The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Sailer: "The Vengeance of Edward Said"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

The Vengeance of Edward Said
by Steve Sailer
February 15, 2017

Contemporary white progressives cater to the most regressive tendencies of the various Others.

Anybody who can get themselves classified as an official Other-American is today repeatedly encouraged to play the race card, the religion card, or the sex card in the most intellectually crude, bigoted manner possible. Open-mindedness is only an obligation for American-Americans.

You can see it in the Establishment’s hunt for ever more Other Others, such as the transgendered and Muslims. A few years ago, for example, Mexicans were the great beige hope of the Establishment. Yet you’ll notice that Mexicans have proved disappointing and been displaced by Muslims in the elite’s dreams of demographic avengers.

Read the whole thing there.

Here’s a summary of my revisionist interpretation of Edward Said, the postmodern literary critic who wrote the hugely influential book Orientalism:

And here’s the famous and/or headscratching redneck/Orientalist music video with Tom Petty as the Mad Hatter and Dave Stewart as the “hookah-smoking caterpillar” that I linked to to illustrate the last line of my essay about Said:

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. JackOH says:

    Good essay, Steve. I only had time for a quick scan. I recall Wm. F. Buckley’s TV interview with Said, who made a good impression, and that Said was a university intellectual and something of a standard-bearer for the Palestinian cause.

    My immediate, gut-level reaction, though, on finishing your essay was to ask myself: How many educated elites of other nations has America’s grasping empire alienated, and for whom a position, no matter how comfy, in the academy, bureaucracy, or corporate America is no consolation for the loss of homeland, and, maybe, the loss of moral legitimacy/certitude that comes from having your homeland whacked? (There’s a retired U. N. lawyer, Alfred de Zayas, who’s come up with something like a legal theory for the right to a homeland.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    How about Barack Obama Sr.?
    , @bomag

    How many educated elites of other nations has America’s grasping empire alienated
     
    "America's grasping empire" consists of us buying friends. We're not expanding our land base nor our population reach. To the contrary, other countries send their people here to colonize sections of our land.

    To that end, the "friends" are not much on our side (Saudi cough), and the people we alienate were likely never to be on our side; looking for friends on the world stage is a unicorn hunt.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/sailer-the-vengeance-of-edward-said/#comment-1768050
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. ChrisZ says:

    Terrific and timely piece on Said. But like others among your Taki columns, it’s only the beginning of a larger project. Your thinking on this (re-)reading of “Orientalism” is a seed to be cultivated. It needn’t be developed into a book, but a long article or detailed book chapter on this subject would be powerful, I strongly feel.

    Read More
  3. Anonym says:

    Great article. I wonder what it would be like to gaze upon The Snake Charmer and be aroused by it. Life is certainly a helluva lot easier for it not to be arousing, and I am glad that is the case for me. Does it confer benefits? TE Lawrence was certainly an individual with superior ability. And it seems that wherever you look, around the world there is some ring of powerful men with an attraction to prepubescent boys that has been operating for decades. Does it have something to do with boarding school, and the only opportunities for imprinting being the young boys around you? The exposure to aggressive, older homosexual bullies in that environment? Or is it something else? I found this interesting:

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/06/hidden-camera-gays-admit-theyre-not-born-that-way/

    Read More
  4. Anonym says:

    I think there is a good likelihood that creating a justified enemy in Edward Said as Steve has done will be something that gets picked up and amplified elsewhere. It seems that there is a search for something, anything that might have the self-hating anti-whitism laid at its feet as the culprit, provided that it is not written about by KMac. For example, the Kalergi Plan. Now we have Edward Said. We can add those to the ever-popular “white women” who HATE HATE HATE white beta males.

    Read More
  5. Great column.

    Said’s influence was everywhere back when I was in grad school in the early 1990s. Said’s great triumph was to convince a generation of well-meaning, earnest, budding scholars that they were wrong — even evil — for being curious about and trying to describe others’ cultures.

    Coupled with the contemporaneous post-structuralist attacks on the trustworthiness of language and meaning, Orientalism seriously undermined the fields of anthropology, religious studies, history, and more.

    Said himself was talked about in hushed tones. Your description certainly coincides with the larger-than-life superstar most of the members of my department saw him as.

    Read More
    • Agree: Abe
    • Replies: @bomag

    Said’s great triumph was to convince a generation of well-meaning, earnest, budding scholars that they were wrong...
     
    I'm thinking that the success and ascendance of the physical sciences last century primed scholars to think that the old ways were "wrong", the new ways are "right"; i.e. the new germ theory in medicine replaced old thinking and was much more effective.

    Thus the search was on for the new and better to replace the old, and Said was there to exploit this.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I wonder to what extent Said's jihad for ignorance was related to Islam's own enforced ignorance. Islam has long discouraged scholarship about pre-Islamic history. It's been left to Europeans to decipher pre-Islamic texts.
    https://twitter.com/Lin_Anderson/status/831821260707487744
  6. I looked a prog right in the eye and I said, I run this church for loggers.

    Read More
  7. Finally, an adversary worthy of Steve’s respect!

    In some ways, Orientalism is a master class in noticing us noticing which is what makes it so subversive. You can’t retaliate in kind, because, then, it becomes turtles all the way down.

    Quite frankly, most modern progressives I’ve met who’ve read Orientalism appear to have only a tenuous understanding of the range of argument and wealth of material and references Said lays out. Whatever our beef with him, Said was a haute intellectual of a sort now rare. Which is why his acolytes accorded him such deference—they simply didn’t have the nous to challenge him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.

    Whatever our beef with him, Said was a haute intellectual of a sort now rare.
     
    Really? Edward Said might have carried an urbane and cultured persona but his critics have pulled apart his magnum opus as crude, slapdash and often plain wrong on basic facts. Such as:

    https://www.amazon.com/Defending-West-Critique-Edward-Orientalism-ebook/dp/B003D7LXR6/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487184911&sr=1-4&keywords=ibn+warraq

    Steve is rather kind to Said - a clever man without a land etc. - yet surely what comes howling from Said is the unquenchable bitterness and bottomless, crawling shame of a once all conquering Arab world that has been eclipsed by the West in all aspects of the modern world. This has been a running theme amongst Arab intellectuals since the late 19th Century.

    So what we in the West often see as the arrogance and presumption of Islam is also wrapped around with the deadly disappointment of wild underachievement on all fronts.

    Everything Said wrote on the Orient oozed this poisonous vengeful malevolence for, ironically, the great "other". The white man who may not write about the brown man.

    Steve, in his column, touches on the neocon antipathy for Said. Yet Said played a key role in unmanning the genuine Western experts who might have argued more fiercely and more wisely against the neocons destructive narratives. Today we have reached a point where Saudi Arabia appears to fund much of analysis of the Arab world!

    May Said be restless.
  8. I’m intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims, as the Mexicans who most militantly support Amerindian empowerment tend to be upper-caste Spaniards, like Jorge Ramos or iSteve’s favorite Mexican, Xochitl Hinojosa (on the left):

    There are plenty of Syrian Christians who could pass in the Des Moines Rotary Club. It’s the sort of thing not mentioned in polite conversation, because every Christian extended family still has the odd recessive swarthiness popping up or marrying in. Privately, most will tell you they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Maghreb and the Peninsula.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jimi
    Lebanese Christians are distancing themselves from their Arab identities.

    On twitter Nassim Nicholas Taleb posts a lot on how his Christian ancestors aren't really Arab.
    , @biz
    Absolutely.

    The intellectual grandfather of Arab Nationalism in the 1920s was a Christian. For the upper-class Christians of the region, inventing an Arab ethnic identification instead of separate Muslim and Christian ones was an attempt to prevent the rise of Islamism, and also a way to position themselves, as the more educated and well-off class, to run the countries once they were independent. In the end, it didn't work. Of course nowadays there are obvious potential affirmative action and PC benefits to Christians from the Middle East identifying as Arab if they live in the West.

    On the other hand, the working class and peasant Christians always preferred to stick to their pre-Arab identity. The ones who immigrated to the US in the early 20th century called themselves "Lebanese" or "Chaldeans" and avoided the word Arab. Even today in Lebanon in the remote village the people fancy themselves "Phoenecians" or at least "Maronites." In Israel now there is a Greek Orthodox priest encouraging the Christians to embrace their non-Arab identity, and the Israeli Muslim politicians hate him.

    , @ogunsiron
    Slightly OT :
    I never got around to reading Fanon and I think you should go over him too at some point.
    , @anonymous

    I’m intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims
     
    The leadership of the communist parties of the region were heavily Christian. The founder of the Baath party was Michel Aflaq, a Christian, which emphasized secular nationalism. This is an intellectual class who are disproportionally Christian. On the other hand the rank and file, not so much. Take a look at the Lebanese civil war and how much they loved one another. Being identified as an Arab, or having an Arab identity imposed upon them, is a sticky subject for middle eastern Christians depending on who, what and where they are.
    , @JohnnyD
    ,
    I always find it weird that Jorge Ramos is allowed to be a victim, when he's clearly Spanish/European. I think he supports "Amerindian empowerment" because it's a way for white Hispanics, such as himself, to have more power and influence in the United States. But the joke is that most Hispanics living in the United States look more like Cesar Chavez and George Lopez.
    , @Percy Gryce
    I think Arab Christians have supported secular nationalist movements for many reasons, not least as a bulwark against political Islam.

    As for their ethnic separateness, I am sure that has been aided by religiously enforced endogamy. Unfortunately, that has also led to cases of severe birth defects in the Arab Christian communities with which I am familiar. It is incumbent on the bishops to enforce the traditional canon law that prohibits the marriage of even second cousins. And for the diaspora in the West, the admixture of the so-called blue-eyed Melkites is helpful as well.
  9. Dahlia says:

    Marvelous!

    And you just wrote my favorite ending sentence of yours ever. Well done, sir!

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Dahlia
    It bothers me that Tom Petty doesn't come back to Florida more. Not that I know him, or will ever likely meet him, but it bothers me all the same.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I just clicked on Steve's last line link and am listening now. I saw a great Halloween show back in the late '80's by this guy. What I really liked about him was that, way back in early '80 or so his hit "(Don't Want to Live like a) Refugee" was like the first disco-era destroyer, along with Pat Beaneater's "Heartbreaker" These 2 songs broke the back of Disco!

    I knew guys who said they skydived with Petty in S. Carolina. All I know is he was a proud Southerner too, like Tom Wolfe using rock vs. words.

    Youtube has changed his video of "Rebels" to "password required" because he wrapped himself in the Rebel flag that an audience member through up onto the stage. You gotta sign in to view the Rebel flag now. What a (sorry excuse for a) country!

  10. Dahlia says:
    @Dahlia
    Marvelous!

    And you just wrote my favorite ending sentence of yours ever. Well done, sir!

    It bothers me that Tom Petty doesn’t come back to Florida more. Not that I know him, or will ever likely meet him, but it bothers me all the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Petty put down some roots in my part of the world. This ranks with Valley Girl as the all-time San Fernando Valley song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A
  11. The Massachusetts boarding school Edward Said went to was founded by Dwight L. Moody, a world-famous 19th century evangelist (he also founded Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.) The first class of graduates from the boarding school in the 1880s was, as I recall from the photograph up in the library, eight boys, of whom one was Native American and one was Chinese, and the school’s current website tells me “16 Native Americans were among the first 100 students, and the first graduates included a former slave as well as students from China, Sweden, England, Ireland, Canada, and Japan.” In a way, it’s very similar to (albeit 70 years earlier than) the Anglo-Saxon Super-Protestant milieu that would produce Obama’s internationalist mother, as Steve described in his earlier Taki’s column, The Muslimist. I would conjecture that Said’s Arab Christian father knew of Moody when he sent his son to Mount Hermon. Edward Said presents himself as particularly alienated in this period in his autobiography ( here’s a passage of him complaining about the daily chores https://books.google.com/books?id=iTj4KKBEPGcC&pg=PA226&dq=%22the+daily+routine+was+not+only+rigorous%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj30t3FoZLSAhXK1CYKHVG_COoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20daily%20routine%20was%20not%20only%20rigorous%22&f=false), but like Obama’s self-presentation as continually alienated from white society despite being groomed for assimilation and being raised in particularly integrated circumstances, my suspicion would be that Said thrived throughout his life by understanding the levers and mores of white society quite well and then also understood how he would become an object of interest and mystery by positioning himself as at odds with and unsettled in that society. So he really was the beneficiary and (largely conscious and deliberate) evoker of Orientalism in others even as he invented a vocabulary to obscure what he was doing.

    The problem, of course, is that like Obama, Said is only really interesting insofar as he can be exoticized, so as establishment liberals internalize the idea that exoticizing people is bad, it actually undercuts their authority. Steve has alluded to this in regards to the Sexy Hijab fashion, but I actually wonder if there’s a broader way in which the whole liberal internationalizing project (which had a good multi-century run, it must be said) depended on Orientalism and similar habits of mind in a way that post-colonial lingo like Said’s threatened much more than you’d expect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lord Jeff Sessions
    The part about the chores is funny because a friend ,who went to NMH, mentioned a couple of years ago how a lot of the rich Arab international students didn't want to do any of the chores and were spoiled, or something like that. I forget which countries he said the kids were from, but I think it was Saudi Arabia or one of the gulf states.
    , @iffen
    Said is only really interesting insofar as he can be exoticized

    He is only interesting insofar as he is proof that exoticizing is bad.
  12. Pauperized patriots from lower middle class backgrounds don’t give a shit about no damn third world Frantz Fanon crap. We have blanking had it. Dammit! We also don’t give a damn about no Wog slob by the name of Edward Said.

    Mass immigration and multiculturalism are weapons that the WASP/Jew ruling class of the American Empire are using to destroy the United States as a European Christian nation-state. President Trump and his administration are now under attack by treasonous rats in the American Empire’s Deep State. The Deep State will be defeated. President Trump will win the battle for the future of the United Sates of America.

    I am now convinced that the upper middle class money-grubbing baby boomer bastards who cowardly allowed all this anti-White horseshit to continue are evil beyond redemption. You filthy rats were bought off with the proceeds from monetary extremism from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank. Zero percent interest rates forever? Go to hell you filthy skunks!

    Raise the federal funds rate to 10 percent and implode this bullshit financial freakshow now!

