even bad Nazis. They were purged because Hindenburg insisted on it as a pre-condition to have over power. As much as a snake in the grass can, Hitler was actually quite conflicted about killing Rohm and the other gay Nazis.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    David Niven always got on my nerves when I watched him in a movie. James Mason was better, he checked out of everybody’s program; maybe because he was an aloof Yorkshireman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarcB.
    I understand he was different in real life, but on screen David Niven was cast as the prissy, fussy Twentieth Century archetype of the pampered gentlemen. It was inversion of the 1800's urbane savage variant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Corn
    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.

    I think Reilly did say something to that effect once, but I don’t have the post to hand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Abe says: • Website
    @Jack D
    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it's true, I've seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake "Roman" statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even "art experts" couldn't see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed - in the '60s films the actors have '60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing "Roman" costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year.

    Yes, which is why it’s strange and a little sad how Roth’s mind became more and more CURRENT YEAR-occluded over time. PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT (1969, I think) is a fairly accurate ethnological portrait of its time. The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP’s with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle. By the time of AMERICAN PASTORAL, though, this truth is forgotten in favor of post-SCHINDLER’S LIST retconning. In that later novel, perhaps Roth’s least naturalistic/most parablistic one, the main character is nicknamed ‘the Swede’ because of his anomalously ultra-Nordic good lucks. Thematically the point was to make him as all-American and America-blessed as possible in order to heighten the tragedy of his later fall, and what better way to do that than make him a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Max von Sydow-clone? Except that only in Himmler’s fantasies were Swedes considered Americans par excellence. I’m not nearly as old as Roth, but even I remember how Swedes used to come in for their fair share of ethnic humor drubbing, mostly along the lines of ‘big dumb Swede’ jokes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP’s with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle.
     
    Doyle is hardly a WASP name; it's irish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Mr. Anon says:
    @Corn
    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.

    Hitler didn’t seem to care much about religion. He didn’t care much about domestic policies (other than persecuting Jews) or economics. Hitler really only cared about War. He wanted to be a great warlord and conqueror. He wanted to succeed where Napoleon had failed and succeed where Alexander the Great had succeeded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. guest says:
    @DCThrowback
    If my memory serves, Willkie's campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government's "pump priming" during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called "The Forgotten Man".

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should've been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the "Good" war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html

    We were a decade into the Depression by the time of that election, the “revolution within the form” had been pulled off by the FDR boys and probably wasn’t going anywhere. The war was by far the most important issue. Just look how it dominated the rest of the century. Heck, the rest of our lives. We still talk about it constantly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    We still talk about it constantly.
     
    The transition from Republic to Empire is always of (tragic) interest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Mr. Anon says:
    @Abe

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year.
     
    Yes, which is why it's strange and a little sad how Roth's mind became more and more CURRENT YEAR-occluded over time. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT (1969, I think) is a fairly accurate ethnological portrait of its time. The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP's with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle. By the time of AMERICAN PASTORAL, though, this truth is forgotten in favor of post-SCHINDLER'S LIST retconning. In that later novel, perhaps Roth's least naturalistic/most parablistic one, the main character is nicknamed 'the Swede' because of his anomalously ultra-Nordic good lucks. Thematically the point was to make him as all-American and America-blessed as possible in order to heighten the tragedy of his later fall, and what better way to do that than make him a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Max von Sydow-clone? Except that only in Himmler's fantasies were Swedes considered Americans par excellence. I'm not nearly as old as Roth, but even I remember how Swedes used to come in for their fair share of ethnic humor drubbing, mostly along the lines of 'big dumb Swede' jokes.

    The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP’s with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle.

    Doyle is hardly a WASP name; it’s irish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Sean says:
    @Jack D
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.

    But what people think happened is due to things that blacks don’t control, so we are treated to poor little Mary as tits and ass jiggling slut in They Won’t Forget; yes, the original Hollywood sweater girl character was a child who became a murder victim.

    A hundred reasons Frank was very far from innocent, in which number 28 shows a photo of 13 years old Mary the prostitute on the autopsy slab. That was her punishment for refusing to have cunnilingus performed on her by Frank (who was indeed willing to pay as several girls testified).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Mr. Anon
    Apropos your point, is this (actually, pretty good) movie

    The Phenix City Story

    About the crime-busting reformer, John Patterson, who fought the criminal syndicate that controlled Phenix City and had tentacles stretching into the government of Alabama and the state's Democratic political machine.

    He was a good-government boy-scout-type politician that even yankees could be proud of.

    And he ran for governor of Alabama and won on a segregationist platform, defeating George Wallace, whom Patterson painted as soft on the issue.

    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.
     
    Yes, apparently he did. Also in 2003, he presided over the special court that removed Roy Moore as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. guest says:
    @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    “His sentence had been commuted”

    Sorry, yes. That’s what I meant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @DCThrowback
    If my memory serves, Willkie's campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government's "pump priming" during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called "The Forgotten Man".

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should've been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the "Good" war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html

    Toward the end of the 1940 campaign, Willkie was saying things like “If Roosevelt wins the boys will be on the troop transports.”

    After the election Willkie supported FDR’s foreign policy and dismissed the above as “campaign oratory.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The key word there is “claim.”

    Maybe. It is a pretty widespread "urban legend" among Jews.

    E.g. this thread from 2005 - https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jews-have-horns.1880259/

    During the recent Roy Moore debacle, I saw many similar stories on Facebook, usually from people claiming it happened to them.

    The Klezmer band Klezmatics can’t be content to leave the name of their third album Jews With Horns by itself or connect it to the middle ages, they have to make up a ridiculous story about having once been asked about their head horns in the modern era. This was described on NPR but is not on the wiki or the band site.
    Stories about modern goyim looking for horns represent a level of supremacist bigotry that is completely tolerated and has no equivalent in other major cultures. This is part of an inevitable problem when people are negotiating in bad faith to serve tribalist rivalry: give them an inch, and next time they need something, they will have an even worse story. They will repay your service to them with slander, as we see in the Southern Retcon or in Kosinski’s Painted Bird.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonomy
    I would attribute horns not to Jews but a God that was dropped from popular worship. Scrubbed out erased. Follow the link to see image.

    "glibôl was a lunar deity in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. His name means "Calf of Bel" ("Calf of the Lord").

    Aglibôl is depicted with a lunar halo decorating his head and sometimes his shoulders, and one of his attributes is the sickle moon.

    Aglibôl is linked with the sun god Yarḥibôl in a famous trinity. He is also associated with the Syrian versions of Astarte "Venus" and with Arṣu "Evening Star".

    Aglibôl's cult continued into Hellenic times and was later extended to Rome."

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


    But of course there is always warriors but who would believe Jews were doing anything but chipping out sarcasm at their enemies on clay tablets from the safe space behind the pharaohs throne.

    " bronze statuettes dated to the early 12th century BC, the so-called "horned god" and "ingot god", wearing horned helmets, found in Enkomi, Cyprus. In Sardinia dozens of warriors with horned helmets are depicted in bronze figures and in the monte prama gigantic statues, similar to those of the Shardana warriors (and possibly belonging to the same people) depicted by the Egyptians."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_helmet
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Beene
    "Roth’s notion that a Republican Swedish isolationist from Minnesota could have carried the Solid South against FDR in 1940 is just nuts."

    Of course it is, but not nearly as nuts as the idea that a twice-divorced former Democrat occasional liberal billionaire from New York, with a lot of big government ideas and quite shaky Christian faith, would carry the South in both the primaries and general election. Yet this has apparently happened.

    2016 was not 1940 and vice versa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Doug
    One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    The Italian fascists were a lot more ideologically coherent than the Nazis, who veered all over the place. The main theme of Italian fascism was trying to find an inspiring middle path between modernism and traditionalism. Hence, they had policies like promoting women’s sports to discourage masculine women from becoming fifth columnists, and promoting visual art which fused traditional and modern ideas. Ideologically speaking, Italian fascism was a much more serious threat to Anglo-Saxon liberalism than Nazism, but the Italians lacked the industrial muscle and social cohesion to have much historical impact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    You don’t have to be German to consider the Monroe Doctrine sound policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Luke Lea
    "one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow "

    I have no wish to defend Jim Crow but this does remind me of a recent article I read about the origins of white flight and the development of inner city ghettos in the north: https://devinhelton.com/why-urban-decay

    The writer argues (and attempts to document, I don't know how successfully) that high rates of black-on-white violence in northern cities preceded and drove the process.

    Separately, I think he also argues (unless I am getting him mixed up with another writer) that the ratio of black-to-white lynchings throughout the nation was roughly the same as the ratio of black to white rates of crime, suggesting that lynching may not have been driven by racial animus or discrimination, as is generally assumed, but rather by actual disparities in criminal behavior (which does not mean there were not miscarriages of vigilante justice, which, given the lack of due process, there must have been).

    I only report this because the information and the arguments are new to me. That said, I emphatically do NOT support legal segregation and would like to see the vote extended even to convicted felons of whatever race who have served their sentences. People who are free to walk on the streets and to work should have the right to vote, in my opinion, which is not the case in many places.

    Civil rights are a cynical plot to gradually end constitutional rights and everything about it was probably a lie. Fourth amendment went out right away, Zimmerman shows the plan for the Second, they’re working industriously on the First through hate speech laws and an end run by way of social media, and the Third is coming once a Ninth Circuit judge agrees that whites are so inherently dangerous that we need to be supervised. Go down the line of what the racists warned and what the anti-racists promised, the racists have largely been proven inarguably correct, and nothing the anti-racists claimed has come to pass. Individual incidents were often probably Alinskyite stunts although some happened as claimed, but even the true incidents became subject to media massaging. The fact that Hollywood tried to get away with a major film starring Denzel Washington long after the Dylan song “Hurricane” was proven to be wildly dishonest tells us everything. Some lies need to be prohibited by the government and by restricting freedom of the press, and some lies are not a big deal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @guest
    We were a decade into the Depression by the time of that election, the "revolution within the form" had been pulled off by the FDR boys and probably wasn't going anywhere. The war was by far the most important issue. Just look how it dominated the rest of the century. Heck, the rest of our lives. We still talk about it constantly.

    We still talk about it constantly.

    The transition from Republic to Empire is always of (tragic) interest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. guest says:
    @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    “This was more like the Trayvon trial…Or the O.J. case. Communal solidarity (with the whites of the South in sympathy with ‘their’ murdered girl)”

    Gimme a break. If they were so blinded by communal wagon-circling, why didn’t they pick the black guy? Wouldn’t that have been easier? If Frank was an “Other,” he wasn’t all that Other, relatively speaking. (Though, as another poster pointed out, he had a vibe about him people picked up on, which probably accounted for antipathy as well as his Jewishness.)