    Go to hell you baby boomer coward whores. You deserve the curses of those who come after. Your whole life has been paid for with massive debt that you now expect your children and grandchildren to pay. The bastards are waking up to what the hell you’ve been doing. They ain’t paying your debt, you greedy bastards. The smart ones will begin to call for a complete repudiation of all government debt. From capital appreciation bonds swindled out of school boards or Treasury notes to all other government debt.

    The dam will burst. The European Christian nation-states will defeat the evil anti-White rats who want to destroy us. The victors of that battle will be the working class and the middle class European Christians who are not intimidated by some rodent calling them racist or anti-Semitic or any other damn bullshit coming from the corporate propaganda apparatus or some rodent academic like Edward Said.

    FIGHT! DAMMIT! The Normans won at the Battle of Hastings because they FOUGHT. You can only win if you FIGHT BACK against the globalizer scum who are using mass immigration as a weapon to destroy you and your country.

    Read More
  13. bomag says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    Great column.

    Said's influence was everywhere back when I was in grad school in the early 1990s. Said's great triumph was to convince a generation of well-meaning, earnest, budding scholars that they were wrong -- even evil -- for being curious about and trying to describe others' cultures.

    Coupled with the contemporaneous post-structuralist attacks on the trustworthiness of language and meaning, Orientalism seriously undermined the fields of anthropology, religious studies, history, and more.

    Said himself was talked about in hushed tones. Your description certainly coincides with the larger-than-life superstar most of the members of my department saw him as.

    Said’s great triumph was to convince a generation of well-meaning, earnest, budding scholars that they were wrong…

    I’m thinking that the success and ascendance of the physical sciences last century primed scholars to think that the old ways were “wrong”, the new ways are “right”; i.e. the new germ theory in medicine replaced old thinking and was much more effective.

    Thus the search was on for the new and better to replace the old, and Said was there to exploit this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I’m thinking that the success and ascendance of the physical sciences last century primed scholars to think that the old ways were “wrong”, the new ways are “right”
     
    I strongly agree. The soft sciences as well as lit crit aped what they saw as a revolutionary spirit in the hard sciences. They also aped the tools and jargon, developing their own arcane language in a way that they thought made them look smart but actually made them look like a cargo cult.

    But they erred in thinking physics was revolutionary. It conserves more than it discards. Relativity and quantum mechanics are still about momentum and energy, which have been central to physics since at least Hamilton. (William, not the politician.)
  14. peterike says:

    It’s impressive how much damage one person with a subversive idea can cause. Think of Derrida, think of Alinsky, think of Boas, think of Bernays. A great deal of the time these subversive thinkers are Jews. Said is a real outlier in that regard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    It’s impressive how much damage one person with a subversive idea can cause. Think of Derrida, think of Alinsky, think of Boas, think of Bernays. A great deal of the time these subversive thinkers are Jews. Said is a real outlier in that regard.
     
    Well, besides Said, Foucault and Lacan come to mind as non-Jewish intellectuals who have had a subversive influence on Western Civilization.
  15. Vinay says:

    This whole notion of obsessing about the motivations behind the ideas of influential people seems wrongheaded to me. It makes some sense to do so for ideas which are prominent BECAUSE an influential person is advocating them but is pointless when those ideas are the very reason why the person is famous or influential.

    For example, Naipaul’s fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims so it makes sense to question what motivated him to use his talent and prestige to write about them. Washington Post was hugely influential long before Bezos bought it so it makes sense to analyze how his ownership affects how they use their influence.

    It doesn’t make much sense to obsess about Tom Wolfe’s southernness or Edward Said’s Middle Eastern heritage. “Orientalism” isn’t taken seriously because of Said’s prestige, rather, Said is prestigious BECAUSE of “Orientalism”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Naipaul’s fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims

    Naipaul, who doesn't much like Muslims, didn't win his Nobel Prize before 9/11, but he got it about 6 weeks after 9/11.

    , @Steve Sailer
    Naipaul’s fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims

    Naipaul, who doesn't much like Muslims, didn't win his Nobel Prize before 9/11, but he got it about 6 weeks after 9/11.

    , @Steve Sailer
    Here's my opinion of Said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZE0TYKYfEo

    , @P. Barbicane
    Exactly! The question isn't 'why did Edward Said write orientalism?', which is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The question is: 'Why did so many Western intellectuals agree with orientalism?", which is to me a much more difficult question to answer.

    That being said, Steve is probably right about what motivated Edward Said, (at least it helps to explain everything that I've read by Said), but I don't see it as a productive line of inquiry.

    Why did so many Western intellectuals like Said's work? That's the question. I think a lot of it goes back to politics -- Said was very liberal, and had a soft spot for communism. I think also part of it is that Said was seen of as a rebel -- the rock throwing anecdote kinda backs that up. Other than that, I honestly can't say. But this is the question that's important to answer.
  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Yes but non-elites are still fixated on potential Mexican greatness once they reach magic dirt. I run into this stupid old argument regularly: Mexicans are the new Italians.

    Mexicans suppress real estate values and erode the tax base wherever they settle and second and third generations do worse than the first. Doesn’t matter to good-white Americans.

    We have been deluged with mass immigration in this era and the raw numbers are far greater than the Great Wave. Trying to get people to consider a timeout is still hopeless and the reason is Stockholm syndrome. Even Trump can’t stop talking about the big beautiful door in his wall.

    Read More
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    To talk about Said (the non-Muslim) without mentioning Bernard Lewis (the non-Christian) is pretty silly. That paragon of objectivity and “defender” of the “blonder” Europe could never be accused of having an agenda or subtext to his polemics, could he? Said was a necessary corrective to Lewis’ neo-conish garbage. He played Lewis’ game just as well (and perhaps better) and for that forever must be remembered as a hack. It’s as simple as that. Move on.

    Lewis won, in the end of course. Said may have made waves in the tiny world of academia, but Lewis and his clownish followers such as Bernard Henri Levi destroyed whole countries.

    When Christians (and blondes) are led around and told what to think about anything by Lewis-types, don’t be shocked when bad things happen. it’s happened again and again. There was a time when the State Department and the Foreign Office had a pretty good grip on what was going on in the world and what America’s or Britain’s role should be.

    Read More
  18. Jimi says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    I'm intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims, as the Mexicans who most militantly support Amerindian empowerment tend to be upper-caste Spaniards, like Jorge Ramos or iSteve's favorite Mexican, Xochitl Hinojosa (on the left):

    http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_30/1639291/160726_amandarenteria_8a4442e4b92ceb0be3e52ad241c86dc8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

    There are plenty of Syrian Christians who could pass in the Des Moines Rotary Club. It's the sort of thing not mentioned in polite conversation, because every Christian extended family still has the odd recessive swarthiness popping up or marrying in. Privately, most will tell you they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Maghreb and the Peninsula.

    Lebanese Christians are distancing themselves from their Arab identities.

    On twitter Nassim Nicholas Taleb posts a lot on how his Christian ancestors aren’t really Arab.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    They're actually inching closer to accepting one. For older generations, there was no question that they were different, but the younger ones feel their numbers shrinking and influence waning and are changing tack.

    Good luck to them, but I think they're screwed either way. Their fate was sealed back when the borders were determined. Also, a lot of urban Leb Christian youth are pretty much SWPL morons these days, that certainly won't help.
  19. Arclight says:

    The left studiously ignores the very ugly aspects of Arab Islamic culture just to try an rub everyone else’s nose in a dogpile of “diversity”, which shows it is far more concerned with political/cultural supremacy than the human rights it professes to champion. Reason number 1,176 I checked out on the left in the middle of the Bush Administration despite the enormous flaws in that crowd’s approach to the ME and culture in general.

    While we certainly have a problem with too much low education/low skill Latino immigration, at the end of the day they aren’t that different from a lot of the people who already live here. We can deal with that – in contrast, Europe has accepted huge numbers of people from literally the least compatible societies on the planet with Western civilization and its rules and norms, one that can only be solved by the currently unthinkable expulsion of huge numbers of immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Arclight, certainly the most incompatible, aggressive, and dangerous groups to admit to our countries are Africans and Muslims.

    But I wouldn't be so sanguine about the tens of millions of Mexicans here in the USA. I don't find many of them to be so similar to us, at all. They exhibit quite a bit of laziness and welfare dependence compared to native-born white or Asian Americans, and we deal with many truly "dim bulbs" among the Mexican-"American" populations here in L.A. (Or is that redundant).
    , @Stan Adams
    Anyone who can't be bothered to speak English should be deported.

    A lot of HBD-aware types think of Cubans as being just as white as, say, Italians, and many of them are. But so many of them simply refuse to speak English, because areas they've taken over are their "turf" and they don't have to accommodate anyone.

    I went into a large store in an area that is still relatively "Anglo," and I couldn't find a single employee who was willing and able to answer questions posed in English. (They were only too happy to talk in Spanish.)

    The cashier even cut me off in mid-sentence and asked, "Do you speak Spanish?" When I said, "Never mind," she totally ignored me for the rest of the transaction.

    I have seen so much blatant favoritism - laws are selectively enforced by cops, codes are selectively enforced by inspectors - that I barely even notice it anymore.

    So I don't give a shit that these people are whiter than Mexicans. They openly favor their own kind, and they feel no solidarity with white non-Hispanic English-speaking Americans.

    In America, we speak English. If you can't or won't speak English, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    , @Frau Katze
    I think you're right. Would Hispanics from the Americas be rioting like Muslims?

    I think they would not. They're culturally closer to us.

    Do you ever read about the Vietnamese in France in the news? No.

    Islam is at the opposite pole. In fact, if you read about ANY part of the world where Muslims coexist with others, those others typically have problems with them (including Hindus and Buddhists).

    One thing Muslims (not just Arab ones either) all have in common is that they go crazy with rage if they think someone is insulting Islam.

    No other religion is like that. And the US currently has a pretty small number compared to Europe or even Canada.

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump's temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I'm very discouraged. I don't think I'll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.
  20. I thought Said and Sharif were close friends. Maybe frenemies?
    Christian Arabs where often more nationalistic than the Muslims (the founder of Baathism was a Christian) since they felt (correctly) that this would be the only way to protect them from religious persecution. The irony is that since Arab nationalism failed, the only place in the middle east that Arab Christians are truly safe is Israel.

    Read More
  21. This has nothing to do with Edward Said, but it’s a Saileresque argument that I’d like to see Steve float and see if it goes anywhere.

    Sailer has extolled “citizenism” as an American policy approach, drawing the line of “us” and “them” at US citizenship. Sailer has also Noticed the data on the disadvantages of black Americans in the aggregate. These two are obviously in tension, if not in contradiction.

    But Sailer has also defined “race” as “an extended family that is partly inbred.” Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws–flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity

    Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws–flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?
     
    You really work way too hard to earn your moniker.
    , @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.
    , @Jack D
    Most people on the right have no problem with blacks per se, although they may not be wild about certain aspects of black behavior. A large part of modern black bad behavior has been enabled by the left, from Genuis T. Coates down to welfare moms. The idea that blacks are held back by racism at every turn in 2017 America is ridiculous - America voted twice for Obama, Oprah is our national sweetheart, etc. The question is not whether citizenism wants blacks, it's whether blacks want citizenism or see themselves as a people apart and deserving of special consideration just for being black.
    , @Anonym
    But Sailer has also defined “race” as “an extended family that is partly inbred.” Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws–flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    Yes, that is the citizenist approach. The left had been intent on raining millions upon millions of immigrants in every white country, while persecuting anyone who spoke out about it in every manner possible and using its propaganda and legislative arms to bring about white genocide through miscegenation, wealth transfer and dispossession. If they had any sense, they would have eased up on the pressure ahead of time, and rained smaller quantities of incompatible immigrants, if at all. Some semblence of citizenism, even liberalism, would have been possible.

    Instead, they wanted to see what happens when immense potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. They have done everything in their power to awaken a white identity that must suffer every privation and learn to fight again, fight against a very real and omnipresent anti-whitism. The leftists are sitting below the dam of MSM and government pushing back against white identity, urging on the rain, hurling abuse at the opening of the spillway of Trumpist citizenism and seeking to impede the flow, while wet patches and springs of white identity are seen in the walls of the dam.

    When that dam breaks, the question will be asked, why do we need to have the very African Detroits all around us? These wayward "family" have been voting against our interests in the area of 80+% for several generations now. When we needed you, where were you then?
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Steve has already addressed your “entitled to some consideration” question (minus your formulation) as a tangent in a 2005 debate with Jared Taylor "Citizenism vs. White Nationalism (II)" which Steve reiterated in 2011:

    I did propose conceding permanent quotas for the descendants of American slaves. That’s a high cost, but one we’re likely to pay anyway.
     
    You wrote:

    But Sailer has also defined “race” as “an extended family that is partly inbred.” Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage.
     
    Your inclusion of “marriage” in the analogy goes well beyond what Steve said and needs to be more specific. Does simply living on the same 3.8 million square mile piece of Magic Dirt constitute marriage? Is it History—perpetual multigenerational white obligation due to sins of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, occasional Grammy winning?

    Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws–flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    [bold emphasis added]
     

    Regarding family, I believe you’re begging the question there.

    Forget mere “in-laws”—One should be willing to cut off (hypothetical) immediate blood relatives who rape, murder, or otherwise remorselessly criminally transgress… and dismiss anyone who makes excuses for that behavior. That’s a whole lot of metaphorical “in-laws,” nationally speaking.

    P.S., I don’t consider all black individuals troublesome. Those who follow the law and achieve on merit need not be “entitled to some consideration” based on bizarre trans-racial ‘in-law metaphor’ nepotism. Those who don’t follow the law and/or underperform should be as exposed to legal/social consequences as any citizen. If that results in racial “disparate impact,” too bad.

  22. Any lettered person could tell you that this country was-is-will-be based on Judeo-Islamic values.

    Just go and check your great-grandchildren’s US History schoolbook edition from 1496 AH./ 5833 AM.

    Infidels could be removed from the guest house at any moment.

    Read More
  23. biz says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    I'm intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims, as the Mexicans who most militantly support Amerindian empowerment tend to be upper-caste Spaniards, like Jorge Ramos or iSteve's favorite Mexican, Xochitl Hinojosa (on the left):

    http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_30/1639291/160726_amandarenteria_8a4442e4b92ceb0be3e52ad241c86dc8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

    There are plenty of Syrian Christians who could pass in the Des Moines Rotary Club. It's the sort of thing not mentioned in polite conversation, because every Christian extended family still has the odd recessive swarthiness popping up or marrying in. Privately, most will tell you they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Maghreb and the Peninsula.

    Absolutely.

    The intellectual grandfather of Arab Nationalism in the 1920s was a Christian. For the upper-class Christians of the region, inventing an Arab ethnic identification instead of separate Muslim and Christian ones was an attempt to prevent the rise of Islamism, and also a way to position themselves, as the more educated and well-off class, to run the countries once they were independent. In the end, it didn’t work. Of course nowadays there are obvious potential affirmative action and PC benefits to Christians from the Middle East identifying as Arab if they live in the West.

    On the other hand, the working class and peasant Christians always preferred to stick to their pre-Arab identity. The ones who immigrated to the US in the early 20th century called themselves “Lebanese” or “Chaldeans” and avoided the word Arab. Even today in Lebanon in the remote village the people fancy themselves “Phoenecians” or at least “Maronites.” In Israel now there is a Greek Orthodox priest encouraging the Christians to embrace their non-Arab identity, and the Israeli Muslim politicians hate him.

    Read More
  24. AndrewR says:

    Did Said ever discuss the JQ in depth or did he really not distinguish between Hebrews and Anglos???

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Said hated Bernard Lewis, but by aiming most of his fire at 19th Century Europeans, he managed to keep his targets pretty gentile.

    In general, he handled Jewish issues quite deftly, for example, teaming with Daniel Barenboim to start a classical orchestra for Palestinians: an admirable initiative.

  25. King Baeksu says: • Website

    I’ve lived in East Asia for twenty years, chiefly Japan, China and South Korea. I’ve also lived in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, and lived in India for a spell when I was just 12. I’ve been around the block, you might say: Most of my adult life has been oriented around the Orient.

    In East Asia, one often encounters second- or third-generation Korean-Americans or Japanese-Americans who are steeped in post-colonial discourse, and who are keen to sniff out Western “racism” in every nook and cranny. One recurring bugbear of theirs, in my experience, is the notion that “Orientals” are “inscrutable” in the view of Westerners, and they often cite Said as an authority to buttress such charges. And yet it has been my experience that East Asians in particular are indeed given to hold their cards exceedingly close to the chest, especially amongst strangers. “Oversharing” in the American manner just isn’t a thing in these cultures, so why all the protesting?

    I’ve noticed in East Asian Studies literature that Western academics are often “globalists” themselves. They denounce “pattern recognition” within local Asian cultures and identities as an insidious form of “essentialism.” They are also quick to denounce nationalism as extremely retrograde and uncivilized. They push radical Western ideologies like feminism, Marxism and poststructuralism upon the local cultures, and thereby erode their traditional identities even further. In other words, they have become the very thing that Said hated: Latter-day colonialists who cannot see the local cultures and peoples as they are, but only through the ideological filter of their own Western discourse.

    In short, they transform local “Orientals” into universal “Globalists,” and I suspect that name-checking Said is just one of many ways to convince themselves that they’re not part of the problem themselves. In such ways is transnational neoliberal colonialism dressed up in the alluring garb of post-colonial studies discourse. I’m sure that Said’s intellectual godfather, Michel Foucault, would fully understand and agree.

    Read More
  26. ogunsiron says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    I'm intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims, as the Mexicans who most militantly support Amerindian empowerment tend to be upper-caste Spaniards, like Jorge Ramos or iSteve's favorite Mexican, Xochitl Hinojosa (on the left):

    http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_30/1639291/160726_amandarenteria_8a4442e4b92ceb0be3e52ad241c86dc8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

    There are plenty of Syrian Christians who could pass in the Des Moines Rotary Club. It's the sort of thing not mentioned in polite conversation, because every Christian extended family still has the odd recessive swarthiness popping up or marrying in. Privately, most will tell you they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Maghreb and the Peninsula.

    Slightly OT :
    I never got around to reading Fanon and I think you should go over him too at some point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I haven't read Fanon, but, yeah, this John Milius / Walter Sobchak perspective of these supposedly leftist intellectuals as more like ... the man in the black pajamas, a worthy foe, Dude ... might be productive.
    , @syonredux

    Slightly OT :
    I never got around to reading Fanon and I think you should go over him too at some point.
     
    How fortunate for you. I've been forced to read his stuff multiple times.

    I have a hard time taking seriously a guy who talks about the trauma inflicted on his psyche by Johnny Weissmuller's "White Body" in the Tarzan films....

    , @JohnnyD
    @ogunsiron,
    I can tell you from personal experience that Fanon is hard to read. But he had a lot of influence on the anti-European/White crowd. Fanon was part of the left's transformation from socialism/class struggle to hating all white people and Western Civilization.
  27. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    I'm intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims, as the Mexicans who most militantly support Amerindian empowerment tend to be upper-caste Spaniards, like Jorge Ramos or iSteve's favorite Mexican, Xochitl Hinojosa (on the left):

    http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_30/1639291/160726_amandarenteria_8a4442e4b92ceb0be3e52ad241c86dc8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

    There are plenty of Syrian Christians who could pass in the Des Moines Rotary Club. It's the sort of thing not mentioned in polite conversation, because every Christian extended family still has the odd recessive swarthiness popping up or marrying in. Privately, most will tell you they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Maghreb and the Peninsula.

    I’m intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims

    The leadership of the communist parties of the region were heavily Christian. The founder of the Baath party was Michel Aflaq, a Christian, which emphasized secular nationalism. This is an intellectual class who are disproportionally Christian. On the other hand the rank and file, not so much. Take a look at the Lebanese civil war and how much they loved one another. Being identified as an Arab, or having an Arab identity imposed upon them, is a sticky subject for middle eastern Christians depending on who, what and where they are.

    Read More
  28. @Discordiax
    This has nothing to do with Edward Said, but it's a Saileresque argument that I'd like to see Steve float and see if it goes anywhere.

    Sailer has extolled "citizenism" as an American policy approach, drawing the line of "us" and "them" at US citizenship. Sailer has also Noticed the data on the disadvantages of black Americans in the aggregate. These two are obviously in tension, if not in contradiction.

    But Sailer has also defined "race" as "an extended family that is partly inbred." Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws--flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws–flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    You really work way too hard to earn your moniker.

    Read More
  29. Arclight says:
    @Discordiax
    This has nothing to do with Edward Said, but it's a Saileresque argument that I'd like to see Steve float and see if it goes anywhere.

    Sailer has extolled "citizenism" as an American policy approach, drawing the line of "us" and "them" at US citizenship. Sailer has also Noticed the data on the disadvantages of black Americans in the aggregate. These two are obviously in tension, if not in contradiction.

    But Sailer has also defined "race" as "an extended family that is partly inbred." Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws--flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don’t mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jimi
    Muslims who literally start complaining about the USA as soon as they get off the plane are insufferable. They bring a combination of dysfunction and moral superiority. I am convinced the Left only puts up with them to annoy right wingers.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    American blacks are no longer African, and haven't been African in a long, long time. They are as interwoven into America as any white person. Many of them actually thrive under Anglo-Saxon norms. We just need to get rid of the perverse incentives that encourage parasitism and dysgenic breeding.

    But then I see the NY Times preaching that blacks have to come out on top every single time, otherwise it's just unearned privilege. Then I despair.
    , @pepperinmono
    Agree.
    Blacks can be "White" too.
    They need to assimilate better.
    As Charles Murray has shown, they were beginning to until the 50's.
    LBJ and the welfare state and herd voting and exploitation by Democrats and their own natural proclivities have enabled Blacks to decimate themselves.
    It is spreading to White underclasses.
    This problem must be fixed--they are not going anywhere.
    The way Democrats have treated Blacks to this day is one of the vilest evils in the history of America.
    , @reiner Tor
    Probably that's how I would feel if I were American.

    However, I'm not sure most blacks are really decent people, or of course it depends on your definition of decent.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    "... and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. "
     
    No way. Most those I assume you're writing about are ALIVE TODAY, meaning, on average, they have been treated with kid gloves - AA, PC, Section 8, the whole mess. If by "they", you mean the whole history of the black population in America, then you are talking mostly about dead people, right?

    Most of white Americans have ancestors that have been enslaved, and if you want to go back only during the same exact time frame, a large number of Americans have ancestors that have been killed or maimed in war or were destitute during Great Depression 1.0, or more recently, have been barred from employment due to their skin color and small size of their lips.

    What difference does it make about the ancestors, when it comes down to your life here right now, in this country?

    , @Jake
    "...it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably."

    Actually, the true statement would be: Most of the time blacks have been present in the US, they have been ill treated by some whites and other non-blacks.

    The simple fact is that at least by Era of Good Feelings, northeastern Elites - many of them or someone in their families or their church or educational background having been at least investors in the slave trade - were romanticizing Negroes. By the 1850s, not only was the culturally and theologically Liberal most half, or more, of northern WASPs Elites, as well as a growing part of the Yankee WASP middle class, in love with the idea of uplifting the Negro, but many of them were itching to kill southern whites to do so.

    Well before Lincoln's election, the vast majority of northern WASPs (and their natural allies German Protestants) despised both southern whites and Catholics at the same time they wished to uplift Negroes.

    Blacks have been pets of this nation's WASP Elites back to the era when Revolutionary War veterans still walked the earth.
    , @Mikey Darmody
    The idea of tyrannizing black Americans is repugnant. However, if we were to make another attempt at integration, minus all the Affirmative Action nonsense etc., wouldn't we still run into the problem of achievement? In a meritocratic society, black Americans would lag behind White Americans in a statistically and experientially noticeable way. Isn't that unfair to black Americans? Wouldn't it breed a new and different kind of resentment among blacks? I don't see a way out of this problem (unless some kind of separation becomes popular).
  30. I share your antipathy for Said and the wickedness his specious work engendered, but

    1). The Commentary piece may not be the best expression of the problems with Said’s life story as he presented it, but there is no evidence that Said ever lived in Jerusalem.

    2). Stanley Crouch’s memorable description of Wolfe as a “Trick typist from Virginia by way of Yale” notwithstanding, it is less important to understanding Wolfe that he is from the South per se, but his worldview was formed outside the notheastern establishment. He punctured “Yankees” to be sure, but he pursued foolishness and whatever he found interesting wherever it could be found, whether it was the Upper East Side, California, swinging London, or Atlanta.

    Read More
  31. “When Said was an adolescent, the new state of Israel expropriated a house in Jerusalem that had been owned by his extended family. The neoconservative magazine Commentary devoted much effort in the 1990s to proving that the building hadn’t been the property of Said’s father. Instead, Commentary triumphantly but anticlimactically trumpeted, the house had belonged to…his aunt.

    That Commentary article was a moment when I began to feel severe doubts about neoconservatism. The story just made me feel sorry for Said. I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders.”

    The point of the article , as you must know, was that Said had misrepresented his biography. He had repeatedly claimed that he had grown up in a beautiful old house on Brenner street in Jerusalem, only to “flee in panic” with his family in 1947 when the Haganah warned the Arabs to evacuate. This was largely B.S. of course. Proving that the house belonged to his aunt rather than his father, was only in aid of demonstrating that he was making the details of his bio up . If you are claiming that this article soured you on neoconservatism/ zionism , then you are likely engaging in retconning of your own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Almost every Jew in Israel could "be carrying the keys" to a house somewhere - either in Baghdad or Warsaw or Alexandria or Lviv. But they have long since moved on. I visited my grandfather's house and mill in western Ukraine, outside of Lviv (house is the village library, the mill is in ruins) and I wasn't sore about it at all. If it wasn't for Hitler and Stalin I might still be back in that village heaving flour sacks into a horse drawn wagon instead of enjoying my nice suburban American life. That's how life goes - one door closes and another one opens.
  32. Tiny Duck says:

    How does it feel knowing that you are hopeless outnumbered?

    Lets see who is against you: blacks, jews, muslims, homosexual, latinos, nonwhites, transpeople, hindus, Asians, women

    That is 95% of the worlds population

    Your hero drumpf has pissed off the cia and they are going to bring him down

    HE WILL BE IMPEACHED and your nationalist dreams will dies with him

    Le Pen will lose france

    Multiculturalism will win the day. white privilege will be eradicated by any means necessary, your daughters will give birth to Children of Color

    Already now you can feel the death blow being delivered

    THERE WILL BE OPEN BORDERS

    WE WILL BASH THE FASH

    Read More
  33. @Dahlia
    Marvelous!

    And you just wrote my favorite ending sentence of yours ever. Well done, sir!

    I just clicked on Steve’s last line link and am listening now. I saw a great Halloween show back in the late ’80′s by this guy. What I really liked about him was that, way back in early ’80 or so his hit “(Don’t Want to Live like a) Refugee” was like the first disco-era destroyer, along with Pat Beaneater’s “Heartbreaker” These 2 songs broke the back of Disco!

    I knew guys who said they skydived with Petty in S. Carolina. All I know is he was a proud Southerner too, like Tom Wolfe using rock vs. words.

    Youtube has changed his video of “Rebels” to “password required” because he wrapped himself in the Rebel flag that an audience member through up onto the stage. You gotta sign in to view the Rebel flag now. What a (sorry excuse for a) country!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Tom Petty's performance of "I Won't Back Down" at the 9/11 concert was pretty awesome. He looked like a starving Confederate enlistee who wanted General Lee to lead the boys into the hills in April 1865 to keep the war going guerilla-style.

    In comparison, Neil Young performed "Imagine."

    , @Dahlia
    Thanks, will definitely check out.
  34. Jimi says:
    @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    Muslims who literally start complaining about the USA as soon as they get off the plane are insufferable. They bring a combination of dysfunction and moral superiority. I am convinced the Left only puts up with them to annoy right wingers.

    Read More
  35. Great article, Steve. “No one ever expended more brainpower to encourage stupidity than Said did in Orientalism.” Hey, listen, nobody knows more about stupidity than I do.