    There’s nothing wrong with communal solidarity in the face of a slain young girl, in my opinion. So long as it remains within the law. Which it did, until after outside intervention robbed them of what people thought was a just sentence.

    Finally, it’s quite obvious Zimmerman was innocent, and pretty inarguable O.J. was guilty. Funny you should pick those two cases. There have to be plenty of cases where black people were fundamentally right yet went overboard. Much like whites with Frank.

    We don’t know with absolute certainty that he did it. But there was enough evidence to convince a jury at a fair trial, and neither you nor the ADL can point to any clear and convincing exculpatory evidence as with Zimmerman.

    Frank was consumed by the fire of inordinate hatred and misguided revenge AFTER the commutation. Prior to commutation, he would have been executed by the state in a just matter. Yet, in popular memory it’s as if a trial didn’t take place, and Frank was plucked out of his life to be killed because anti-semitism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @ben tillman
    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.

    Frank was believed to be guilty. No way would Southerners in 1913 allow a Negro (or a white man for that matter) to get away with killing a white girl while framing a Jew. Wouldn’t happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It's very instructive that when the ur-ADL arrived and set up shop, they decided to not talk about the facts of the case, preferring to generally defame the South as a lawless and bigoted wasteland, and to prepare emotional character studies about Leo Frank being a likeable sort of guy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. peterike says:
    @Jack D
    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it's true, I've seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake "Roman" statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even "art experts" couldn't see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed - in the '60s films the actors have '60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing "Roman" costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    You really don’t need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth’s motives. It’s quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth’s novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn’t have over-rated novelists, they wouldn’t have any at all.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Anon
    Roth takes some good strong pokes at Jews too, though.
    , @J.Ross
    This is true of overhyped establishmentarians but is not true of Jewish writers categorically. Joseph Heller really is a good writer. Dan Gabriel and Martin van Creveld are not novelists but they are objectively top-of-category military history writers. There is one unbelievably lazy and inept airhead I had to read for a class, Aharon Appelfeld, and his number one fan and advocate in the English language happens to be Phillip Roth. Appelfeld has to be read to be believed. Him, Seth Rogen and Jonah Goldberg having careers are pretty much the case for mass media being owned by a small nepotistic group, because, without that, these guys wouldn't be washing dishes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. utu says:

    JFK had Charles Lindbergh at WH overnight and at the state dinner for French writer Malraux in April 1962.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    JFK had identical views to Lindbergh on WWII, so no real surprise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Flip says:
    @Sean
    Hitler could have won WW2, and had an atomic bomb by 1945, and did not only because he made two mistakes. The first, against every military professional's advice, was halting before Smolensk for almost two months in 1941, (see the writings of Stolfi for the detailed arguments). The second was in demoralising his main scientific adviser with lack of resources for multiple top priorities to such an extent that he didn't tell Hitler how feasible an atomic bomb was out of fear he would demand a crash program.

    The Confederacy was quite different, even if they had won Gettysburg (as they easily could have) there was never any chance of them achieving final victory over the North. They never had a chance of being allowed to break away, irrespective of their political reasons for wanting to do so.

    The South didn’t have to achieve military victory, they just needed to persuade the Union that it wasn’t worth fighting to keep them from leaving. I bet the South could have ultimately gotten its independence if they were willing to do an Algerian type of guerilla warfare but Lee told everyone to lay down their arms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    That was tried and failed in the latter Boer war, but the British crushed support for the Boer guerrillas by regular army sweep, destroying homes and also unleashing 20, 000 armed black scouts which the civilians (especially women) were helpless against.

    Everybody fit to fight that Lee told to lay down their arms was not, relatively speaking, a lot, because so many Southerners willing to fight were already dead of severely wounded by then. But if Lee had ordered guerrilla warfare, the North would never have given up, and unlike the South, the North had manpower. The ranks of the Union army were increasingly filled with low class Irish and German immigrants (paid a generous bounty for joining) by later stages of the war, while many students at the top universities in the North never even joined up. The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people's houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. guest says:
    @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That’s a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn’t any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Exactly. The whole point is to abandon truth in favor of emotion, to seize power rather than to sort out facts. Cf the Glenn Ford movie Trial. It's a the Dalrymple explanation of propaganda extended into action.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue

     

    I would be utterly fascinated to know the details, if you could provide them.
    , @Jack D
    You don't necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn't make Frank's lynching OK but it really doesn't have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn't going to anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Mr. Blank says:
    @Bill

    it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.
     
    The movements for prohibition and suffrage weren't like SJW Twitter mobs?

    Not precisely. I meant that it’s hard to imagine people in 1925 taking one single quote or one single fragment of a quote, or one single screw-up, or one badly-phrased joke, and then blowing it up to apocalyptic proportions. They were far too sophisticated for that.

    Every age has its progressive reformist nutjobs. But in the past, they were mostly house-trained.

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

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

     

    You really don't need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth's motives. It's quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth's novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn't have over-rated novelists, they wouldn't have any at all.

    Roth takes some good strong pokes at Jews too, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.
     
    Just like everyone knows that slavery never existed, because blacks are obviously privileged over whites today.
    , @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.
    , @ben tillman
    I'm more inclined to think Grandma made it up for fun. And she put one over on you.

    Or, conceivably, a Southerner put one over on her in the course of seeing whether she was so gullible that she would believe someone actually believed that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Anonym says:

    OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues. Seeing as their coverage was so anti-Israel before and lacking in such perspective with only Pollak and Solov off the top of my head, it’s good to see that Bannon and McHugh can find such worthy substitutes, overrun with white gentiles as they were. It just stirs my heart to see those such as Kassam argue our case for us! MAGA!

    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/01/17/jerusalem-post-columnist-caroline-glick-joins-breitbart-news/

    Read More
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @ 197 Anonym: "OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues."

    I pretty much stopped reading there after Charlottesville, although I still scanned their headlines, but even that became too much. Pretty dramatic shift from the election coverage (even if they started as Cruz supporters) to the present. It's totally standard normie news plus half a dozen daily stories about Jews, Israel, a purported Holocaust survivor, and "European" anti-semitism. And, as you note, that great White Christian nationalist Raheem Kassam remaining stalwart for traditional England, America, and western civilization Because That's Who We Are.

    Caroline Glick is a really worthy addition to their diverse crew.

    , @Old Jew
    Re: "The oyveyification of Broytbaht".

    Assume the purpose of the above phrase is sarcasm.

    Then:

    "Oyvey-ification" is chosen well.
    but
    "Broytbaht" is unfortunate.

    Breitbart would be in Yiddish "Breyter Burt" (Wide Beard)

    "Broyt " in Yiddish stands for Bread not for Wide.

    thus "Broytbaht" means perhaps Bread Beard.

    Is that what you expected?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. flip says:
    @ScarletNumber
    Does the book mention Dwight Morrow? The former Ambassador to Mexico and US Senator from New Jersey was Lindbergh's father in law.

    And JPMorgan partner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. J.Ross says: • Website
    @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    Exactly. The whole point is to abandon truth in favor of emotion, to seize power rather than to sort out facts. Cf the Glenn Ford movie Trial. It’s a the Dalrymple explanation of propaganda extended into action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. anonomy says:
    @RebelWriter
    Thanks for that. Most Southerners haven't met many Jews, it's true, and rarely think about them, in spite of their presence on TV and in the movies. When they do think about Jews, they generally think about Old Testament Jews, and I can attest they think of them as ancestors of sort. 99.9% of Evangelical preachers are Christian Zionists.
    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century, with significant communities in Camden and Charleston. Charleston had the largest Jewish community in the US until abut 1830, when it was finally eclipsed by New York City. Almost all SC Jews are Sephardic, and while they are very well recorded, they are generally quiet. For instance, I was an adult before I discovered that FDR's "Ambassador at Large," Bernhard Baruch, was born and raised in Camden. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and rode with the KKK during Reconstruction. Ben Bernanke is a descendant of Baruch, and also from Camden.
    The Low Country of South Carolina is very, very German. My mother's family is almost entirely German. Charleston itself was settled from Barbados, not Britain. The old blue bloods there are of English and French descent. The Upstate was settled primarily by the Scotch Irish and Welsh, with some Palatine Germans as well. Dr. Walter Edgar identified 38 different ethnicities among the founding stock of SC. I don't think ancestry had anything much to do with Southern support for Britain in the war, so much as a perception of kinship, perhaps.

    A Jew saying he is Hebrew is like an African claiming to be German.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Mr. Blank says:
    @S. Anonyia
    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.

    It’s often occurred to me that the eclectic mix of views held by my grandparents would be positively baffling to the know-it-all dorks at sites like Slate and Vox. Yet from every indication I’ve seen, my grandparents were pretty much the norm for their time. It’s amazing how many “smart” people have no clue how limited our current range of political opinion is, compared to other eras.

    I suspect, but can’t prove, that it’s related to greater ethnic diversity. In a multicultural society, most of the political energy is concentrated on first-order questions: Whose tribe gets which goodies? Paradoxically(?), in a more ethnically monocultural society, the first-order questions can be disposed of quickly by establishing a basic framework that everybody more or less agrees to, giving people the freedom to think about second- or third-order questions — which leads to a broader array of responses.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bubba
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. flip says:
    @Abe
    Excuse this old chestnut of mine; I've brought it up several times over the years here, but given the current discussion I think it's worth bringing up again. From Roth's cowardly, paranoid fantasizing about what an imagined Lindbergh Administration would possibly do:

    … A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them
     
    And now, what the real, historical, FDR was hoping to do (hat-tip to commenter "franktremb"):
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/democratic-norway-v-authoritarian-sweden/#comment-702514

    FDR didn’t like “Hyphenate Americans” either. Here’s an extract from a letter to the Prime minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, on the 18th of May 1942. To him, French Canadians and “Hyphenate Americans” are a problem to North America. But he believed in assimilation:

    “When I was a boy in the «nineties», I used to see many deal French Canadians who had rather recently come into the New Bedford area, near the old Delano place, at Fair Haven. They seemed very much out of place in what was still an old New England community. They segregated themselves in the mill towns and had little to do with their neighbours. I can still remember that the old generation shook their heads and used to say, «this is a new element which will never be assimilated. We are assimilating the Irish but these Quebec people won’t even speak English. Their bodies are here, but their hearts and minds are in Quebec».
    Today, forty or fifty years later, the French-Canadian elements in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are at last becoming a part of the American melting pot. They no longer vote as their churches and their societies tell them to. They are inter-marrying with the original Anglo Saxon stock; they are good, peaceful citizens, and most of them are speaking English in their homes.