    I learned something that I had argued about before (I believe on unz too): I had always maintained that Oriental really meant “far east”, as termed by Europeans, so as east as you could go from there (without a big boat). My contention was if your eyes are not slanted, you are not Oriental. I just looked it up, and the Oriental Express only ever went to Constantinople, Turkey. WTF? I had always though it went all the way to Hong Kong or somewhere (but that would have a hell of a thing to build – maybe you’d have to route it through Almaty and back SE from there.)

    Well, first thing after I get my money back for the train ticket, is to take out “Lawrence of Arabia” from the library.

    Lastly, I never in my life have thought of women in the Middle Eastern lands as sexy in general (there’d always be a bunch of hotties around somewhere, of course). I can see Thailand, France, Brazil, Romania, etc. as places young men could imagine the truly sexy girls, but never would I have traveled to the MidEast with that in mind. I think people are imagining that they are all belly dancers.

    Read More
  36. Dunnyveg says:

    While I’m certainly grateful that Sailer doesn’t call these scoundrels socialists or communists, this “unextreme” Texan cringes when he calls these scoundrels “progressives”.

    I’m currently reading about a real progressive liberal, Teddy Roosevelt. TR was an imperialist who was concerned about bringing Western civilization to the benighted races. It was all about our civilization for the progressives. They hated war between civilized powers because it was seen as setting our civilization back, but all favored wars with the Third Worlders if it would bring them civilization. Progressive liberals saw themselves on a crusade to bring the blessings of Western civilization to the benighted, dusky masses, and at gunpoint if necessary.

    Postmodern liberalism is almost the mirror opposite. Liberals now champion the Third Worlders and are at war with our civilization and peoples. In fact, postmodern liberalism sees non-elite whites as being the source of all evil in the world. All wisdom and moral authority come from “previously oppressed” groups, such as nonwhites, immigrants, sexual deviants, and wymyn. The only hope for whites is to renounce our civilization and instead embrace the One True Faith of Political Correctness.

    Ask yourself: Which type of liberalism describes our current situation the best?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Liberals now champion the Third Worlders and are at war with our civilization and peoples.
     
    Actually modern globalist liberals are at war with all civilizations and peoples. They are just as busy undermining Third World societies as they are undermining western society. Their objective is to spread atheism, consumerism, hedonism and degeneracy to every corner of the globe. They are deadly enemies to Third World societies.
  37. Said may have been a Bart Simpson type who battles authority not because he’s against authority in general, but because he isn’t the authority.

    Great article, but can’t say that I ever really got that impression from Bart Simpson. Maybe Nelson?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    but can’t say that I ever really got that impression from Bart Simpson. Maybe Nelson?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqQdpybMe-I

  38. IA says:

    Great article, Steve. The real question is why the Eloi fetishize fake-victim bs to begin with.

    Read More
  39. @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    American blacks are no longer African, and haven’t been African in a long, long time. They are as interwoven into America as any white person. Many of them actually thrive under Anglo-Saxon norms. We just need to get rid of the perverse incentives that encourage parasitism and dysgenic breeding.

    But then I see the NY Times preaching that blacks have to come out on top every single time, otherwise it’s just unearned privilege. Then I despair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    We just need to get rid of the perverse incentives that encourage parasitism and dysgenic breeding.
     
    lol. No, we should just set up an American outpost in a West African country (paying off the local government to do it), build a number of condo complexes, and offer American blacks---especially young American black women and men (18-40)---free passage to move there and have their food, rent, electric completely paid for life by the U.S. government if they merely renounce U.S. citizenship and take the local nation's citizenship. And pass an Constitutional amendment stating that the child of a person who has renounced citizenship is NOT a U.S. citizen, and thus their children get nothing from the U.S. gov in welfare.

    American blacks simply are uncivilized and always have been. That kind of deal---back to Africa with American welfare--would be a win for all: blacks get their gibsemedat for life in a nation where their IQ would make them in the top 10%, and no whitey to make them feel stupid or inferior; the African nation would get a huge influx of cash and higher IQ folks from the American blacks and some infrastructure; and AMerica would be rid of it's black problem, crime would drop, and valuable real estate in the heart of U.S. cities would be livable again.

    Then promptly slam the door on all immigration from said nation.

    In other words, the same plan endorsed by many abolishonists in the pre-Civil War times---including Abraham Lincoln.

    Separate countries for separate peoples.

  40. @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    Agree.
    Blacks can be “White” too.
    They need to assimilate better.
    As Charles Murray has shown, they were beginning to until the 50′s.
    LBJ and the welfare state and herd voting and exploitation by Democrats and their own natural proclivities have enabled Blacks to decimate themselves.
    It is spreading to White underclasses.
    This problem must be fixed–they are not going anywhere.
    The way Democrats have treated Blacks to this day is one of the vilest evils in the history of America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Very few blacks seem to hold any grudge towards the post-JFK Democrat party
  41. whorefinder says: • Website

    The Left has been engaged in a slow but relentless march of ethnic cleansing against white gentiles since the 1950s. In the U.S., the end of Jim Crow, then busing in the North, combined with HUD and diversity and affirmative action and open borders and critical race theory have ALL been part of a major plan of displacement.

    But we are not the only country; South Africa was a precurser. What was a first-world country in the 1980s with some nasty blacks locked up and kept in line is now a 3rd world nation with an infrastructure falling to pieces and blacks on the rampage murdering and torturing any white they see—and many blacks.

    This is all part of a plan. Good for Said for creating an intellectual bulkwark for his people. That Richard Spencer and Kevin McDonald might be in his class for white gentile Americans is utterly unthinkable for the Left, but that is what they are.

    Read More
  42. whorefinder says: • Website
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    American blacks are no longer African, and haven't been African in a long, long time. They are as interwoven into America as any white person. Many of them actually thrive under Anglo-Saxon norms. We just need to get rid of the perverse incentives that encourage parasitism and dysgenic breeding.

    But then I see the NY Times preaching that blacks have to come out on top every single time, otherwise it's just unearned privilege. Then I despair.

    We just need to get rid of the perverse incentives that encourage parasitism and dysgenic breeding.

    lol. No, we should just set up an American outpost in a West African country (paying off the local government to do it), build a number of condo complexes, and offer American blacks—especially young American black women and men (18-40)—free passage to move there and have their food, rent, electric completely paid for life by the U.S. government if they merely renounce U.S. citizenship and take the local nation’s citizenship. And pass an Constitutional amendment stating that the child of a person who has renounced citizenship is NOT a U.S. citizen, and thus their children get nothing from the U.S. gov in welfare.

    American blacks simply are uncivilized and always have been. That kind of deal—back to Africa with American welfare–would be a win for all: blacks get their gibsemedat for life in a nation where their IQ would make them in the top 10%, and no whitey to make them feel stupid or inferior; the African nation would get a huge influx of cash and higher IQ folks from the American blacks and some infrastructure; and AMerica would be rid of it’s black problem, crime would drop, and valuable real estate in the heart of U.S. cities would be livable again.

    Then promptly slam the door on all immigration from said nation.

    In other words, the same plan endorsed by many abolishonists in the pre-Civil War times—including Abraham Lincoln.

    Separate countries for separate peoples.

    Read More
  43. JohnnyD says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    I'm intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims, as the Mexicans who most militantly support Amerindian empowerment tend to be upper-caste Spaniards, like Jorge Ramos or iSteve's favorite Mexican, Xochitl Hinojosa (on the left):

    http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_30/1639291/160726_amandarenteria_8a4442e4b92ceb0be3e52ad241c86dc8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

    There are plenty of Syrian Christians who could pass in the Des Moines Rotary Club. It's the sort of thing not mentioned in polite conversation, because every Christian extended family still has the odd recessive swarthiness popping up or marrying in. Privately, most will tell you they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Maghreb and the Peninsula.

    ,
    I always find it weird that Jorge Ramos is allowed to be a victim, when he’s clearly Spanish/European. I think he supports “Amerindian empowerment” because it’s a way for white Hispanics, such as himself, to have more power and influence in the United States. But the joke is that most Hispanics living in the United States look more like Cesar Chavez and George Lopez.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Well most Americans and Mexicans are too dumb to tell the difference. Why not milk it for what it's worth? White Hispanics will end up on top of the browning US just as they dominate every other Latin American country.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    I always find it weird that Jorge Ramos is allowed to be a victim, when he’s clearly Spanish/European. I think he supports “Amerindian empowerment” because it’s a way for white Hispanics, such as himself, to have more power and influence in the United States.
     
    Weird? How does that make Jorge Ramos any different from our own goodwhites?
  44. @The Anti-Gnostic
    I'm intrigued by the parallell phenomena of upper-caste Middle Eastern Christians who are more pro-Arab than the Arab Muslims, as the Mexicans who most militantly support Amerindian empowerment tend to be upper-caste Spaniards, like Jorge Ramos or iSteve's favorite Mexican, Xochitl Hinojosa (on the left):

    http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_30/1639291/160726_amandarenteria_8a4442e4b92ceb0be3e52ad241c86dc8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

    There are plenty of Syrian Christians who could pass in the Des Moines Rotary Club. It's the sort of thing not mentioned in polite conversation, because every Christian extended family still has the odd recessive swarthiness popping up or marrying in. Privately, most will tell you they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Maghreb and the Peninsula.

    I think Arab Christians have supported secular nationalist movements for many reasons, not least as a bulwark against political Islam.

    As for their ethnic separateness, I am sure that has been aided by religiously enforced endogamy. Unfortunately, that has also led to cases of severe birth defects in the Arab Christian communities with which I am familiar. It is incumbent on the bishops to enforce the traditional canon law that prohibits the marriage of even second cousins. And for the diaspora in the West, the admixture of the so-called blue-eyed Melkites is helpful as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Arab Christians

    Good post by Razib on ME Christians:

    https://gnxp.nofe.me/article/5890eb392fab740d79000004
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    True story: I know a Lebanese Christian from one of those scary mountain villages Steve writes about. Big, brawling guy and since most Lebanese men I know are fairly diminutive I asked him about it. He said the parish priests always told them, we will not marry you to anybody from the same village.

    I met his brother too. A stone-faced giant.
  45. @Arclight
    The left studiously ignores the very ugly aspects of Arab Islamic culture just to try an rub everyone else's nose in a dogpile of "diversity", which shows it is far more concerned with political/cultural supremacy than the human rights it professes to champion. Reason number 1,176 I checked out on the left in the middle of the Bush Administration despite the enormous flaws in that crowd's approach to the ME and culture in general.

    While we certainly have a problem with too much low education/low skill Latino immigration, at the end of the day they aren't that different from a lot of the people who already live here. We can deal with that - in contrast, Europe has accepted huge numbers of people from literally the least compatible societies on the planet with Western civilization and its rules and norms, one that can only be solved by the currently unthinkable expulsion of huge numbers of immigrants.

    Arclight, certainly the most incompatible, aggressive, and dangerous groups to admit to our countries are Africans and Muslims.

    But I wouldn’t be so sanguine about the tens of millions of Mexicans here in the USA. I don’t find many of them to be so similar to us, at all. They exhibit quite a bit of laziness and welfare dependence compared to native-born white or Asian Americans, and we deal with many truly “dim bulbs” among the Mexican-”American” populations here in L.A. (Or is that redundant).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Arclight
    I will admit that my experience with Mexicans/Latin Americans will necessarily be different than that of someone in SoCal - I have only lived in Rust Belt and East Coast cities where they are only about 10% of the population, and I would describe very few as lazy. Perhaps in areas where you have a really large share of the population being immigrants from points south you tend to attract more lackadaisical people than in areas where they are still a fairly small minority with less social and cultural support.
  46. Buddwing says:

    There was a time that we had greater cultural resources for understanding Arabs and Islam. The novel Beau Geste is a great adventure story. It was made into a movie several times, but the movies left out the last third, when the surviving youngest brother jouneys in disguise through north Africa among the Arabs. The author was from British India, and therefore had a better sense of life outside Western norms. Books like that (and King, of the Khyber Rifles and Kim) are probably far better cultural resources than any number of Spiderman reboots.

    Read More
  47. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Nationalism is like monogamy. Every people have their own nation to which they are faithful.
    And the elites are married to the people.

    Globalism is like polygamy or a having a harem.

    Few great nations own other nations as multiple wives or concubines, and the elites of owned nations put out to the GLOB than serve their own peoples.

    US has become like the pimp of the world.
    It is fitting that its cultural expression around the world is Rap.

    Germany is madame whore that serves the US pimp, and it expects other European nations to be good obedient whores. BAD HUNGARY for refusing to put out to the globalist clientele in the form of Soros and demographic imperialists.

    Read More
  48. Yngvar says:

    So he was exactly like the stereotypical Arab; hateful but cunning.

    Read More
  49. iffen says:
    @Percy Gryce
    I think Arab Christians have supported secular nationalist movements for many reasons, not least as a bulwark against political Islam.

    As for their ethnic separateness, I am sure that has been aided by religiously enforced endogamy. Unfortunately, that has also led to cases of severe birth defects in the Arab Christian communities with which I am familiar. It is incumbent on the bishops to enforce the traditional canon law that prohibits the marriage of even second cousins. And for the diaspora in the West, the admixture of the so-called blue-eyed Melkites is helpful as well.

    Arab Christians

    Good post by Razib on ME Christians:

    https://gnxp.nofe.me/article/5890eb392fab740d79000004

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    I couldn't see the actual slide show around which the entire post was written. I found the format of that blog a bit confusing.
  50. @Spotted Toad
    The Massachusetts boarding school Edward Said went to was founded by Dwight L. Moody, a world-famous 19th century evangelist (he also founded Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.) The first class of graduates from the boarding school in the 1880s was, as I recall from the photograph up in the library, eight boys, of whom one was Native American and one was Chinese, and the school's current website tells me "16 Native Americans were among the first 100 students, and the first graduates included a former slave as well as students from China, Sweden, England, Ireland, Canada, and Japan." In a way, it's very similar to (albeit 70 years earlier than) the Anglo-Saxon Super-Protestant milieu that would produce Obama's internationalist mother, as Steve described in his earlier Taki's column, The Muslimist. I would conjecture that Said's Arab Christian father knew of Moody when he sent his son to Mount Hermon. Edward Said presents himself as particularly alienated in this period in his autobiography ( here's a passage of him complaining about the daily chores https://books.google.com/books?id=iTj4KKBEPGcC&pg=PA226&dq=%22the+daily+routine+was+not+only+rigorous%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj30t3FoZLSAhXK1CYKHVG_COoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20daily%20routine%20was%20not%20only%20rigorous%22&f=false), but like Obama's self-presentation as continually alienated from white society despite being groomed for assimilation and being raised in particularly integrated circumstances, my suspicion would be that Said thrived throughout his life by understanding the levers and mores of white society quite well and then also understood how he would become an object of interest and mystery by positioning himself as at odds with and unsettled in that society. So he really was the beneficiary and (largely conscious and deliberate) evoker of Orientalism in others even as he invented a vocabulary to obscure what he was doing.

    The problem, of course, is that like Obama, Said is only really interesting insofar as he can be exoticized, so as establishment liberals internalize the idea that exoticizing people is bad, it actually undercuts their authority. Steve has alluded to this in regards to the Sexy Hijab fashion, but I actually wonder if there's a broader way in which the whole liberal internationalizing project (which had a good multi-century run, it must be said) depended on Orientalism and similar habits of mind in a way that post-colonial lingo like Said's threatened much more than you'd expect.

    The part about the chores is funny because a friend ,who went to NMH, mentioned a couple of years ago how a lot of the rich Arab international students didn’t want to do any of the chores and were spoiled, or something like that. I forget which countries he said the kids were from, but I think it was Saudi Arabia or one of the gulf states.

    Read More
  51. @Percy Gryce
    I think Arab Christians have supported secular nationalist movements for many reasons, not least as a bulwark against political Islam.

    As for their ethnic separateness, I am sure that has been aided by religiously enforced endogamy. Unfortunately, that has also led to cases of severe birth defects in the Arab Christian communities with which I am familiar. It is incumbent on the bishops to enforce the traditional canon law that prohibits the marriage of even second cousins. And for the diaspora in the West, the admixture of the so-called blue-eyed Melkites is helpful as well.

    True story: I know a Lebanese Christian from one of those scary mountain villages Steve writes about. Big, brawling guy and since most Lebanese men I know are fairly diminutive I asked him about it. He said the parish priests always told them, we will not marry you to anybody from the same village.

    I met his brother too. A stone-faced giant.

    Read More
  52. AndrewR says:

    What are the numbers when it comes to birth defects among offspring of nth degree cousins in the Arab Christian communities?

    I think the average American could mate with a second cousin and the chances of birth defects in the offspring would not be significantly more than in the children of two people without recent common ancestry.

    Obviously, in a highly inbred community this would be very false.

    Read More
  53. Jack D says:
    @Discordiax
    This has nothing to do with Edward Said, but it's a Saileresque argument that I'd like to see Steve float and see if it goes anywhere.

    Sailer has extolled "citizenism" as an American policy approach, drawing the line of "us" and "them" at US citizenship. Sailer has also Noticed the data on the disadvantages of black Americans in the aggregate. These two are obviously in tension, if not in contradiction.

    But Sailer has also defined "race" as "an extended family that is partly inbred." Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws--flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    Most people on the right have no problem with blacks per se, although they may not be wild about certain aspects of black behavior. A large part of modern black bad behavior has been enabled by the left, from Genuis T. Coates down to welfare moms. The idea that blacks are held back by racism at every turn in 2017 America is ridiculous – America voted twice for Obama, Oprah is our national sweetheart, etc. The question is not whether citizenism wants blacks, it’s whether blacks want citizenism or see themselves as a people apart and deserving of special consideration just for being black.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Oprah is our national sweetheart
     
    Hey, speak for yourself, Jack. I've got another sweetheart this day-after-Valentines, and she doesn't look a bit like Okra.
    , @Jake
    The vast majority of blacks want - NO, they DEMAND - to be treated as a special people apart, who deserve special rights and privileges, and perks, forever.

    If Affirmative Action preferences and set asides were abolished, perhaps a million blacks would be in the streets, rioting and beating and killing, until such time as they got their 'rights' back with an apology and guarantee that all conservative whites would be punished, or else the national guard forced them to behave.

    The black is now, surely largely a result of Liberal white petting for roughly 2 centuries, a violent, spoiled brat child of a race.
  54. Omar Sharif was born Michael Chalhoub, and was a Melkite Catholic. His father was Lebanese and his mother, I think, was Egyptian, and they lived in Egypt. The family used to know/entertain in the same circles as King Farouk. Chalhoub changed his name to Sharif and converted to Islam to marry a well known Egyptian actress.

    I have read some of Said’s works and he always struck me as the quintessential academic. A lot of brains and talent, but unable to actually get things done in the real world. I don’t think he could have managed any type of enterprise, let alone a country, even if one had been bequeathed to him. Possibly an Ambassador to some small country?

    Read More
  55. Absolutely spot on. The majority of racial “leftism” or “radicalism” is leftist or radical only in the context of white America. In its own racial context, it is, as you say, nothing other than a conservative love for one’s ancestral heritage.

    One of my profs in grad school was (is) Caribbean—Trinidadian, to be precise. Great guy, much respect for him. He coupled his harsh critiques of whiteness and European-ness, not with preening evocations of amorphous concepts like social justice or right sides of history (as whites do), but with unabashed pride in and praise of his Caribbean heritage. This year, in a fine display of love for homeland, he gave American academia a big middle finger and went to go teach at the University of the West Indies.

    Read More
  56. @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    Probably that’s how I would feel if I were American.

    However, I’m not sure most blacks are really decent people, or of course it depends on your definition of decent.

    Read More
  57. @Jack D
    Most people on the right have no problem with blacks per se, although they may not be wild about certain aspects of black behavior. A large part of modern black bad behavior has been enabled by the left, from Genuis T. Coates down to welfare moms. The idea that blacks are held back by racism at every turn in 2017 America is ridiculous - America voted twice for Obama, Oprah is our national sweetheart, etc. The question is not whether citizenism wants blacks, it's whether blacks want citizenism or see themselves as a people apart and deserving of special consideration just for being black.

    Oprah is our national sweetheart

    Hey, speak for yourself, Jack. I’ve got another sweetheart this day-after-Valentines, and she doesn’t look a bit like Okra.

    Read More
  58. Gabriel M says:

    It didn’t help Said become reconciled to Western supremacy that perhaps the greatest movie of his young manhood, Lawrence of Arabia, was about how the Arabs had needed a weird gay English Orientalist named T.E. Lawrence to teach them enough about nationalism to throw off the Ottoman Yoke.

    Well he should have got over it because it’s true. Arab nationalism is about indigenous to the Middle East as a Mars bar is to Jupiter. It’s primary appeal was always to western educated Christians like Said itself and like all western imports it has been a disaster and, in the long term, failed to take.

    But cruel accidents of history deprived Said of a nation to govern and sent him into exile in the capital of his enemy, New York, where he became a professor of European literature at Columbia.

    Wow, that’s rough. In reality, Said could have gone to any Arab country he wanted and governed it; he grew up in Egypt, his family had branches all around the Middle East and, anyway, that’s what pan-Arab nationalism is all about. He didn’t want to because, generally speaking, Arab countries suck and, specifically, his family’s business in Cairo was looted by a mob in 1952: revealed preferences.

    The neoconservative magazine Commentary devoted much effort in the 1990s to proving that the building hadn’t been the property of Said’s father. Instead, Commentary triumphantly but anticlimactically trumpeted, the house had belonged to…his aunt.

    The article is quite boring and pedantic, but it more than adequately demonstrates that a lot of Said’s autobiography is fiction. This is not wholly insignificant. Palestinian propaganda makes much of Palestinians fondly stoking the keys to their stolen houses, forever etched upon their memory in truly organic way that interloper Zionists cannot understand. Whenever you actually bother to look into one of these stories, you find it’s made up.

    The story just made me feel sorry for Said. I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders. Said must have felt toward the Israelis rather like a South Carolinian whose plantation had been burned down by General Sherman felt toward the damn Yankees

    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance. Incidentally, Egyptian Jews had property confiscated in excess of the entirety of mandate Palestine. My step-grandmother was one of them; I don’t remember her going to the border to throw rocks like a retarded seven year old, but I’ll call her up to check.

    P.S.

    Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_vengeance_of_edward_said_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4YmQmSw2b

    Taki is so beta it’s unreal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Whenever you actually bother to look into one of these stories, you find it’s made up.

    No Palestinians were harmed, exiled, or killed in the making of my country.
    , @snorlax
    I'd be interested to see if you agree with me Israel's biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze. (IIRC, there's now some movement in that direction, but it's slow-going and they're mostly gone now anyway).

    Whatever the backstory to Said's aunt's house, it may have been nominally free, but it was possibly the most expensive real estate acquisition ever. The heart and mind of Edward Said turned out to be an asset to the Islamic world worth many divisions of tanks, flotillas of fighter jets and whole cities of fine Ottoman mansions.

    Israel (and Western civilization, as a plus) would be in a far more secure position had Said not converted American and European academia (from which politics and culture are downstream) to the Palestinian cause, and the Muslims had only their own half-wits to argue their case.

    More salutary effects: The Arab world would've expelled or alienated the rest of their high-quality human capital, besides the odd outlier like Steve Jobs' dad. And there'd be a lot less anti-Zionism on the American and European right, if the destruction of Israel implied the slaughter of millions of civilized Christians.

    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance.
     
    Irish-Americans did organize the Fenian raids and (much later) NORAID. (In one of the odder episodes in Trump history, he attended a Sinn Féin fundraiser in 1996). Not that I approve, but it's pretty typical for ethnic diasporas, including US-based, to side with their violent irredentist coethnics.

    I'm not sure if I'd go with "self-destructive." Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it'd otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I'd say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they've been since 1948, and for a complete victory (Israel goes the way of French Algeria) the highest since the Balfour Declaration. Israeli public opinion might be the least charitable to the Palestinians it's ever been, but theirs is not the public opinion which matters.

    The pattern is, if you keep your left-wing (Puritan-Whig, American, Bolivar, 1848er, Irish, Bolshevik, Indian, FLN, ANC, Latin American Marxist, Islamist) or even de facto right-wing (Greek, Soviet & Yugoslav nationalities, Tibet, Zionist) resistance movement going long enough, you will win friends in the capitals of America and Europe, sufficient to ensure your victory.
  59. @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    … and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably.

    No way. Most those I assume you’re writing about are ALIVE TODAY, meaning, on average, they have been treated with kid gloves – AA, PC, Section 8, the whole mess. If by “they”, you mean the whole history of the black population in America, then you are talking mostly about dead people, right?

    Most of white Americans have ancestors that have been enslaved, and if you want to go back only during the same exact time frame, a large number of Americans have ancestors that have been killed or maimed in war or were destitute during Great Depression 1.0, or more recently, have been barred from employment due to their skin color and small size of their lips.

    What difference does it make about the ancestors, when it comes down to your life here right now, in this country?

    Read More
  60. Bill B. says:
    @PiltdownMan
    Finally, an adversary worthy of Steve's respect!

    In some ways, Orientalism is a master class in noticing us noticing which is what makes it so subversive. You can't retaliate in kind, because, then, it becomes turtles all the way down.

    Quite frankly, most modern progressives I've met who've read Orientalism appear to have only a tenuous understanding of the range of argument and wealth of material and references Said lays out. Whatever our beef with him, Said was a haute intellectual of a sort now rare. Which is why his acolytes accorded him such deference—they simply didn't have the nous to challenge him.

    Whatever our beef with him, Said was a haute intellectual of a sort now rare.

    Really? Edward Said might have carried an urbane and cultured persona but his critics have pulled apart his magnum opus as crude, slapdash and often plain wrong on basic facts. Such as:

    https://www.amazon.com/Defending-West-Critique-Edward-Orientalism-ebook/dp/B003D7LXR6/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487184911&sr=1-4&keywords=ibn+warraq

    Steve is rather kind to Said – a clever man without a land etc. – yet surely what comes howling from Said is the unquenchable bitterness and bottomless, crawling shame of a once all conquering Arab world that has been eclipsed by the West in all aspects of the modern world. This has been a running theme amongst Arab intellectuals since the late 19th Century.

    So what we in the West often see as the arrogance and presumption of Islam is also wrapped around with the deadly disappointment of wild underachievement on all fronts.

    Everything Said wrote on the Orient oozed this poisonous vengeful malevolence for, ironically, the great “other”. The white man who may not write about the brown man.

    Steve, in his column, touches on the neocon antipathy for Said. Yet Said played a key role in unmanning the genuine Western experts who might have argued more fiercely and more wisely against the neocons destructive narratives. Today we have reached a point where Saudi Arabia appears to fund much of analysis of the Arab world!

    May Said be restless.

    Read More
  61. Richard S says:

    Excellent Mr Sailer, as always. I come for the wit, and stay for the highly sophisticated psychographic history lessons.

    normal, masculine, conservative affections for his blood and soil.

    That’s weird, my dog’s ears just pricked up..

    Read More
  62. snorlax says:

    OT/Flynn: Here’s what I said on Lion of the Blogosphere’s post criticizing the DeVos selection 2 weeks ago:

    I’d be pretty disappointed [if she were voted down], not because I think she’s even remotely a good pick but because it’s critically important to keep up the momentum in the early days of an administration. Defeats and momentum-stalling pyrrhic victories are what stop Presidents from realizing their agendas.

    That’s why everyone always talks about the first 100 days. You want the waverers to feel caught up in the historical moment instead of worrying about their reelections.

    Now CNN’s reporting the Pudzer nomination is dead. Like Flynn, I think his was a nomination that was ill-advised in the first place, but that’s not what’s important. The gazelle’s wounded, the hyenas smell blood, and it can’t outrun them anymore.

    Every Trump initiative, from good (addressing immigration) to unimportant (rapprochement with Russia) to bad (replace Obamacare with Libertariancare) is looking dead in the water. For example, the “muh free trade” shitbirds have taken the opportunity to kill even the mildest, most free-market libertarian-approved proposal to preserve good-paying blue-collar jobs.