    All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning – perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy – by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada’s French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.

    In other words, after nearly two hundred years with you and after seventy-five years with us, there would seem to be no good reason for great differentials between the French population elements and the rest of the racial stocks.

    It is on the same basis that I am trying to work out post-war plans for the encouragement of the distribution of certain other nationalities in our large congested centers. There ought not to be such a concentration of Italians and of Jews, and even of Germans as we have today in New York City. I have started my National Resources Planning Commission to work on a survey of this kind.“
     


     

    “many deal French Canadians”

    What does he mean by “deal?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. J.Ross says: • Website
    @peterike

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

     

    You really don't need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth's motives. It's quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth's novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn't have over-rated novelists, they wouldn't have any at all.

    This is true of overhyped establishmentarians but is not true of Jewish writers categorically. Joseph Heller really is a good writer. Dan Gabriel and Martin van Creveld are not novelists but they are objectively top-of-category military history writers. There is one unbelievably lazy and inept airhead I had to read for a class, Aharon Appelfeld, and his number one fan and advocate in the English language happens to be Phillip Roth. Appelfeld has to be read to be believed. Him, Seth Rogen and Jonah Goldberg having careers are pretty much the case for mass media being owned by a small nepotistic group, because, without that, these guys wouldn’t be washing dishes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Flip says:
    @istevefan

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War.
     
    I think this plays a part in the historical animosity between Kansas City and St. Louis. A lot of 1848 German immigrants settled in St. Louis and helped the Union. KC on the other hand was in a part of the state more aligned with the South. I doubt many modern residents even know this since many don't have roots to that time. But it probably helped lay the foundation for the odd feelings that persist between these cities.

    Here is an excerpt from the Camp Jackson Affair:

    The Camp Jackson affair, also known as the Camp Jackson massacre, was an incident during the American Civil War that occurred on May 10, 1861, when a volunteer Union Army regiment captured a unit of secessionists at Camp Jackson, outside the city of St. Louis, in the divided slave state of Missouri.

    The newly-appointed Union commander in Missouri, Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon, had learned that the ostensibly neutral state militia training in Camp Jackson was planning to raid the federal arsenal in St. Louis. After capturing the entire unit, Lyon marched the captives into town in order to parole them. En route, hostile secessionist crowds gathered, and after an accidental gunshot, Lyon's men fired into the mob, killing at least 28 civilians and injuring dozens of others. Several days of rioting throughout St. Louis followed. Pro-slavery locals were also particularly angered by the presence in Lyon’s force of many German abolitionists who had fled the failed revolutions of 1848. The violence ended only after martial law was imposed and Union regulars were dispatched to the city.
     

    The “Damned Dutch” they were called. (Dutch meaning Deutsch). One of my great grandfathers was a German immigrant who served in the Union Army in St. Louis during the Civil War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    “Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors.”

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

    Anne Gillespie Mitchell:

    Around 1670 the first significant group of Germans came to the colonies, mostly settling in Pennsylvania and New York. In 1709 a group known as the Palatines made the journey from the Palatinate region of Germany. Many died on the way over on crowded ships, but around 2,100 survived and settled in New York.

    Soon after that, multiple waves of Germans arrived in the Southeast and settled in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Another wave came and settled in New England.

    https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/10/13/migration-to-america-in-the-1700s/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. J.Ross says: • Website
    @David In TN
    Frank was believed to be guilty. No way would Southerners in 1913 allow a Negro (or a white man for that matter) to get away with killing a white girl while framing a Jew. Wouldn't happen.

    It’s very instructive that when the ur-ADL arrived and set up shop, they decided to not talk about the facts of the case, preferring to generally defame the South as a lawless and bigoted wasteland, and to prepare emotional character studies about Leo Frank being a likeable sort of guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Mr. Blank says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The handful of Jews I knew growing up in Alabama were culturally indistinguishable from white Protestants. They drove pickup trucks sporting Confederate flag stickers, owned guns, spoke with a drawl, listened to country music, voted Republican. Oh, and they could tell you all about their illustrious Confederate ancestors — they weren’t the least bit ashamed of them.

    I didn’t meet a classic “New York style” Jewish person until well into my 20s. Up until then, I wasn’t sure they really existed outside of movies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. prosa123 says: • Website
    @Anonymouse
    Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.

    “Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.”

    A train trip was Willkie’s undoing. In September 1944, while riding a train from Indiana to New York, he suffered a heart attack as it passed through western Pennsylvania. He disregarded the pleas of his companions to get off in Pittsburgh and go to a hospital and instead insisting on going all the way to New York. Although he went straight to the hospital from the train station he died within a few weeks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    In other words, they were fine with folks who behaved properly and fit in with the basic mores of their culture, but don’t particularly like being lectured (or demeaned) by tedious outsiders.

    Jews on the other hand are well known for how much they love and appreciate outsiders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Jimi says:

    How much of this disparity is because in 1930s the non-Southern US was filled with Irish, German, Italian immigrants and their offspring had not fully assimilated into American culture and felt a deeper connection to their homelands which were at odds with United Kingdom.

    At that time the South was still predominantly filled with people of British descent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  217. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns.

    World War II was well into the era of film…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Many of the comments are based on the absurd premise that Philip Roth is in some way significant. He is/was nothing more than a highly partisan polemicist. One’s time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "One’s time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel."

    I vaguely recall that my dad may have mowed Zane Grey's lawn in the early 1930s. He lived next door to Zane Grey's brother when he was a teenager and mowed the brother's lawn for money. I think he may have mowed the cowboy novelist's lawn too at some point.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @Anonymous
    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    Just like everyone knows that slavery never existed, because blacks are obviously privileged over whites today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Just like everyone knows the blood libel was absolutely false in every reported instance because Nazis killed a lot of Jews, so none of them could, like, ever have done something wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.

    I’d say it’s not out of character for men. Or women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The difference is that it's not considered adultery, according to traditional Jewish law, for a Jewish man to have sexual relations with non-Jewish women. There is no guilt attached to these relationships.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. LondonBob says:
    @utu
    JFK had Charles Lindbergh at WH overnight and at the state dinner for French writer Malraux in April 1962.

    JFK had identical views to Lindbergh on WWII, so no real surprise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    In 1962, Charles Lindbergh was still high on the pantheon of American heroes. He had flown missions in the Pacific in 1944 and gave valuable advice on increasing the range of the P-38 fighter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Mr. Anon says:

    In discussing his current reading, Roth praises Yuri Slezkine’s fine book:

    Whenever I’ve seen gentiles praise Slezkine’s book – in the sense of saying that they read it and found it illuminating – they are condemned as anti-semites. Quoting Slezkine is liable to bring the by-now familiar charge “why would you know that?”

    The list of what gentiles are and are not supposed to know is getting increasingly bewildering. Perhaps a list could be provided for us. Or, as a simpler measure, maybe the books we shouldn’t read could simply be piled up in a courtyard and burned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  223. Sean says:
    @Flip
    The South didn't have to achieve military victory, they just needed to persuade the Union that it wasn't worth fighting to keep them from leaving. I bet the South could have ultimately gotten its independence if they were willing to do an Algerian type of guerilla warfare but Lee told everyone to lay down their arms.

    That was tried and failed in the latter Boer war, but the British crushed support for the Boer guerrillas by regular army sweep, destroying homes and also unleashing 20, 000 armed black scouts which the civilians (especially women) were helpless against.

    Everybody fit to fight that Lee told to lay down their arms was not, relatively speaking, a lot, because so many Southerners willing to fight were already dead of severely wounded by then. But if Lee had ordered guerrilla warfare, the North would never have given up, and unlike the South, the North had manpower. The ranks of the Union army were increasingly filled with low class Irish and German immigrants (paid a generous bounty for joining) by later stages of the war, while many students at the top universities in the North never even joined up. The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people’s houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people’s houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.
     
    If what you say is true, it's a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Michelangelo’s statue of Moses, which is easily a top ten all time greatest statue, has horns. This probably has to do wit St. Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin. Early Christians understood that “horns” was supposed to be understood metaphorically to depict something like a halo or rays of light shining from Moses’s head when he came down from Mt. Sinai, but in the last millennium the word chosen by Jerome started to be taken literally. But it was usually understood to be complimentary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)#Horns

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    The "horns" passage in Exodus is something of a crux for hebraists:

    "In reality, the more compelling of the two explanations is simply that it’s a sloppy translation. Not Michelangelo’s sloppiness of course, but the sloppiness of St. Jerome, who translated the Pentateuch into Latin in the 5th century. When Jerome came across Exodus 34:29 (and, though slightly differently, verses 30 and 35), he rendered it as “cornuta esset facies sua“. That is to say, “his face became hornéd“. Everybody knows, of course, that that’s not what the Hebrew says. Or is it?

    Exodus 34:29, according to the JPS Tanakh, reads as follows: “as Moses came down from the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, Moses was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant“. This is more or less what the King James version has as well, when they translate “the skin of his face shone“. It would seem that Jerome was way off! Where did he derive this nonsense about horns?

    Truth be told, both the King James version and the JPS are relying very heavily upon the earliest translation of this passage that was ever made: the translation into Greek. The Greek Septuagint (which was, of course, a Jewish translation) makes it very clear that Moses’ face was shining, and it is this translation that became standard in later Jewish interpretation. In fact, the Midrash goes even further by suggesting that Moses was radiant even at birth; and images of holy people with light emanating from their skin, so popular in the artworks of Renaissance painters, have their source in similar declarations. The Hebrew itself is not quite so easy to understand.

    The problem is that of the three Hebrew words employed in the collocation, one of them doesn’t make much sense. The words are קָ֛רַן‭ ‬ע֥וֹר‭ ‬פָּנָ֖יו, and I include them with the vocalisation and accentuation that the masoretes gave them. For the benefit of those who don’t read Hebrew, the words read as qaran ohr panav and the first word (קרן, qaran) is vocalised as a verb. This is the first problem with the passage, because there are only four instances in the whole Tanakh when this word is a verb and of those four instances, three of them concern Moses’ face. The fourth instance is found in Psalms 69:32 and means… “to have horns”.