    I get a lot of flak for being a “defeatist” or “concern troll,” and I admit I’ve been too quick to predict doom for Trump on a number of occasions, but this really does feel like a low moment where there isn’t a clear path to recovery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Too soon to throw in the towel. This is the 1st round of a 15 round bout and Trump is behind on points but there are many rounds ahead.
    , @Lot
    Pudzer was the worst cabinet pick, I hope he goes down. He is an open borders guy against the minimum wage. Trump needs a blue collar union man in that position.
    , @Tiny Duck
    Spot on

    Trump pissed off the media and the CIA and now he (and his alt right fellow travelers) are about to feel the backlash

    You started this fight, we are going to finish it
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Tiny Duck agreed with you, which means you are not just wrong, you are evil.
  63. Sean says:

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

    Said took aim at Samuel Huntingdon, but it surely knew it was was his old nemesis Bernard Lewis who had far more influence on US policy to the Middle east, and that it was Lewis’s fellow travelers who had came close to getting Said fired from Columbia. For obvious reasons it is safer to attack Huntingdon and “the West”.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/rootless-cosmopolitan/
    For the last decade of his life Edward Said was an unbending advocate of a single, secular state for Israelis and Palestinians.

    Articulating an elite anti-nationalist view, not an Arab one, but then he was more comfortable in English than Arabic

    Read More
  64. Madrid says:

    I enjoy Steve Sailor’s writings, but this essay is unfair to Said. It’s more an ad hominem attack of the kind that Sailor deplores when the New Globalist left uses it. Just a few observations here because I don’t have time to do a proper critique here.

    Most obviously, this essay fails to engage with the long preface to Orientalism that Said wrote later (I believe sometime in the 90′s) in which he attempted to contextualize his original book. One thing Said clarified in that preface (if my memory serves me correctly) was that nothing in his critique of the old Orientalists implied that their works contained no knowledge of the ME– and he lamented the fact that his book was read in that particularly reductive way. Rather his main critique of their tradition was that the knowledge that they did generate was being coopted by people who wanted to do harm to their object of study– and he implored them to distance themselves from that use of their work. He also dealt quite adroitly with the criticism that many of the best Orientalists were 19th century Germans, showing that they were often in close correspondence with English and French officials who were running the empires. Said elsewhere is famous for saying something that is frankly quite Sailoreque– namely that stereotypes are often quite accurate and that is precisely why they are so injurious, because you as an individual don’t ever want to be reduced to a stereotype, particular if you are being conquered by those who are generating the stereotypes– see for example, Hilary’s “deplorable” comment.

    More importantly, in that preface, he says that while the Orientalists and Arabists of the past were implicated in Western imperialism and American hegemony in the ME, they were infinitely more knowledgeable and fairminded about the ME than the State Department apparatchniks who followed them and replaced them during the Reagan and Clinton years. I don’t think when Said wrote this preface (I think it was the 90′s) that the term neo-conservative was in wide use, but neo-con zionists are quite obviously the people he was referring to as having unfortunately replaced the WASP Arabists. He very clearly lamented the fact that these new interlopers had not even the vaguest interest in learning the Arabic language.

    But the most important omission here is that Said wrote in that preface that he was most appalled by how the book had been read in the ME. He complained that in the ME itself, it had been taken up as some kind of bible by young reactionaries saying, “look we don’t have to reform ourselves– we are fine the way we are. We don’t need any democracy or any other political traditions invented in the West.” Said spent much of his writings after Orientalism trying to correct this– trying to show how there was a middle way between the secularist strongmen ruling the Arab world on behalf of the west and the Islamist and before that communist revolutionaries trying to overturn those dictators.

    Finally, the world has become so much bleaker for both the ME and North America– events have transpired so quickly and so terribly. I don’t think that Said would have had anything in common with the contemporary Post-colonial academy. He was never fond for example of Gayatri Spivak, his colleague at Columbia. Said was first and foremost a traditionalist– he always loved Conrad, for example, the subject of his first book. He loved him and thought first and foremost the West should stick to its traditions. Said was an atheistic leftist traditionalist– he thought the tradition was the path to his own insights.

    Anyway, I expect better of Sailor– if he wants to contact me, I can send him an email with references.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Madrid
    Sorry for spelling your last name incorrectly, Steve. First time I've commented, although I'm a long time reader...
    , @iffen
    It’s more an ad hominem attack

    think about Said instead as a conservative with natural, healthy concentric loyalties to his clan and race,

    He was a brilliant literary critic, a near professional-level classical pianist, and almost movie-star handsome. His many friends considered him a superior individual.

    But I have to admire the boyish energy that the aged and ailing professor displayed

    Said had normal, masculine, conservative affections for his blood and soil.

    Crown Jewel:
    basically redneck and wholesome emotion: Don’t come around here no more.
     

    I've seen ad hominem before, I've done ad hominem before, I enjoy a good ad hominem as well as the next guy, this sir, was no ad hominem.

    What's in your wallet?

  65. Ivy says:

    Steve,
    To what extent do you, and perhaps other Unz authors, consider your work to be samizdat?

    Read More
  66. iffen says:
    @Spotted Toad
    The Massachusetts boarding school Edward Said went to was founded by Dwight L. Moody, a world-famous 19th century evangelist (he also founded Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.) The first class of graduates from the boarding school in the 1880s was, as I recall from the photograph up in the library, eight boys, of whom one was Native American and one was Chinese, and the school's current website tells me "16 Native Americans were among the first 100 students, and the first graduates included a former slave as well as students from China, Sweden, England, Ireland, Canada, and Japan." In a way, it's very similar to (albeit 70 years earlier than) the Anglo-Saxon Super-Protestant milieu that would produce Obama's internationalist mother, as Steve described in his earlier Taki's column, The Muslimist. I would conjecture that Said's Arab Christian father knew of Moody when he sent his son to Mount Hermon. Edward Said presents himself as particularly alienated in this period in his autobiography ( here's a passage of him complaining about the daily chores https://books.google.com/books?id=iTj4KKBEPGcC&pg=PA226&dq=%22the+daily+routine+was+not+only+rigorous%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj30t3FoZLSAhXK1CYKHVG_COoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20daily%20routine%20was%20not%20only%20rigorous%22&f=false), but like Obama's self-presentation as continually alienated from white society despite being groomed for assimilation and being raised in particularly integrated circumstances, my suspicion would be that Said thrived throughout his life by understanding the levers and mores of white society quite well and then also understood how he would become an object of interest and mystery by positioning himself as at odds with and unsettled in that society. So he really was the beneficiary and (largely conscious and deliberate) evoker of Orientalism in others even as he invented a vocabulary to obscure what he was doing.

    The problem, of course, is that like Obama, Said is only really interesting insofar as he can be exoticized, so as establishment liberals internalize the idea that exoticizing people is bad, it actually undercuts their authority. Steve has alluded to this in regards to the Sexy Hijab fashion, but I actually wonder if there's a broader way in which the whole liberal internationalizing project (which had a good multi-century run, it must be said) depended on Orientalism and similar habits of mind in a way that post-colonial lingo like Said's threatened much more than you'd expect.

    Said is only really interesting insofar as he can be exoticized

    He is only interesting insofar as he is proof that exoticizing is bad.

    Read More
  67. Jake says:
    @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    “…it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably.”

    Actually, the true statement would be: Most of the time blacks have been present in the US, they have been ill treated by some whites and other non-blacks.

    The simple fact is that at least by Era of Good Feelings, northeastern Elites – many of them or someone in their families or their church or educational background having been at least investors in the slave trade – were romanticizing Negroes. By the 1850s, not only was the culturally and theologically Liberal most half, or more, of northern WASPs Elites, as well as a growing part of the Yankee WASP middle class, in love with the idea of uplifting the Negro, but many of them were itching to kill southern whites to do so.

    Well before Lincoln’s election, the vast majority of northern WASPs (and their natural allies German Protestants) despised both southern whites and Catholics at the same time they wished to uplift Negroes.

    Blacks have been pets of this nation’s WASP Elites back to the era when Revolutionary War veterans still walked the earth.

    Read More
  68. JohnnyD says:

    I’ve always been ambivalent about Said. On the one hand, Said was against US involvement in Bosnia, Iraq, and the Middle East in general, whereas his Neoconservative enemies wanted to start wars all over the Middle East. Also, Said wasn’t as insane and unhinged as today’s campus radicals. But on the other hand, Said’s scholarship is pretty worthless if you want to understand the Middle East; and because of Said, smart people aren’t supposed to criticize Muslims and people from the Middle East.

    Read More
  69. Jack D says:
    @snorlax
    OT/Flynn: Here's what I said on Lion of the Blogosphere's post criticizing the DeVos selection 2 weeks ago:

    I’d be pretty disappointed [if she were voted down], not because I think she’s even remotely a good pick but because it’s critically important to keep up the momentum in the early days of an administration. Defeats and momentum-stalling pyrrhic victories are what stop Presidents from realizing their agendas.

    That’s why everyone always talks about the first 100 days. You want the waverers to feel caught up in the historical moment instead of worrying about their reelections.
     
    Now CNN's reporting the Pudzer nomination is dead. Like Flynn, I think his was a nomination that was ill-advised in the first place, but that's not what's important. The gazelle's wounded, the hyenas smell blood, and it can't outrun them anymore.

    Every Trump initiative, from good (addressing immigration) to unimportant (rapprochement with Russia) to bad (replace Obamacare with Libertariancare) is looking dead in the water. For example, the "muh free trade" shitbirds have taken the opportunity to kill even the mildest, most free-market libertarian-approved proposal to preserve good-paying blue-collar jobs.

    I get a lot of flak for being a "defeatist" or "concern troll," and I admit I've been too quick to predict doom for Trump on a number of occasions, but this really does feel like a low moment where there isn't a clear path to recovery.

    Too soon to throw in the towel. This is the 1st round of a 15 round bout and Trump is behind on points but there are many rounds ahead.

    Read More
  70. Anonym says:
    @Discordiax
    This has nothing to do with Edward Said, but it's a Saileresque argument that I'd like to see Steve float and see if it goes anywhere.

    Sailer has extolled "citizenism" as an American policy approach, drawing the line of "us" and "them" at US citizenship. Sailer has also Noticed the data on the disadvantages of black Americans in the aggregate. These two are obviously in tension, if not in contradiction.

    But Sailer has also defined "race" as "an extended family that is partly inbred." Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws--flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    But Sailer has also defined “race” as “an extended family that is partly inbred.” Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws–flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    Yes, that is the citizenist approach. The left had been intent on raining millions upon millions of immigrants in every white country, while persecuting anyone who spoke out about it in every manner possible and using its propaganda and legislative arms to bring about white genocide through miscegenation, wealth transfer and dispossession. If they had any sense, they would have eased up on the pressure ahead of time, and rained smaller quantities of incompatible immigrants, if at all. Some semblence of citizenism, even liberalism, would have been possible.

    Instead, they wanted to see what happens when immense potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. They have done everything in their power to awaken a white identity that must suffer every privation and learn to fight again, fight against a very real and omnipresent anti-whitism. The leftists are sitting below the dam of MSM and government pushing back against white identity, urging on the rain, hurling abuse at the opening of the spillway of Trumpist citizenism and seeking to impede the flow, while wet patches and springs of white identity are seen in the walls of the dam.

    When that dam breaks, the question will be asked, why do we need to have the very African Detroits all around us? These wayward “family” have been voting against our interests in the area of 80+% for several generations now. When we needed you, where were you then?

    Read More
  71. I wonder if it bothers them that we notice things like this and then wonder if all Mexicans like to have sexual congress with dogs?

    Read More
  72. @Jeremy Cooper

    Said may have been a Bart Simpson type who battles authority not because he’s against authority in general, but because he isn’t the authority.
     
    Great article, but can't say that I ever really got that impression from Bart Simpson. Maybe Nelson?

    but can’t say that I ever really got that impression from Bart Simpson. Maybe Nelson?

    Read More
  73. Madrid says:
    @Madrid
    I enjoy Steve Sailor's writings, but this essay is unfair to Said. It's more an ad hominem attack of the kind that Sailor deplores when the New Globalist left uses it. Just a few observations here because I don't have time to do a proper critique here.

    Most obviously, this essay fails to engage with the long preface to Orientalism that Said wrote later (I believe sometime in the 90's) in which he attempted to contextualize his original book. One thing Said clarified in that preface (if my memory serves me correctly) was that nothing in his critique of the old Orientalists implied that their works contained no knowledge of the ME-- and he lamented the fact that his book was read in that particularly reductive way. Rather his main critique of their tradition was that the knowledge that they did generate was being coopted by people who wanted to do harm to their object of study-- and he implored them to distance themselves from that use of their work. He also dealt quite adroitly with the criticism that many of the best Orientalists were 19th century Germans, showing that they were often in close correspondence with English and French officials who were running the empires. Said elsewhere is famous for saying something that is frankly quite Sailoreque-- namely that stereotypes are often quite accurate and that is precisely why they are so injurious, because you as an individual don't ever want to be reduced to a stereotype, particular if you are being conquered by those who are generating the stereotypes-- see for example, Hilary's "deplorable" comment.

    More importantly, in that preface, he says that while the Orientalists and Arabists of the past were implicated in Western imperialism and American hegemony in the ME, they were infinitely more knowledgeable and fairminded about the ME than the State Department apparatchniks who followed them and replaced them during the Reagan and Clinton years. I don't think when Said wrote this preface (I think it was the 90's) that the term neo-conservative was in wide use, but neo-con zionists are quite obviously the people he was referring to as having unfortunately replaced the WASP Arabists. He very clearly lamented the fact that these new interlopers had not even the vaguest interest in learning the Arabic language.

    But the most important omission here is that Said wrote in that preface that he was most appalled by how the book had been read in the ME. He complained that in the ME itself, it had been taken up as some kind of bible by young reactionaries saying, "look we don't have to reform ourselves-- we are fine the way we are. We don't need any democracy or any other political traditions invented in the West." Said spent much of his writings after Orientalism trying to correct this-- trying to show how there was a middle way between the secularist strongmen ruling the Arab world on behalf of the west and the Islamist and before that communist revolutionaries trying to overturn those dictators.

    Finally, the world has become so much bleaker for both the ME and North America-- events have transpired so quickly and so terribly. I don't think that Said would have had anything in common with the contemporary Post-colonial academy. He was never fond for example of Gayatri Spivak, his colleague at Columbia. Said was first and foremost a traditionalist-- he always loved Conrad, for example, the subject of his first book. He loved him and thought first and foremost the West should stick to its traditions. Said was an atheistic leftist traditionalist-- he thought the tradition was the path to his own insights.