    Okay, but surelyקרן‭ ‬ can also mean shine, right? I mean, this is the way the word is used in Israel today! Let’s have a look. As a noun, rather than a verb, the word turns up 90 times in the Bible, in 79 different verses. In every one of those instances, bar one, it either means “horn”, or it refers to something that is the shape of a horn, like the protuberances on the side of the altar. The one exception is Habbakuk 3:4, in which it appears to mean “ray of light”, although the context is non-literal. As if to complicate matters, the following verse (Hab 3:5) makes reference to two Near Eastern gods known as “plague” and “pestilence” (דבר and רשף) both being subservient to the god of Israel. It is therefore possible that the reference to “concealment” in verse 4 (חביון) might be also be an allusion to the hornéd demon known as Hebyon, and that the word קרן might therefore being implying “horns”, rather than “rays of light”.

    Whether or not that is the case, the word does most certainly come to mean “ray of light” in post-Biblical Hebrew, but the corresponding verbal form (“to shine”) isn’t actually attested at all until the liturgical poetry of the mediaeval period! What is more, the usages of the verb with that meaning might have been back-formations, based upon the classical understanding of the verses that describe Moses.

    The problems, unfortunately, don’t end there. If the passage simply seemed to be saying that Moses grew horns, then there would be a thousand better ways of saying so than “the flesh of Moses’ face horned.” What some scholars have suggested is that the passage was originally intended to have the meaning, “his face became a horn of flesh” – like the nightmarish vision that Daniel has in Daniel 7:8.

    Feeling that this was possibly disrespectful, the Alexandrian Jewish community favoured an alternative reading tradition that they then reflected in their Greek translation. Following this tradition, the Tiberian masoretes vocalised the word as a verb, and punctuated it with their accent marks in such a fashion that, even though it’s an awkward reading, it favours the Greek translation over any other possible interpretation. Jerome, who sought a fresh translation from the Hebrew with little assistance from the Greek, hit upon an alternative, although equally viable reading of the text."

    http://galusaustralis.com/2009/09/1608/horny-jew-whats-the-deal-with-michelangelos-moses/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous
    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    Look, I wasn’t there. I wasn’t even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.
     
    Yes, that would be the only possible reason - general anti-semitism. The fact that one might be familiar with wartime southern society (by virtue of being related to people who were of that society, or having close friends whose parents came from that society) - much more intimately familiar with it than a foreign-born war-bride - the fact that one may have never ever read any such contention, either in current or contemporaneous accounts of the era - that couldn't enter into our consideration at all.

    Astroturf?! You know whose responsible for that, don't ya? The Anti-Semites!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5n_YUBQIYQ
    , @anon
    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Well, I suppose there's the fact that it's kind of a ridiculous story, what with it happening at a time when people generally had a pretty good understanding of human anatomy, and could see all different kinds of people on film...

    But you're right. It's anti-Semitism. Just like everything else is.

    Can I suggest an alternate hypothesis, though? If this actually happened, are you sure the southern people who asked her that were being serious? Do you think maybe it was some kind of joke that she just decided to take literally?

    Like, if I saw a really short black guy in a basketball jersey, I might ask him which basketball team he played for, just to be a smartass. Depending on his sense of humor, he might think I was being serious.

    , @Anon
    "I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism."

    What a piece of work this guy is. Can't win an argument, so...must be anti-Semitism! That tends to happen when you assume anecdotes suffice for actual evidence, which you had absolutely zero before making a pretty bold claim. Making unsupported assertions against a group based on zero evidence but merely anecdote and stereotype could be construed as anti-Gentilism.

    "I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism."

    Prove my grandmother didn't see aliens kidnap Michael Jackson. Think she's lying? You're not some kind of racist, are you? Hate old people, too? Sad.
    , @Anonymous

    I suppose general anti-Semitism
     
    This appears to be your answer to nearly everything. No, we know that it's a lie because 1) it comports too neatly with approved narratives 2) it's an extremely tired cliché 3) it assaults your tribal enemies in a ludicrous fashion and 4) it provides fodder for your treasured victim fables. That's just off the top of my head. And if yours weren't firmly up your rear you'd see the story for the preposterous nonsense that it is.
    , @anonguy
    Maybe they were kidding her and she didn't get the joke?

    But even if sincere, one question from one idiot is pretty scant evidence from which to make any generalizations about the people of a region.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Jimi says:
    @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    “the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers”

    A lot of leftwing gentiles go out to the occupied territories to agitate for Civil Rights. They don’t end up doing too well wither.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn’t eligible, but this was the subtext. Given the significant amount of support Cruz got in the South, a good chunk of the electorate obviously held no truck with those traditional views. But enough did to torpedo his run.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn’t eligible, but this was the subtext."

    The JackD quote you cited had precisely zero to do with Cruz losing. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what he's talking about or needs to ask his doctor to check his memory. Trump ran as an economic populist who opposed free trade and immigration while Cruz ran to the border with Glenn Beck to hand out stuffed animals to illegals and had a long history of supporting unpopular economic policies, like a national sales tax to replace the income tax on the rich. Republican economic dogma isn't as popular as the GOP elite would have you believe - even in the South - and the GOP had a significant faction of war weary types that didn't want Cruz's foreign policy. Trump was also personally charismatic and gave the crowds lots of red meat by attacking and being attacked by the establishment, proving to a lot of people that he was their guy.

    By the way, the left tried making the same argument against Trump to zero effect and no one cared about his foreign wife. Pretty strong counter-example, wouldn't you say?

    Don't turn to JackD for political analysis. He'll have you believing that making Americans sign loyalty oaths to Israel (boycott pledges), having the government crack down on completely legal boycotts of Israel by private citizens, and moving our embassy to Jerusalem against the wishes of most Americans is A-okay.

    , @Whitehall
    I was intending to vote Cruz in the Florida primary but the Chicago violence happened at a Trump rally.

    I saw the Cruz press conference immediately afterwards and when Cruz claimed Trump shared the blame for the violence due to his intemperate language, that's when I changed my vote to Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @Kam Phlodius
    Many of the comments are based on the absurd premise that Philip Roth is in some way significant. He is/was nothing more than a highly partisan polemicist. One's time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel.

    “One’s time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel.”

    I vaguely recall that my dad may have mowed Zane Grey’s lawn in the early 1930s. He lived next door to Zane Grey’s brother when he was a teenager and mowed the brother’s lawn for money. I think he may have mowed the cowboy novelist’s lawn too at some point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    I frankly don’t believe that. Perhaps you misheard her. I’ve known lots of southerners, including relations, and of that era, and I have never heard of such a thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Believe her or don't believe her - I don't care. She is, God bless her, clear and lucid and recently repeated this story to me (she has mentioned it before - not frequently but once or twice when relating her wartime experiences) without any ambiguity or doubt. She is not a liar to my knowledge and had nothing to gain from inventing this story. She is not prone to tall tales. I am clearly never going to convince you but personally I have no doubt that the woman is telling the truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. 3g4me says:
    @Anonym
    OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues. Seeing as their coverage was so anti-Israel before and lacking in such perspective with only Pollak and Solov off the top of my head, it's good to see that Bannon and McHugh can find such worthy substitutes, overrun with white gentiles as they were. It just stirs my heart to see those such as Kassam argue our case for us! MAGA!

    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/01/17/jerusalem-post-columnist-caroline-glick-joins-breitbart-news/

    @ 197 Anonym: “OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues.”

    I pretty much stopped reading there after Charlottesville, although I still scanned their headlines, but even that became too much. Pretty dramatic shift from the election coverage (even if they started as Cruz supporters) to the present. It’s totally standard normie news plus half a dozen daily stories about Jews, Israel, a purported Holocaust survivor, and “European” anti-semitism. And, as you note, that great White Christian nationalist Raheem Kassam remaining stalwart for traditional England, America, and western civilization Because That’s Who We Are.

    Caroline Glick is a really worthy addition to their diverse crew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Benjaminl says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.

    Perhaps in second place, after The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves.

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

    Read More
    • LOL: Charles Pewitt
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Jack D says:
    @Austrian
    OT, but important:
    Trump just took the MoCA mental aptitude test and scored 30/30. Liberals say the test is too easy and doesn't count.

    I found a study from Arizona performed on senior citizens that includes a racial breakdown:
    http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/537658/2/Parsons%2C+Christine+Poster.pdf

    Average age: 72
    Mean, std
    overall: 23.7, 4.4
    whites: 24.5, 3.7
    blacks: 20.7, 5.4

    83% of blacks failed the test. (threshold = 26)

    Cognitive impairment was more prevalent in certain races, however it is unclear if other variables such as cultural factors necessitate score adjustment or adjustment in the test itself.
     
    Muh cultural factors. LOL

    Trump is 1.43 std above the mean which would translate to an IQ of 121,47.
    The Arizona study is likely not representative and the MoCA test score distribution is negatively skewed (to the left). So take with a large grain of salt.

    The general feeling is that some people lose a few IQ points as they age. If you are the average billionaire, like Trump, chances are that you started out as a pretty sharp guy. So even if you lose a few points due to aging, you still have a lot left, just like Jack Nicklaus could probably play better golf than you can even at age 70. OTOH if you are a black that starts out at IQ85, losing a few points to old age could easily put you below the threshold. Hell, you might have been below the MOCA threshold at 25.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue

    I would be utterly fascinated to know the details, if you could provide them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Lots of people shoot lots of people all the time. It must have happened, I'm guessing.

    Not that it could compare to the number of blacks who shoot eachother over such vital concerns as shoes and jackets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Yes, that would be the only possible reason – general anti-semitism. The fact that one might be familiar with wartime southern society (by virtue of being related to people who were of that society, or having close friends whose parents came from that society) – much more intimately familiar with it than a foreign-born war-bride – the fact that one may have never ever read any such contention, either in current or contemporaneous accounts of the era – that couldn’t enter into our consideration at all.

    Astroturf?! You know whose responsible for that, don’t ya? The Anti-Semites!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Well, I suppose there’s the fact that it’s kind of a ridiculous story, what with it happening at a time when people generally had a pretty good understanding of human anatomy, and could see all different kinds of people on film…

    But you’re right. It’s anti-Semitism. Just like everything else is.

    Can I suggest an alternate hypothesis, though? If this actually happened, are you sure the southern people who asked her that were being serious? Do you think maybe it was some kind of joke that she just decided to take literally?

    Like, if I saw a really short black guy in a basketball jersey, I might ask him which basketball team he played for, just to be a smartass. Depending on his sense of humor, he might think I was being serious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. syonredux says:
    @CCZ
    One of historian Katznelson's other books, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE, An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, presents his interpretation of 1930-1940s American racial history, an interpretation that Ta Neshi Coates invokes with his demand for reparations.

    From the NY Times book review:

    “Ira Katznelson, the Ruggles professor of political science and history at Columbia University, enters this fray with a provocative new book, "When Affirmative Action Was White," which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.”
     

    Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960′s.”

    Let’s see, the ’60s ended in 1970….and 1970 was 48 years ago…..Which means that we’ve had 48 years of Black affirmative action, as opposed to only 30 years of White affirmative action…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Jack D says:
    @Mr. Anon
    I frankly don't believe that. Perhaps you misheard her. I've known lots of southerners, including relations, and of that era, and I have never heard of such a thing.

    Believe her or don’t believe her – I don’t care. She is, God bless her, clear and lucid and recently repeated this story to me (she has mentioned it before – not frequently but once or twice when relating her wartime experiences) without any ambiguity or doubt. She is not a liar to my knowledge and had nothing to gain from inventing this story. She is not prone to tall tales. I am clearly never going to convince you but personally I have no doubt that the woman is telling the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Reminds me of the other guy whose father saw a sign reading "No dogs or Jews allowed"-- at a hotel which admitted dogs. You sure you remember everything in your life accurately and never embellish a story?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. syonredux says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Michelangelo's statue of Moses, which is easily a top ten all time greatest statue, has horns. This probably has to do wit St. Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin. Early Christians understood that "horns" was supposed to be understood metaphorically to depict something like a halo or rays of light shining from Moses's head when he came down from Mt. Sinai, but in the last millennium the word chosen by Jerome started to be taken literally. But it was usually understood to be complimentary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)#Horns

    The “horns” passage in Exodus is something of a crux for hebraists:

    “In reality, the more compelling of the two explanations is simply that it’s a sloppy translation. Not Michelangelo’s sloppiness of course, but the sloppiness of St. Jerome, who translated the Pentateuch into Latin in the 5th century. When Jerome came across Exodus 34:29 (and, though slightly differently, verses 30 and 35), he rendered it as “cornuta esset facies sua“. That is to say, “his face became hornéd“. Everybody knows, of course, that that’s not what the Hebrew says. Or is it?

    Exodus 34:29, according to the JPS Tanakh, reads as follows: “as Moses came down from the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, Moses was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant“. This is more or less what the King James version has as well, when they translate “the skin of his face shone“. It would seem that Jerome was way off! Where did he derive this nonsense about horns?

    Truth be told, both the King James version and the JPS are relying very heavily upon the earliest translation of this passage that was ever made: the translation into Greek. The Greek Septuagint (which was, of course, a Jewish translation) makes it very clear that Moses’ face was shining, and it is this translation that became standard in later Jewish interpretation. In fact, the Midrash goes even further by suggesting that Moses was radiant even at birth; and images of holy people with light emanating from their skin, so popular in the artworks of Renaissance painters, have their source in similar declarations. The Hebrew itself is not quite so easy to understand.

    The problem is that of the three Hebrew words employed in the collocation, one of them doesn’t make much sense. The words are קָ֛רַן‭ ‬ע֥וֹר‭ ‬פָּנָ֖יו, and I include them with the vocalisation and accentuation that the masoretes gave them. For the benefit of those who don’t read Hebrew, the words read as qaran ohr panav and the first word (קרן, qaran) is vocalised as a verb. This is the first problem with the passage, because there are only four instances in the whole Tanakh when this word is a verb and of those four instances, three of them concern Moses’ face. The fourth instance is found in Psalms 69:32 and means… “to have horns”.

    Okay, but surelyקרן‭ ‬ can also mean shine, right? I mean, this is the way the word is used in Israel today! Let’s have a look. As a noun, rather than a verb, the word turns up 90 times in the Bible, in 79 different verses. In every one of those instances, bar one, it either means “horn”, or it refers to something that is the shape of a horn, like the protuberances on the side of the altar. The one exception is Habbakuk 3:4, in which it appears to mean “ray of light”, although the context is non-literal. As if to complicate matters, the following verse (Hab 3:5) makes reference to two Near Eastern gods known as “plague” and “pestilence” (דבר and רשף) both being subservient to the god of Israel. It is therefore possible that the reference to “concealment” in verse 4 (חביון) might be also be an allusion to the hornéd demon known as Hebyon, and that the word קרן might therefore being implying “horns”, rather than “rays of light”.

    Whether or not that is the case, the word does most certainly come to mean “ray of light” in post-Biblical Hebrew, but the corresponding verbal form (“to shine”) isn’t actually attested at all until the liturgical poetry of the mediaeval period! What is more, the usages of the verb with that meaning might have been back-formations, based upon the classical understanding of the verses that describe Moses.

    The problems, unfortunately, don’t end there. If the passage simply seemed to be saying that Moses grew horns, then there would be a thousand better ways of saying so than “the flesh of Moses’ face horned.” What some scholars have suggested is that the passage was originally intended to have the meaning, “his face became a horn of flesh” – like the nightmarish vision that Daniel has in Daniel 7:8.

    Feeling that this was possibly disrespectful, the Alexandrian Jewish community favoured an alternative reading tradition that they then reflected in their Greek translation. Following this tradition, the Tiberian masoretes vocalised the word as a verb, and punctuated it with their accent marks in such a fashion that, even though it’s an awkward reading, it favours the Greek translation over any other possible interpretation. Jerome, who sought a fresh translation from the Hebrew with little assistance from the Greek, hit upon an alternative, although equally viable reading of the text.”

    http://galusaustralis.com/2009/09/1608/horny-jew-whats-the-deal-with-michelangelos-moses/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    This is much too convoluted. If you read the original Hebrew and apply common sense, it makes sense that they were saying Moses's face was glowing. It's a common and easily understandable image that being in the presence of God would cause your face to light up. As is said above, it's a common image in art. The alternatives all fail the common sense test. The Greek Septuagint, done by Jews at a much earlier time (3rd century BC) when Hebrew was still a living language, translates it as glowing. According to the legend at least, the King of Egypt had 72 guys independently translate the Bible and they all came up the same.

    The bottom line is that Jerome didn't really know Hebrew that well and he made an understandable F-up as anyone might when trying to translate a dead language that you really don't know all by yourself. He did a good job with what he had available but it was inevitable that he was going to make mistakes like this. It was just a mistake, that's all.
    , @Anonymous
    Jerome was a Roman, and in Greek/Roman culture gods were frequently depicted with horns. Greek depictions of Zeus/Amon/Jupiter usually portrayed him with horns. This was probably just a cultural misunderstanding by Jerome. However it's also possible he wished to imply that the chief god of the old pantheon was also the founder of Judaism, and therefore indirectly of Christianity, presumably to smooth the conversion of stubborn pagans
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. anonomy says:
    @J.Ross
    The Klezmer band Klezmatics can't be content to leave the name of their third album Jews With Horns by itself or connect it to the middle ages, they have to make up a ridiculous story about having once been asked about their head horns in the modern era. This was described on NPR but is not on the wiki or the band site.
    Stories about modern goyim looking for horns represent a level of supremacist bigotry that is completely tolerated and has no equivalent in other major cultures. This is part of an inevitable problem when people are negotiating in bad faith to serve tribalist rivalry: give them an inch, and next time they need something, they will have an even worse story. They will repay your service to them with slander, as we see in the Southern Retcon or in Kosinski's Painted Bird.

    I would attribute horns not to Jews but a God that was dropped from popular worship. Scrubbed out erased. Follow the link to see image.

    “glibôl was a lunar deity in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. His name means “Calf of Bel” (“Calf of the Lord”).

    Aglibôl is depicted with a lunar halo decorating his head and sometimes his shoulders, and one of his attributes is the sickle moon.

    Aglibôl is linked with the sun god Yarḥibôl in a famous trinity. He is also associated with the Syrian versions of Astarte “Venus” and with Arṣu “Evening Star”.

    Aglibôl’s cult continued into Hellenic times and was later extended to Rome.”

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

    But of course there is always warriors but who would believe Jews were doing anything but chipping out sarcasm at their enemies on clay tablets from the safe space behind the pharaohs throne.

    ” bronze statuettes dated to the early 12th century BC, the so-called “horned god” and “ingot god”, wearing horned helmets, found in Enkomi, Cyprus. In Sardinia dozens of warriors with horned helmets are depicted in bronze figures and in the monte prama gigantic statues, similar to those of the Shardana warriors (and possibly belonging to the same people) depicted by the Egyptians.”

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @Don John of Austria
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln's side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.

    As did every German nationalist at the time from Bismarck on down through the 20th century. The German right has always pretty much seen right through the whole moonlight-and-magnolias BS and deprecated the CSA as opposed to what they saw as the blood-and-iron national-conservative triumph of the Union.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Joe Walker says: • Website

    Maybe the reason why Southerners were more pro-Semitic than Northerners is that there were fewer Jews in the South and so Southerners were less likely to have the negative experiences with Jews that Northerners had to endure?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.

    For example, when Augusta National Golf Club, the most prestigious country club in America today, opened in the 1930s in Georgia near the South Carolina border, it was open to local Jewish elites. One of my Jewish readers sent me a comment that a Jewish family related to his were members at the Augusta National I looked up obituaries of his relatives from Augusta, and, holy cow, were they ever dynamic local leaders, starting business and charities like crazy. They brought Jewish dynamism to a rather sleepy small city and were much appreciated by their gentile neighbors.

    But when Northern CEOs flooded into Augusta National after WWII, they stopped admitting Jews for a few decades.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    On the larger commercial projects, Williams contributed as part of a team at his architectural firm, so again, there is no signature style. There is some debate about how much he contributed to the Theme Building for example.

    Tragically, Williams’ business records (letters, drawings and contracts) were stored in Watts and destroyed in the Rodney King Riots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    That's sad.

    The LAX theme building looks more like the prominent LA architect Pereira, who had a sci-fi penchant. He did work for set design for Hollywood sci-fi movies, and his UC Irvine campus was used as the set for a futuristic prison for intelligent monkeys in one of the "Planet of the Apes" sequels.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Jack D says:
    @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    You don’t necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn’t make Frank’s lynching OK but it really doesn’t have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn’t going to anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I'm sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist -- which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives -- as a "pogrom."
    , @anon
    AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South.