    Anyway, I expect better of Sailor-- if he wants to contact me, I can send him an email with references.

    Sorry for spelling your last name incorrectly, Steve. First time I’ve commented, although I’m a long time reader…

    Read More
  74. @Arclight
    The left studiously ignores the very ugly aspects of Arab Islamic culture just to try an rub everyone else's nose in a dogpile of "diversity", which shows it is far more concerned with political/cultural supremacy than the human rights it professes to champion. Reason number 1,176 I checked out on the left in the middle of the Bush Administration despite the enormous flaws in that crowd's approach to the ME and culture in general.

    While we certainly have a problem with too much low education/low skill Latino immigration, at the end of the day they aren't that different from a lot of the people who already live here. We can deal with that - in contrast, Europe has accepted huge numbers of people from literally the least compatible societies on the planet with Western civilization and its rules and norms, one that can only be solved by the currently unthinkable expulsion of huge numbers of immigrants.

    Anyone who can’t be bothered to speak English should be deported.

    A lot of HBD-aware types think of Cubans as being just as white as, say, Italians, and many of them are. But so many of them simply refuse to speak English, because areas they’ve taken over are their “turf” and they don’t have to accommodate anyone.

    I went into a large store in an area that is still relatively “Anglo,” and I couldn’t find a single employee who was willing and able to answer questions posed in English. (They were only too happy to talk in Spanish.)

    The cashier even cut me off in mid-sentence and asked, “Do you speak Spanish?” When I said, “Never mind,” she totally ignored me for the rest of the transaction.

    I have seen so much blatant favoritism – laws are selectively enforced by cops, codes are selectively enforced by inspectors – that I barely even notice it anymore.

    So I don’t give a shit that these people are whiter than Mexicans. They openly favor their own kind, and they feel no solidarity with white non-Hispanic English-speaking Americans.

    In America, we speak English. If you can’t or won’t speak English, then don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    Read More
  75. Anonym says:

    In somewhat on topic news, at least as far as it reveals a sickening predeliction of some of the elites for the bacha bazi, we have some underground news potentially relating to Podesta. I had by now dismissed pizzagate as something that was likely true but never going to lead to anything, and irrelevant to the levers of power now that Trump had won election. And yet some interesting stuff just got bubbled up. One wonders – who leaked this, why was it leaked and why now? Is it in retaliation for Flynn? One wonders.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5u6ub3/john_podesta_is_the_man_from_the_torture_video/

    https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1645244

    Read More
  76. Lot says:
    @snorlax
    OT/Flynn: Here's what I said on Lion of the Blogosphere's post criticizing the DeVos selection 2 weeks ago:

    I’d be pretty disappointed [if she were voted down], not because I think she’s even remotely a good pick but because it’s critically important to keep up the momentum in the early days of an administration. Defeats and momentum-stalling pyrrhic victories are what stop Presidents from realizing their agendas.

    That’s why everyone always talks about the first 100 days. You want the waverers to feel caught up in the historical moment instead of worrying about their reelections.
     
    Now CNN's reporting the Pudzer nomination is dead. Like Flynn, I think his was a nomination that was ill-advised in the first place, but that's not what's important. The gazelle's wounded, the hyenas smell blood, and it can't outrun them anymore.

    Every Trump initiative, from good (addressing immigration) to unimportant (rapprochement with Russia) to bad (replace Obamacare with Libertariancare) is looking dead in the water. For example, the "muh free trade" shitbirds have taken the opportunity to kill even the mildest, most free-market libertarian-approved proposal to preserve good-paying blue-collar jobs.

    I get a lot of flak for being a "defeatist" or "concern troll," and I admit I've been too quick to predict doom for Trump on a number of occasions, but this really does feel like a low moment where there isn't a clear path to recovery.

    Pudzer was the worst cabinet pick, I hope he goes down. He is an open borders guy against the minimum wage. Trump needs a blue collar union man in that position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lugash
    Glad to see Pudzer go. Trump seems to want to restore 1950s liberal capitalism. Pudzer is completely 21st century sociopath capitalism. Completely at odds with each other.
  77. @Achmed E. Newman
    I just clicked on Steve's last line link and am listening now. I saw a great Halloween show back in the late '80's by this guy. What I really liked about him was that, way back in early '80 or so his hit "(Don't Want to Live like a) Refugee" was like the first disco-era destroyer, along with Pat Beaneater's "Heartbreaker" These 2 songs broke the back of Disco!

    I knew guys who said they skydived with Petty in S. Carolina. All I know is he was a proud Southerner too, like Tom Wolfe using rock vs. words.

    Youtube has changed his video of "Rebels" to "password required" because he wrapped himself in the Rebel flag that an audience member through up onto the stage. You gotta sign in to view the Rebel flag now. What a (sorry excuse for a) country!

    Tom Petty’s performance of “I Won’t Back Down” at the 9/11 concert was pretty awesome. He looked like a starving Confederate enlistee who wanted General Lee to lead the boys into the hills in April 1865 to keep the war going guerilla-style.

    In comparison, Neil Young performed “Imagine.”

    Read More
    • LOL: Dahlia
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Robert E. Lee should have known that he wasn't surrendering to military man Ulysses S. Grant. Robert E. Lee was surrendering to the Northern WASP scum politicians.

    Still in Saigon baby boomer James Webb is a big fan of Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down."

    Neil Young is a Canadian baby boomer arsehole.

    About 30 of my rants disguised as comments have failed to go through. Sometimes rants bring to light ways of thinking that need to be brought to the fore.
    , @Autochthon
    That is who we are.
  78. Madrid says:

    I just got home and looked at my copy of Orientalism. It’s actually not the preface, but the 25 page Afterword to the 1994 edition of Orientalism.

    Read More
  79. @ogunsiron
    Slightly OT :
    I never got around to reading Fanon and I think you should go over him too at some point.

    I haven’t read Fanon, but, yeah, this John Milius / Walter Sobchak perspective of these supposedly leftist intellectuals as more like … the man in the black pajamas, a worthy foe, Dude … might be productive.

    Read More
  80. iffen says:
    @Gabriel M

    It didn’t help Said become reconciled to Western supremacy that perhaps the greatest movie of his young manhood, Lawrence of Arabia, was about how the Arabs had needed a weird gay English Orientalist named T.E. Lawrence to teach them enough about nationalism to throw off the Ottoman Yoke.
     
    Well he should have got over it because it's true. Arab nationalism is about indigenous to the Middle East as a Mars bar is to Jupiter. It's primary appeal was always to western educated Christians like Said itself and like all western imports it has been a disaster and, in the long term, failed to take.

    But cruel accidents of history deprived Said of a nation to govern and sent him into exile in the capital of his enemy, New York, where he became a professor of European literature at Columbia.

     

    Wow, that's rough. In reality, Said could have gone to any Arab country he wanted and governed it; he grew up in Egypt, his family had branches all around the Middle East and, anyway, that's what pan-Arab nationalism is all about. He didn't want to because, generally speaking, Arab countries suck and, specifically, his family's business in Cairo was looted by a mob in 1952: revealed preferences.

    The neoconservative magazine Commentary devoted much effort in the 1990s to proving that the building hadn’t been the property of Said’s father. Instead, Commentary triumphantly but anticlimactically trumpeted, the house had belonged to…his aunt.

     

    The article is quite boring and pedantic, but it more than adequately demonstrates that a lot of Said's autobiography is fiction. This is not wholly insignificant. Palestinian propaganda makes much of Palestinians fondly stoking the keys to their stolen houses, forever etched upon their memory in truly organic way that interloper Zionists cannot understand. Whenever you actually bother to look into one of these stories, you find it's made up.

    The story just made me feel sorry for Said. I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders. Said must have felt toward the Israelis rather like a South Carolinian whose plantation had been burned down by General Sherman felt toward the damn Yankees
     
    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance. Incidentally, Egyptian Jews had property confiscated in excess of the entirety of mandate Palestine. My step-grandmother was one of them; I don't remember her going to the border to throw rocks like a retarded seven year old, but I'll call her up to check.

    P.S.


    Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_vengeance_of_edward_said_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4YmQmSw2b
     
    Taki is so beta it's unreal.

    Whenever you actually bother to look into one of these stories, you find it’s made up.

    No Palestinians were harmed, exiled, or killed in the making of my country.

    Read More
  81. @AndrewR
    Did Said ever discuss the JQ in depth or did he really not distinguish between Hebrews and Anglos???

    Said hated Bernard Lewis, but by aiming most of his fire at 19th Century Europeans, he managed to keep his targets pretty gentile.

    In general, he handled Jewish issues quite deftly, for example, teaming with Daniel Barenboim to start a classical orchestra for Palestinians: an admirable initiative.

    Read More
  82. @Vinay
    This whole notion of obsessing about the motivations behind the ideas of influential people seems wrongheaded to me. It makes some sense to do so for ideas which are prominent BECAUSE an influential person is advocating them but is pointless when those ideas are the very reason why the person is famous or influential.

    For example, Naipaul's fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims so it makes sense to question what motivated him to use his talent and prestige to write about them. Washington Post was hugely influential long before Bezos bought it so it makes sense to analyze how his ownership affects how they use their influence.

    It doesn't make much sense to obsess about Tom Wolfe's southernness or Edward Said's Middle Eastern heritage. "Orientalism" isn't taken seriously because of Said's prestige, rather, Said is prestigious BECAUSE of "Orientalism".

    Naipaul’s fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims

    Naipaul, who doesn’t much like Muslims, didn’t win his Nobel Prize before 9/11, but he got it about 6 weeks after 9/11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    Naipaul, who doesn’t much like Muslims, didn’t win his Nobel Prize before 9/11, but he got it about 6 weeks after 9/11.

    I thought that the "Sir Vidays shadow" by Paul Theroux may have helped him as Theroux gloated that Naipaul would never get a Nobel
  83. iffen says:
    @Madrid
    I enjoy Steve Sailor's writings, but this essay is unfair to Said. It's more an ad hominem attack of the kind that Sailor deplores when the New Globalist left uses it. Just a few observations here because I don't have time to do a proper critique here.

    Most obviously, this essay fails to engage with the long preface to Orientalism that Said wrote later (I believe sometime in the 90's) in which he attempted to contextualize his original book. One thing Said clarified in that preface (if my memory serves me correctly) was that nothing in his critique of the old Orientalists implied that their works contained no knowledge of the ME-- and he lamented the fact that his book was read in that particularly reductive way. Rather his main critique of their tradition was that the knowledge that they did generate was being coopted by people who wanted to do harm to their object of study-- and he implored them to distance themselves from that use of their work. He also dealt quite adroitly with the criticism that many of the best Orientalists were 19th century Germans, showing that they were often in close correspondence with English and French officials who were running the empires. Said elsewhere is famous for saying something that is frankly quite Sailoreque-- namely that stereotypes are often quite accurate and that is precisely why they are so injurious, because you as an individual don't ever want to be reduced to a stereotype, particular if you are being conquered by those who are generating the stereotypes-- see for example, Hilary's "deplorable" comment.

    More importantly, in that preface, he says that while the Orientalists and Arabists of the past were implicated in Western imperialism and American hegemony in the ME, they were infinitely more knowledgeable and fairminded about the ME than the State Department apparatchniks who followed them and replaced them during the Reagan and Clinton years. I don't think when Said wrote this preface (I think it was the 90's) that the term neo-conservative was in wide use, but neo-con zionists are quite obviously the people he was referring to as having unfortunately replaced the WASP Arabists. He very clearly lamented the fact that these new interlopers had not even the vaguest interest in learning the Arabic language.

    But the most important omission here is that Said wrote in that preface that he was most appalled by how the book had been read in the ME. He complained that in the ME itself, it had been taken up as some kind of bible by young reactionaries saying, "look we don't have to reform ourselves-- we are fine the way we are. We don't need any democracy or any other political traditions invented in the West." Said spent much of his writings after Orientalism trying to correct this-- trying to show how there was a middle way between the secularist strongmen ruling the Arab world on behalf of the west and the Islamist and before that communist revolutionaries trying to overturn those dictators.

    Finally, the world has become so much bleaker for both the ME and North America-- events have transpired so quickly and so terribly. I don't think that Said would have had anything in common with the contemporary Post-colonial academy. He was never fond for example of Gayatri Spivak, his colleague at Columbia. Said was first and foremost a traditionalist-- he always loved Conrad, for example, the subject of his first book. He loved him and thought first and foremost the West should stick to its traditions. Said was an atheistic leftist traditionalist-- he thought the tradition was the path to his own insights.

    Anyway, I expect better of Sailor-- if he wants to contact me, I can send him an email with references.

    It’s more an ad hominem attack

    think about Said instead as a conservative with natural, healthy concentric loyalties to his clan and race,

    He was a brilliant literary critic, a near professional-level classical pianist, and almost movie-star handsome. His many friends considered him a superior individual.

    But I have to admire the boyish energy that the aged and ailing professor displayed

    Said had normal, masculine, conservative affections for his blood and soil.

    Crown Jewel:
    basically redneck and wholesome emotion: Don’t come around here no more.

    I’ve seen ad hominem before, I’ve done ad hominem before, I enjoy a good ad hominem as well as the next guy, this sir, was no ad hominem.

    What’s in your wallet?

    Read More
  84. @Vinay
    This whole notion of obsessing about the motivations behind the ideas of influential people seems wrongheaded to me. It makes some sense to do so for ideas which are prominent BECAUSE an influential person is advocating them but is pointless when those ideas are the very reason why the person is famous or influential.

    For example, Naipaul's fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims so it makes sense to question what motivated him to use his talent and prestige to write about them. Washington Post was hugely influential long before Bezos bought it so it makes sense to analyze how his ownership affects how they use their influence.

    It doesn't make much sense to obsess about Tom Wolfe's southernness or Edward Said's Middle Eastern heritage. "Orientalism" isn't taken seriously because of Said's prestige, rather, Said is prestigious BECAUSE of "Orientalism".

    Naipaul’s fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims

    Naipaul, who doesn’t much like Muslims, didn’t win his Nobel Prize before 9/11, but he got it about 6 weeks after 9/11.