    Huh. That's weird.

    (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.)

    Well. It WASN'T an "anti-Jewish pogrom". It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack. It had nothing to DO with him being Jewish. You just choose to see it that way because you are a Jew, and cannot accept the fact that sometimes Jews actually are at fault for the way people treat them.

    So cut the crap with your "I for one never forget.".

    This doesn’t make Frank’s lynching OK but it really doesn’t have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America.

    Again. Not an anti-Jewish pogrom. It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack.

    The same kind of thing happened to white people all the time. Nothing about this had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Frank being Jewish. If this guy had NOT been Jewish, the exact same thing would have happened to him, only you would have never heard about it, because you and the ADL don't care when people get killed, unless they're members of your tribe.

    Not everything is anti-Semitism. One of the reasons so many people dislike Jews is because they call everything anti-Semitism. If you want to stop this, stop acting this way.

    Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn’t going to anyway.

    Shut up, Jack. Just do yourself a favor and shut up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Convenient myths are the fumes the left cruises on. When you don’t have substance to attack a group on, tie them to a group that everyone who’s anyone agrees are the worst people ever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  245. @Clifford Brown
    On the larger commercial projects, Williams contributed as part of a team at his architectural firm, so again, there is no signature style. There is some debate about how much he contributed to the Theme Building for example.

    Tragically, Williams' business records (letters, drawings and contracts) were stored in Watts and destroyed in the Rodney King Riots.

    That’s sad.

    The LAX theme building looks more like the prominent LA architect Pereira, who had a sci-fi penchant. He did work for set design for Hollywood sci-fi movies, and his UC Irvine campus was used as the set for a futuristic prison for intelligent monkeys in one of the “Planet of the Apes” sequels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Walter Mead’s famous essay “The Jacksonian Tradition” explains why the South was so anti-Nazi.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  247. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D
    You don't necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn't make Frank's lynching OK but it really doesn't have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn't going to anyway.

    I’m sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist — which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives — as a “pogrom.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Particularly since, as Jack should know, the exact same thing was done by whites to other whites. Not uncommonly.

    Even if it was a miscarriage of justice, those kinds of things happen all the time. If not every day, then at least multiple times a year. Again, done by whites to other whites.

    I don't understand how these people can be so oblivious as to how they come across to other people.
    , @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. MarcB. says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    David Niven always got on my nerves when I watched him in a movie. James Mason was better, he checked out of everybody's program; maybe because he was an aloof Yorkshireman.

    I understand he was different in real life, but on screen David Niven was cast as the prissy, fussy Twentieth Century archetype of the pampered gentlemen. It was inversion of the 1800′s urbane savage variant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Jack D says:
    @syonredux
    The "horns" passage in Exodus is something of a crux for hebraists:

    "In reality, the more compelling of the two explanations is simply that it’s a sloppy translation. Not Michelangelo’s sloppiness of course, but the sloppiness of St. Jerome, who translated the Pentateuch into Latin in the 5th century. When Jerome came across Exodus 34:29 (and, though slightly differently, verses 30 and 35), he rendered it as “cornuta esset facies sua“. That is to say, “his face became hornéd“. Everybody knows, of course, that that’s not what the Hebrew says. Or is it?

    Exodus 34:29, according to the JPS Tanakh, reads as follows: “as Moses came down from the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, Moses was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant“. This is more or less what the King James version has as well, when they translate “the skin of his face shone“. It would seem that Jerome was way off! Where did he derive this nonsense about horns?

    Truth be told, both the King James version and the JPS are relying very heavily upon the earliest translation of this passage that was ever made: the translation into Greek. The Greek Septuagint (which was, of course, a Jewish translation) makes it very clear that Moses’ face was shining, and it is this translation that became standard in later Jewish interpretation. In fact, the Midrash goes even further by suggesting that Moses was radiant even at birth; and images of holy people with light emanating from their skin, so popular in the artworks of Renaissance painters, have their source in similar declarations. The Hebrew itself is not quite so easy to understand.

    The problem is that of the three Hebrew words employed in the collocation, one of them doesn’t make much sense. The words are קָ֛רַן‭ ‬ע֥וֹר‭ ‬פָּנָ֖יו, and I include them with the vocalisation and accentuation that the masoretes gave them. For the benefit of those who don’t read Hebrew, the words read as qaran ohr panav and the first word (קרן, qaran) is vocalised as a verb. This is the first problem with the passage, because there are only four instances in the whole Tanakh when this word is a verb and of those four instances, three of them concern Moses’ face. The fourth instance is found in Psalms 69:32 and means… “to have horns”.

    Okay, but surelyקרן‭ ‬ can also mean shine, right? I mean, this is the way the word is used in Israel today! Let’s have a look. As a noun, rather than a verb, the word turns up 90 times in the Bible, in 79 different verses. In every one of those instances, bar one, it either means “horn”, or it refers to something that is the shape of a horn, like the protuberances on the side of the altar. The one exception is Habbakuk 3:4, in which it appears to mean “ray of light”, although the context is non-literal. As if to complicate matters, the following verse (Hab 3:5) makes reference to two Near Eastern gods known as “plague” and “pestilence” (דבר and רשף) both being subservient to the god of Israel. It is therefore possible that the reference to “concealment” in verse 4 (חביון) might be also be an allusion to the hornéd demon known as Hebyon, and that the word קרן might therefore being implying “horns”, rather than “rays of light”.

    Whether or not that is the case, the word does most certainly come to mean “ray of light” in post-Biblical Hebrew, but the corresponding verbal form (“to shine”) isn’t actually attested at all until the liturgical poetry of the mediaeval period! What is more, the usages of the verb with that meaning might have been back-formations, based upon the classical understanding of the verses that describe Moses.

    The problems, unfortunately, don’t end there. If the passage simply seemed to be saying that Moses grew horns, then there would be a thousand better ways of saying so than “the flesh of Moses’ face horned.” What some scholars have suggested is that the passage was originally intended to have the meaning, “his face became a horn of flesh” – like the nightmarish vision that Daniel has in Daniel 7:8.

    Feeling that this was possibly disrespectful, the Alexandrian Jewish community favoured an alternative reading tradition that they then reflected in their Greek translation. Following this tradition, the Tiberian masoretes vocalised the word as a verb, and punctuated it with their accent marks in such a fashion that, even though it’s an awkward reading, it favours the Greek translation over any other possible interpretation. Jerome, who sought a fresh translation from the Hebrew with little assistance from the Greek, hit upon an alternative, although equally viable reading of the text."

    http://galusaustralis.com/2009/09/1608/horny-jew-whats-the-deal-with-michelangelos-moses/

    This is much too convoluted. If you read the original Hebrew and apply common sense, it makes sense that they were saying Moses’s face was glowing. It’s a common and easily understandable image that being in the presence of God would cause your face to light up. As is said above, it’s a common image in art. The alternatives all fail the common sense test. The Greek Septuagint, done by Jews at a much earlier time (3rd century BC) when Hebrew was still a living language, translates it as glowing. According to the legend at least, the King of Egypt had 72 guys independently translate the Bible and they all came up the same.

    The bottom line is that Jerome didn’t really know Hebrew that well and he made an understandable F-up as anyone might when trying to translate a dead language that you really don’t know all by yourself. He did a good job with what he had available but it was inevitable that he was going to make mistakes like this. It was just a mistake, that’s all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Dunno. I've chatted with some Hebraists at my uni, and they all acknowledge that the passage is murky. One of them even commented that he thinks that the early Israelites might have believed that Moses was disfigured by the Divine Radiance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    You don't necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn't make Frank's lynching OK but it really doesn't have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn't going to anyway.

    AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South.

    Huh. That’s weird.

    (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.)

    Well. It WASN’T an “anti-Jewish pogrom”. It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack. It had nothing to DO with him being Jewish. You just choose to see it that way because you are a Jew, and cannot accept the fact that sometimes Jews actually are at fault for the way people treat them.

    So cut the crap with your “I for one never forget.”.

    This doesn’t make Frank’s lynching OK but it really doesn’t have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America.

    Again. Not an anti-Jewish pogrom. It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack.

    The same kind of thing happened to white people all the time. Nothing about this had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Frank being Jewish. If this guy had NOT been Jewish, the exact same thing would have happened to him, only you would have never heard about it, because you and the ADL don’t care when people get killed, unless they’re members of your tribe.

    Not everything is anti-Semitism. One of the reasons so many people dislike Jews is because they call everything anti-Semitism. If you want to stop this, stop acting this way.

    Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn’t going to anyway.

    Shut up, Jack. Just do yourself a favor and shut up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Dr. X says:
    @Tamaqua
    My mother was born in segregated South Carolina. To quote her, “we didn’t sit around all day waving Rebel flags .... We were poor and had a life to live. It wasn’t perfect but it was better than today.”

    A few other points about the Old South, Jews, and Hitler’s racial philosophy-

    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis. You’re never going to hear anything about him from any Jewish group or academics. Overwhelming numbers of less prominent Southern Jews put on uniforms and fought as infantrymen alongside their neighbors in the Confederate Army, and at a much higher rate than their Northern cousins percentage of population that joined the Union Army.

    An entire book has been written-
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1570033633/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1570033633

    Southerners are overwhelmingly descendants of English, Scots and Northern Irish. English support helped the Confederate States fight the war, importing weapons and buying Southern cotton, and building Confederate warships in Liverpool. Is it any wonder that 80 years later Southerners would feel more disposed to their ancestral and cultural homeland than others?

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them. Southerners also didn’t consider other white ethnic groups worthy of enslavement, such as the Germans did to Slavic people in Eastern Europe.

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them.

    This is a very important and worthy point. Southerners never believed that Negroes should be eradicated en masse because Southerners they were Christians. Although they believed Negroes were inferior, all they really wanted was to be left alone from the depredations of jungle behavior.

    Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages, European Christians held the same views toward Jews: that Jews were morally corrupt but nonetheless worthy of God’s grace, and this forbid the massacre and extermination of the Jews.

    To the contrary, Hitler, as a Darwinist and a neo-pagan, had no such limitations.

    The supposed equivalence between Southern segregationists and Nazis is largely a fantasy perpetrated by Hollywood Jews and the $PLC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson...
     
    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction--Anglo-American White Males--have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.
     

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males

    Isn’t this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II “the good war” and lionize the “Greatest Generation” that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army, and neither America nor Russia went out of its way to ameliorate the genocide. On the contrary, Russia initially facilitated it, by allying itself with Nazi Germany, and the U.S. closed its borders to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Isn’t this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II “the good war” and lionize the “Greatest Generation” that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army,
     
    They weren't just the largest. The Soviets liberated the extermination camps, the facilities that the Nazis established for the purposes of killing millions of undesirables: Treblinka, Bełżec, Sobibor, etc


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp
    , @Anonymous
    Well, there you are agreeing to vilify the people who won the war and saved world jewry. Incidentally, liberating work camps does not equal winning the war. If you don't win the war--militarily--the camps are at best an afterthought. HTH.

    PS: I don't claim that it was 'the last good war' nor do I deny that the Russians were instrumental in bringing it to a close. Please don't put words in my mouth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. @Joe Walker
    Maybe the reason why Southerners were more pro-Semitic than Northerners is that there were fewer Jews in the South and so Southerners were less likely to have the negative experiences with Jews that Northerners had to endure?

    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.

    For example, when Augusta National Golf Club, the most prestigious country club in America today, opened in the 1930s in Georgia near the South Carolina border, it was open to local Jewish elites. One of my Jewish readers sent me a comment that a Jewish family related to his were members at the Augusta National I looked up obituaries of his relatives from Augusta, and, holy cow, were they ever dynamic local leaders, starting business and charities like crazy. They brought Jewish dynamism to a rather sleepy small city and were much appreciated by their gentile neighbors.

    But when Northern CEOs flooded into Augusta National after WWII, they stopped admitting Jews for a few decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Well said. I was going to respond exactly along those lines (well maybe not the part about the golf). The small # of Jews filled a sort of empty and available ecological niche in the South and so they were more appreciated than resented. Resentment happens when some other group moves your cheese. In addition to the major businessmen of the big Southern cities, every small town had its Jewish dry goods store and maybe the local doctor or pharmacist was Jewish. It was harder on the Jews (especially at a time when more Jews were still religious and felt the need to keep kosher, etc.) than it was on the locals because they were so spread out.

    There seems to be a tipping point with minorities (and immigrants) in general - most people don't mind if there are a few of them who you know personally by name. There's nice Dr. Levy, the dentist, and Ben who owns the furniture store - he's OK. Nowadays Mr. Patel owns the motel and Mr. Singh runs the gas station. But when suddenly there are a whole mobs of them you feel threatened - the South never reached that tipping point with its Jews.
    , @syonredux

    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.
     
    Yeah. One of the key weaknesses of the antebellum South involved its lack of a native bourgeoisie. They were constantly having to import trained personnel (lawyers, accountants, factors, managers, etc) from elsewhere, usually either the North or Scotland. Edgar Allan Poe's Scots foster-father, John Allan, was one of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. Doug says:
    @Bliss
    FYI:

    Homosexuals were holocausted by the nazis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

    Nazi Germany was a christian, carnivorous nation not a pagan, vegetarian hippie commune...regardless of the personal preferences of Hitler (vegetarianism) and Himmler (occultism).

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute. Locking up gays was more about cementing Himmler’s position in the party. (Similar story holds true for labor unions and the Strasserites)

    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, a significant fraction of the Nazi party was openly gay. More than half of the SA, up to and including Ernst Rohm, openly engaged in gay sex. There’s zero record of Hitler having any moral objection to this. In fact this group was much more militantly radical than Himmler and Goring’s conciliatory faction.

    Rohm and the gays weren’t purged for being gay, or even bad Nazis. They were purged because Hindenburg insisted on it as a pre-condition to have over power. As much as a snake in the grass can, Hitler was actually quite conflicted about killing Rohm and the other gay Nazis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute.
     
    It is true that the SA's leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the "socialism" in "national socialism" rather more seriously. They also wanted to be given control of the army. The industrialist backers of the Nazi party probably wanted them gone because they were socialists. The Army certainly wanted them gone because they wanted to be given control of the army; purging Rohm and his leadership was imposed on Hitler by the Army as a condition for their support. And the SS wanted them gone because they were a rival for power within the Party. The SS and the Army probably also wanted to do away with Rohm and the SA leadership because they were homosexuals. The Nazi Party had publicly opposed the decadence and "cultural bolshevism" of Weimar Germany, and the army certainly wanted none of that either. Moreover, the Nazis continued to persecute homosexuals long after the SA had been neutered; they did so because they were anti-homosexual.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The Nazis were long sort of a Coalition of the Fringes who were LARPing as salt of the earth regular Germans. For example, Hitler's designated successor Hess came out of a faction of oujia board enthusiasts whom Hess brought with him into the Nazi party. The 1920s Nazis sound a lot like the the kind of people Orwell was always fuming about in England: fruit-juice drinkers! Sandals-wearers!

    "In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. Mr. Anon says:
    @David In TN
    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.

    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.

    Yes, apparently he did. Also in 2003, he presided over the special court that removed Roy Moore as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @inertial
    Beevor has to be taken with a grain of salt. His books are Cold War propaganda (and are banned in modern Russia.) Even that little quote that you give about the Soviets "stoking the desire for vengeance" is full of half truths, omissions, and highly questionable "facts."

    Please. Beevor was given access to Russian archives as well as Western and German ones, and his books are copiously documented. The “stoking the desire for revenge” was accurate, as was the Soviets’ late reversal from that, in order to facilitate peaceful postwar occupation of East Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Beevor doesn't know Russian so his access to Russian archives is less impressive than you might think. Was there “stoking the desire for revenge?” Perhaps. I found a couple of mentions of 'many posters' supposedly printed with words, "You are now on German soil. The hour of revenge has struck." (but not a single picture of such a poster.) On the other hand, Soviet soldiers and officers had this Stalin's quote from 1941 drilled into their heads, over and over again, "Hitlers come and go but German people remain." Does Beevor mention that?

    True, Ehrenburg kept saying "kill the German" back when the Germans were occupying Russia. But in 1945 he was publicly told - in Pravda - to knock it off. Does Beevor mention that?

    And I have to call BS on the "French informant's" story. I didn't find any mention of this elsewhere and it sounds implausible. Can you imagine the labor involved? Besides, it wasn't even necessary; Soviet soldiers could see the results of Nazi atrocities for themselves or listen to the locals. Now I am sure there is a source for that, i.e. a report by that "French informant" relaying some wild rumor. That's a problem with Beevor - his reliance on anecdotes, whether true or not.

    Another problem is what facts that his chooses to highlight. Apparently, in the Soviet Army there was an accident caused by mishandling of live munitions. So? This happens in all mass armies everywhere. Why does Beevor dwell on this? Obviously because it fits his agenda, which is to present the Russian army in WWII as a herd of baboons. Judging by your tweets, he succeeded beautifully.
    , @inertial
    Another thing about Beevor and his sources is that what he calls"NKVD reports" about rapes and such are usually court martial cases. He doesn't say that explicitly and neither does he mention what happened to the perpetrators. Because the goal is to create impression that this was normal and the Soviet command did nothing about it.

    Imagine someone writes a book about American Army in Europe with several chapters that simply describe crimes committed by American servicemen (such as Emmet Till's father.) It would all be true and all based on sources from "American security forces archives." And yet it would be a horrible slander.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. @LondonBob
    JFK had identical views to Lindbergh on WWII, so no real surprise.

    In 1962, Charles Lindbergh was still high on the pantheon of American heroes. He had flown missions in the Pacific in 1944 and gave valuable advice on increasing the range of the P-38 fighter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Lindbergh's involvement in "America First" really damaged his reputation. Lindbergh flew as a consultant to United Aircraft because Roosevelt would not let him join the US military. After the war was over, it recovered somewhat, but not fully.

    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.
    , @Anonymous
    Parallels with Neville Chamberlain, who also sincerely wanted to prevent war, and--after a period of bad grace--had his reputation rehabilitated after the war. The contemporary vilification of both men as fools and traitors is a much more recent phenomenon.
    , @Whoever
    My great grandfather, a naval aviator, while serving aboard the Saratoga, met Lindbergh when he visited the ship a couple of weeks after their daring surprise attack (mock!) against the Panama Canal in 1929. We still have a photo of him and Lindbergh posing alone and together with his fellow squadron aviators.
    My great grandfather knew Jack Ryan, Don Hall and Bill Bowlus, and through them had previously met Lindbergh before he became famous and was just another dumb army pilot not good enough be be a naval aviator (^_^).
    Lindbergh seems to have been very well liked by others in the aviation field, considered to be a man's man, professional, capable, reliable, who didn't say much, but what he said was worth listening to.
    He first came into conflict with Franklin Roosevelt when he declined an invitation to Christmas dinner at the White House in 1933, not for political reasons but because he wanted to spend the holidays alone with his family. He didn't understand that his taking a pass on that would be seen as a snub.
    Then the next year he did get in conflict with Roosevelt over his handling of the air mail crisis, publicly criticizing him and blaming him for the needless deaths of a number of army pilots, firmly placing him on FDR's roster of enemies.
    What he did with the P-38 pilots in the Pacific was remind them about the oversquare -- MP higher than RPM divided by 100 -- engine management technique. This gives better cylinder charging and more complete combustion, thus better fuel economy.
    Funny thing is, the P-38's operating manual instructs pilots to do this. For example, for maximum continuous flight operation at 12,000 feet, the manual says to set the RPM at 2450 and the MP at 38 inches -- that's oversquare! That provided a fuel burn rate of 190 GPH in auto rich.
    But, you know, who reads the manual, right? Those army fighter jocks were kick the tires and light the fires types, pull streamers taking off in a fighter fan, turning and burning till they ran out of go juice.
    Lindbergh reminded them of what they had been taught when learning to fly the P-38, but also taught them to keep the MP up but drop RPM down to 2050 and use auto lean (in later editions of the flight manual, this advice is added on below the Flight Operation Instruction Chart).
    Doing that extended the range of the P-38, and allowed P-38s to fly the longest bomber escort missions of the war, something like 1,800 miles r/t.
    I have always admired Lindbergh, and have read, I think everything he ever published, including his diaries, so I may not be the best person to express an opinion on this, but I believe that the only people who have ever really disliked Lindbergh have been war enthusiasts, international interventionists and a certain type of Jew. The rest of us, despite the vicious brown-smearing campaign he was subjected to by the Roosevelt administration, have always thought that he was a pretty cool guy. (And his personal life is none of our business.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. David says:
    @Swedish_reader
    I have no idea why Steve feels obligated to go out of his way to cuck for a a person (Roth) who has demonised Steve's group of people all his life. Roth is not 'extremely sane'. He's a typical neurotic Jew with a massive inferiority complex towards Anglos.