    Read More
  85. @Vinay
    This whole notion of obsessing about the motivations behind the ideas of influential people seems wrongheaded to me. It makes some sense to do so for ideas which are prominent BECAUSE an influential person is advocating them but is pointless when those ideas are the very reason why the person is famous or influential.

    For example, Naipaul's fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims so it makes sense to question what motivated him to use his talent and prestige to write about them. Washington Post was hugely influential long before Bezos bought it so it makes sense to analyze how his ownership affects how they use their influence.

    It doesn't make much sense to obsess about Tom Wolfe's southernness or Edward Said's Middle Eastern heritage. "Orientalism" isn't taken seriously because of Said's prestige, rather, Said is prestigious BECAUSE of "Orientalism".

    Here’s my opinion of Said:

    Read More
  86. @Arclight
    Black Americans are part of the national family. Although I don't mythologize them and put them on a pedestal as the left loves to do, they are here and it is undeniable that for most of the time they have been present in the US they have been treated abominably. I have no patience for those whose life choices make communities a worse place to live than they ought to be and support using cultural pressure and law enforcement to change that to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most are decent people and deserve the same respect and protections of citizenism as anyone else.

    The idea of tyrannizing black Americans is repugnant. However, if we were to make another attempt at integration, minus all the Affirmative Action nonsense etc., wouldn’t we still run into the problem of achievement? In a meritocratic society, black Americans would lag behind White Americans in a statistically and experientially noticeable way. Isn’t that unfair to black Americans? Wouldn’t it breed a new and different kind of resentment among blacks? I don’t see a way out of this problem (unless some kind of separation becomes popular).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Indeed. Inequality is an inherent function of biology. And resentment at that inequality may not be inherent but it does seem pretty intractable.
  87. @Steve Sailer
    Tom Petty's performance of "I Won't Back Down" at the 9/11 concert was pretty awesome. He looked like a starving Confederate enlistee who wanted General Lee to lead the boys into the hills in April 1865 to keep the war going guerilla-style.

    In comparison, Neil Young performed "Imagine."

    Robert E. Lee should have known that he wasn’t surrendering to military man Ulysses S. Grant. Robert E. Lee was surrendering to the Northern WASP scum politicians.

    Still in Saigon baby boomer James Webb is a big fan of Tom Petty’s “Won’t Back Down.”

    Neil Young is a Canadian baby boomer arsehole.

    About 30 of my rants disguised as comments have failed to go through. Sometimes rants bring to light ways of thinking that need to be brought to the fore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Correct on all counts.
    , @Autochthon
    "We have fought this fight as long, and as well as we know how. We have been defeated. For us as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation." — Robert Edward Lee

    Lee didn't surrender to any person or even government, as such. He surrendered to reality because he was not stupid; he'd lost a war of attrition.

    He faced an army twice the size of his own, with an overwhelming capacity for industrial and agricultural production and complete naval superiority precluding supply and trade. It's a testament to his genuius and their valor his men withstood four years. The war was effectively a historical experiment in how the American Revolutionary War would have ended but for the Atlantic Ocean and the intercession of third parties, so great were the disparities.

    The man would have surrendered to a monkey in a top hat if that was called for to end the inevitable massacre he could finally stave off more.

    Neither Grant nor any politician in Washington or elsewhere had much to do with it, so I don't understand that portion of the rant. Maybe the sense is list in another one Steve embargoed.
  88. Jake says:
    @Jack D
    Most people on the right have no problem with blacks per se, although they may not be wild about certain aspects of black behavior. A large part of modern black bad behavior has been enabled by the left, from Genuis T. Coates down to welfare moms. The idea that blacks are held back by racism at every turn in 2017 America is ridiculous - America voted twice for Obama, Oprah is our national sweetheart, etc. The question is not whether citizenism wants blacks, it's whether blacks want citizenism or see themselves as a people apart and deserving of special consideration just for being black.

    The vast majority of blacks want – NO, they DEMAND – to be treated as a special people apart, who deserve special rights and privileges, and perks, forever.

    If Affirmative Action preferences and set asides were abolished, perhaps a million blacks would be in the streets, rioting and beating and killing, until such time as they got their ‘rights’ back with an apology and guarantee that all conservative whites would be punished, or else the national guard forced them to behave.

    The black is now, surely largely a result of Liberal white petting for roughly 2 centuries, a violent, spoiled brat child of a race.

    Read More
  89. syonredux says:
    @peterike
    It's impressive how much damage one person with a subversive idea can cause. Think of Derrida, think of Alinsky, think of Boas, think of Bernays. A great deal of the time these subversive thinkers are Jews. Said is a real outlier in that regard.

    It’s impressive how much damage one person with a subversive idea can cause. Think of Derrida, think of Alinsky, think of Boas, think of Bernays. A great deal of the time these subversive thinkers are Jews. Said is a real outlier in that regard.

    Well, besides Said, Foucault and Lacan come to mind as non-Jewish intellectuals who have had a subversive influence on Western Civilization.

    Read More
  90. Tiny Duck says:
    @snorlax
    OT/Flynn: Here's what I said on Lion of the Blogosphere's post criticizing the DeVos selection 2 weeks ago:

    I’d be pretty disappointed [if she were voted down], not because I think she’s even remotely a good pick but because it’s critically important to keep up the momentum in the early days of an administration. Defeats and momentum-stalling pyrrhic victories are what stop Presidents from realizing their agendas.

    That’s why everyone always talks about the first 100 days. You want the waverers to feel caught up in the historical moment instead of worrying about their reelections.
     
    Now CNN's reporting the Pudzer nomination is dead. Like Flynn, I think his was a nomination that was ill-advised in the first place, but that's not what's important. The gazelle's wounded, the hyenas smell blood, and it can't outrun them anymore.

    Every Trump initiative, from good (addressing immigration) to unimportant (rapprochement with Russia) to bad (replace Obamacare with Libertariancare) is looking dead in the water. For example, the "muh free trade" shitbirds have taken the opportunity to kill even the mildest, most free-market libertarian-approved proposal to preserve good-paying blue-collar jobs.

    I get a lot of flak for being a "defeatist" or "concern troll," and I admit I've been too quick to predict doom for Trump on a number of occasions, but this really does feel like a low moment where there isn't a clear path to recovery.

    Spot on

    Trump pissed off the media and the CIA and now he (and his alt right fellow travelers) are about to feel the backlash

    You started this fight, we are going to finish it

    Read More
    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Troll: snorlax
    • Replies: @fish
    Rule 1: Never come between Dindu and his turtle....eben ip he be smashin it fo bein diprespckful.


    http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20170215/police-disabled-daytona-veteran-beaten-by-suspects-accused-in-turtle-killing
  91. syonredux says:
    @ogunsiron
    Slightly OT :
    I never got around to reading Fanon and I think you should go over him too at some point.

    Slightly OT :
    I never got around to reading Fanon and I think you should go over him too at some point.

    How fortunate for you. I’ve been forced to read his stuff multiple times.

    I have a hard time taking seriously a guy who talks about the trauma inflicted on his psyche by Johnny Weissmuller’s “White Body” in the Tarzan films….

    Read More
  92. Jake says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    Robert E. Lee should have known that he wasn't surrendering to military man Ulysses S. Grant. Robert E. Lee was surrendering to the Northern WASP scum politicians.

    Still in Saigon baby boomer James Webb is a big fan of Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down."

    Neil Young is a Canadian baby boomer arsehole.

    About 30 of my rants disguised as comments have failed to go through. Sometimes rants bring to light ways of thinking that need to be brought to the fore.

    Correct on all counts.

    Read More
  93. AndrewR says:
    @pepperinmono
    Agree.
    Blacks can be "White" too.
    They need to assimilate better.
    As Charles Murray has shown, they were beginning to until the 50's.
    LBJ and the welfare state and herd voting and exploitation by Democrats and their own natural proclivities have enabled Blacks to decimate themselves.
    It is spreading to White underclasses.
    This problem must be fixed--they are not going anywhere.
    The way Democrats have treated Blacks to this day is one of the vilest evils in the history of America.

    Very few blacks seem to hold any grudge towards the post-JFK Democrat party

    Read More
  94. AndrewR says:
    @JohnnyD
    ,
    I always find it weird that Jorge Ramos is allowed to be a victim, when he's clearly Spanish/European. I think he supports "Amerindian empowerment" because it's a way for white Hispanics, such as himself, to have more power and influence in the United States. But the joke is that most Hispanics living in the United States look more like Cesar Chavez and George Lopez.

    Well most Americans and Mexicans are too dumb to tell the difference. Why not milk it for what it’s worth? White Hispanics will end up on top of the browning US just as they dominate every other Latin American country.

    Read More
  95. @Dahlia
    It bothers me that Tom Petty doesn't come back to Florida more. Not that I know him, or will ever likely meet him, but it bothers me all the same.

    Petty put down some roots in my part of the world. This ranks with Valley Girl as the all-time San Fernando Valley song:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dahlia
    "Refugee" is about the sexiest song, certainly one of the sexiest videos ever made.

    Gainesville is very proud of him and he does fit in so well. It's not just big ol' galuts here: lot of smart, sensitive guys and they're very special, too! (And, IMHO, the most attractive...)

    He could afford a second home here.
  96. “I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders.”

    This is not a great example. For one thing, the Japanese didn’t found Los Angeles, and there isn’t any record of their living in California prior to Europeans.

    Also, I doubt that Said’s father referred to himself as ‘Palestinian.’ Any references to ‘Palestinians’ prior to ’48 were referring to Jewish colonists. If you called a South Syrian ( which is what they called themselves) Palestinian prior to sometime in the 50s they would have tried to cut your throat.

    The problem for Palestinians as they exist today is that nationalism never really caught on with the Arabs. Nasser tried uniting with Syria, but that was a disaster. The Hashemites control Jordan, but they’re essentially from Saudia. Persians are nationalistic, and so are Turks. But Arabs, not really. Comes from being nomadic.

    Hamas rules Gaza, but they aren’t Palestinian nationalists, they are Islamists, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Fatah is a nationalist organization, but there is a good chance they would lose any free election in the West Bank to an Islamist-oriented party. George Habash was Christian, bit the PFLP was pan-Arabist and then Marxist-Leninist. Just look at the demographics to see how Christians are faring in the occupied territories. Not good, even in Bethlehem.

    Palestinian nationalism appeals to Westerners, and to Said because that was his world. There are many more Westerners passionate about Palestinian statehood per se than Arabs. Most Pals have real grievances about the loss of territory, but Arabs generally just see it as Muslim Arab land lost to the West.

    For them, all Muslim past conquests are forever, and the West is just territory to be conquered in the future.

    A better analogy might be if the Christians re-took Constantinople.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There are many more Westerners passionate about Palestinian statehood per se than Arabs.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    Hell, there are more Jew-haters that support Palestinian nationalism than there are Arabs that support it.
    , @Anon
    Replace Japanese with Mexicans, et voila. A good alt-history fiction might have a Carlist colony there, taking over California in the 1840s (so not involved in the Mexican-American War) and drawing Mexican/South American monarchists to create a Spanish-speaking west coast country.

    Or a bilingual Basque/Spanish country, which would be stranger.

    The analogy of Catholic Carlists / Jewish Zionists is interesting. Jerry Pournelle already did a "Carlists in Space" type story, but iirc it was a pretty lame rehash of the Spanish Civil War (entertaining, though).
  97. Ironically, Said had the IQ and cultural sophistication to devise complex-sounding and thus hugely influential justifications for his basically redneck and wholesome emotion: Don’t come around here no more.

    Here’s the famous and/or headscratching video to Tom Petty’s “Don’t Come Around Here No More” that I linked to in the last line of my essay:

    Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics is the Orientalist “hookah-smoking caterpillar” who plays the sitar.

    Petty is playing the Mad Hatter because he looks exactly like the Mad Hatter in Tenniel’s original illustrations for Alice in Wonderland.

    Petty himself is kind of a redneck from the Florida Panhandle.

    Although everything is as always more complicated. He grew up in a redneck family, but felt alienated from his redneck dad because he didn’t like football, he was a delicate lad interested in poetry, music, and art.

    But, presumably, making his career in the music industry sometimes brings out his redneck roots in reaction to his new environment: e.g., the video and the arrangement are crazy Lewis Carroll stuff, but Petty’s lyrics are quintessentially redneck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    He is really not redneck at all. He was an artistic fish-out-of-water until he left. (Not that it matters but Gainesville isn't in the panhandle, just FYI) he was very out of step with the good ole boy culture of small town Florida.
  98. AndrewR says:
    @Mikey Darmody
    The idea of tyrannizing black Americans is repugnant. However, if we were to make another attempt at integration, minus all the Affirmative Action nonsense etc., wouldn't we still run into the problem of achievement? In a meritocratic society, black Americans would lag behind White Americans in a statistically and experientially noticeable way. Isn't that unfair to black Americans? Wouldn't it breed a new and different kind of resentment among blacks? I don't see a way out of this problem (unless some kind of separation becomes popular).

    Indeed. Inequality is an inherent function of biology. And resentment at that inequality may not be inherent but it does seem pretty intractable.

    Read More
  99. JohnnyD says:
    @ogunsiron
    Slightly OT :
    I never got around to reading Fanon and I think you should go over him too at some point.

    ,
    I can tell you from personal experience that Fanon is hard to read. But he had a lot of influence on the anti-European/White crowd. Fanon was part of the left’s transformation from socialism/class struggle to hating all white people and Western Civilization.

    Read More
  100. @JohnnyD
    ,
    I always find it weird that Jorge Ramos is allowed to be a victim, when he's clearly Spanish/European. I think he supports "Amerindian empowerment" because it's a way for white Hispanics, such as himself, to have more power and influence in the United States. But the joke is that most Hispanics living in the United States look more like Cesar Chavez and George Lopez.

    I always find it weird that Jorge Ramos is allowed to be a victim, when he’s clearly Spanish/European. I think he supports “Amerindian empowerment” because it’s a way for white Hispanics, such as himself, to have more power and influence in the United States.

    Weird? How does that make Jorge Ramos any different from our own goodwhites?

    Read More
  101. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Said is the great outlier in American intellectualism.

    Someone like him would stand out less in Europe with its sizable Muslim presence. Also, due to European colonialism over Muslim lands, there is more sympathy toward Muslims there