    As someone said, no group did more to help Jews than white Anglo-Americans and how did Jews repay that debt? By demonising them and their people nonstop. And yet Steve can't shake that habit of constantly turning the other cheek. It's pathetic to watch.

    It’s interesting how often a comment would have been 10 times better if the last sentence were left off. It’s true of my comments way too often, so I’m not casting stones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. Mr. Anon says:
    @Sean
    That was tried and failed in the latter Boer war, but the British crushed support for the Boer guerrillas by regular army sweep, destroying homes and also unleashing 20, 000 armed black scouts which the civilians (especially women) were helpless against.

    Everybody fit to fight that Lee told to lay down their arms was not, relatively speaking, a lot, because so many Southerners willing to fight were already dead of severely wounded by then. But if Lee had ordered guerrilla warfare, the North would never have given up, and unlike the South, the North had manpower. The ranks of the Union army were increasingly filled with low class Irish and German immigrants (paid a generous bounty for joining) by later stages of the war, while many students at the top universities in the North never even joined up. The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people's houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

    The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people’s houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

    If what you say is true, it’s a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "If what you say is true, it’s a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government."

    They care so much about democracy, republican government, and fair-play that they are trying to undo all three via mass immigration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. I’ve visited the UC Irvine for that very reason. I was thoroughly disappointed by how pleasant the campus was. Without the deceptive camera angles, the campus is not very authoritarian looking. It’s borderline intimate. Plant a couple of trees and much of the brutalism is hidden behind a green canopy.

    It helps that the Southern California climate tends to make Brutalism seem less brutal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping. The UCLA business school I went to in 1980-82 looked like a junior high school building, but was largely hidden behind fast growing eucalyptus trees. They've since given the MBA students a super 1990s building and handed the old MBA school over to the Social Work school.

    One problem with UC campuses, however, twas he reliance on fast-growing eucalyptus trees. They look beautiful for their first 20 years or so, but then they get shaggy and decrepit-looking.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    I'm sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist -- which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives -- as a "pogrom."

    Particularly since, as Jack should know, the exact same thing was done by whites to other whites. Not uncommonly.

    Even if it was a miscarriage of justice, those kinds of things happen all the time. If not every day, then at least multiple times a year. Again, done by whites to other whites.

    I don’t understand how these people can be so oblivious as to how they come across to other people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Don't worry. After we are all dispossesed and tortured to death by black or mestizo drug gangs, a Jew will strike up a conversation with a Chinese, will start making ridiculous claims, will demand compensation, and the Chinese will start doing to the Jew what the Chinese do to Uighurs who attempt Semitic-derived tribalist competition shenanigans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. njguy73 says:
    @James Braxton
    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.

    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.

    Care to provide a link?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I've never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.

    , @James Braxton
    My information is anecdotal, from old timers I know who lived through it.

    I suspect you would find editorials in the pre Pearl Harbor black press to this effect, but I have not done the research.

    Like I said, lost to history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. Mr. Blank says:

    An interesting, very iStevey fictional look at 1930s Southern Jewry was “The Last Night of Ballyhoo,” by Alfred Uhry, who wrote “Driving Miss Daisy.”

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  264. Jack D says:
    @J.Ross
    I'm sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist -- which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives -- as a "pogrom."

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    Which is the part you still have not demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate, except by talking a bunch of nonsense about how "The south at the time was being transformed" and "conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases", all of which ignores the fact that you yourself said that you wouldn't be surprised if Frank molested her, and the other fact that she did, indeed, wind up dead in his factory.

    Do you really think that, if an Irish guy or an English guy found himself in the same set of circumstances, the same thing wouldn't have happened to him? The only difference would be that the case wouldn't have attracted national attention, and nobody would have made it into a federal case, and his sentence wouldn't have been commuted. He would have just been executed, and that would have been that. You would never have even heard about it.
    , @Anon
    "the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty)."

    1. Appeal to authority fallacy.

    2. Falsely implying that believing the opposite makes you "anti-Semitic."

    3. Consensus of opinion doesn't necessarily make something so.
    , @J.Ross
    None of which touches what I said -- the issue is comparing anti-Jewish race riots tolerated by authorities to a precise one-target lynch mob -- but there's just no way in hell Frank was not guilty.
    , @Mr. Anon

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).
     
    And who exactly are "non anti-Semite" historians? Whomever the SPLC and the New York Times designates as such? Whether Frank committed the murder or not (I am not convinced he did, but it seems to me to be possible), both Conley and Frank behaved in a guilty manner with respect to the murder. A reasonable person could have concluded that the crime happened as the prosecution argued. If Frank's putative innocence is a matter that supposedly everyone knows, it is down to a concerted campaign conducted to make people believe so. Just as there has been a concerted campaign to downplay the seriousness of Jonathan Pollard's spying, and construe the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as an accident rather than a deliberate attack.

    I'm really not impressed by claims that believing anything else on these matters is something that can only be explained by anti-semitism, rather than - say - simply not buying what appears to be a concerted and extensive campaign of ethnically motivated public relations.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.
     
    Why you got your own special little words for everything. If a Gentile gets lynched, that's just a hanging; if a Jew gets lynched, that's a pogrom.
    , @ben tillman

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).
     
    Baloney. No unbiased historian could reach that conclusion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. @njguy73

    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.
     
    Care to provide a link?

    I’ve never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I’ve never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.
     
    WEB DuBois had a similar mindset. If memory serves, he even thought that, since the Japanese were the only non-Western Great Power, the Chinese should acquiesce to being conquered by them. Taking one for the team, so to speak
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.
     
    Really. Can you give any examples? The founders of St. Grottlesex and various hunt clubs likely would have been surprised at your assertion.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English.
     
    Massachusetts, founded by the English, is a bit older than the American Revolution. See Millennial’s comment. The Massachusetts founding event that is most recognized and mythologized is the Plymouth Thanksgiving.

    P.S., For those to whom Yankee claims to Thanksgiving are a perennial perineal sore spot, read this past subthread. (#12… )

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.

    Really. Can you give any examples?

    Sure. The Louise Woodard case in 1997–the UK press surveyed tons of New Englanders during the trial and were astounded at the results–they called Boston the most historically Anglophobic city in North America. They felt it was all but impossible for an English au pair to get a fair trial.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is obviously related to the Irish conflict, which before 1998 was killing people every week. The ceasefire, and then the Omagh idiocy, caused a shift in attitudes.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    the UK press surveyed tons of New Englanders during the trial and were astounded at the results
     
    Citation(s) needed. Nothing in the Wikipedia article says anything about New Englanders (let alone New Englanders of English descent, which is the topic at hand) expressing anti-English views.

    The rest of your comment alludes to hysterical British tabloid anti-septic projection, which is something quite different than New Englanders slagging off the English.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. Mr. Anon says:
    @Doug
    The Nazis didn't persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute. Locking up gays was more about cementing Himmler's position in the party. (Similar story holds true for labor unions and the Strasserites)

    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, a significant fraction of the Nazi party was openly gay. More than half of the SA, up to and including Ernst Rohm, openly engaged in gay sex. There's zero record of Hitler having any moral objection to this. In fact this group was much more militantly radical than Himmler and Goring's conciliatory faction.

    Rohm and the gays weren't purged for being gay, or even bad Nazis. They were purged because Hindenburg insisted on it as a pre-condition to have over power. As much as a snake in the grass can, Hitler was actually quite conflicted about killing Rohm and the other gay Nazis.

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute.

    It is true that the SA’s leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the “socialism” in “national socialism” rather more seriously. They also wanted to be given control of the army. The industrialist backers of the Nazi party probably wanted them gone because they were socialists. The Army certainly wanted them gone because they wanted to be given control of the army; purging Rohm and his leadership was imposed on Hitler by the Army as a condition for their support. And the SS wanted them gone because they were a rival for power within the Party. The SS and the Army probably also wanted to do away with Rohm and the SA leadership because they were homosexuals. The Nazi Party had publicly opposed the decadence and “cultural bolshevism” of Weimar Germany, and the army certainly wanted none of that either. Moreover, the Nazis continued to persecute homosexuals long after the SA had been neutered; they did so because they were anti-homosexual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Is there any chance that Kaiser Wilhelm II was bisexual?

    Nabokov wrote a long story before WWII about a gay rightwing king of a fictional European country, then he reworked the idea into his wonderful novel "Pale Fire." I presume Nabokov was inspired by something historical but I've never seen any discussion of what.

    , @syonredux

    It is true that the SA’s leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the “socialism” in “national socialism” rather more seriously.
     
    One historian called them "beefsteak Nazis," brown on the outside, red on the inside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. @Clifford Brown
    I've visited the UC Irvine for that very reason. I was thoroughly disappointed by how pleasant the campus was. Without the deceptive camera angles, the campus is not very authoritarian looking. It's borderline intimate. Plant a couple of trees and much of the brutalism is hidden behind a green canopy.

    It helps that the Southern California climate tends to make Brutalism seem less brutal.

    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping. The UCLA business school I went to in 1980-82 looked like a junior high school building, but was largely hidden behind fast growing eucalyptus trees. They’ve since given the MBA students a super 1990s building and handed the old MBA school over to the Social Work school.

    One problem with UC campuses, however, twas he reliance on fast-growing eucalyptus trees. They look beautiful for their first 20 years or so, but then they get shaggy and decrepit-looking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping.
     
    Fortunately, UC Berkeley has a lot of nice, pre-1945 buildings:

    http://www.ratcliffarch.com/content/projects/SeisProgImprLibAnnex/UCB_Doe_7.jpg
    , @G Pinfold
    Australian trees are famously drab. The dry, khaki vegetation is one of the major reasons for the depression that afflicts British immigrants, colloquially known as ‘Whinging Pom Syndrome’. Many return home to the English countryside and report an immediate mood boost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    Which is the part you still have not demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate, except by talking a bunch of nonsense about how “The south at the time was being transformed” and “conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases”, all of which ignores the fact that you yourself said that you wouldn’t be surprised if Frank molested her, and the other fact that she did, indeed, wind up dead in his factory.

    Do you really think that, if an Irish guy or an English guy found himself in the same set of circumstances, the same thing wouldn’t have happened to him? The only difference would be that the case wouldn’t have attracted national attention, and nobody would have made it into a federal case, and his sentence wouldn’t have been commuted. He would have just been executed, and that would have been that. You would never have even heard about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter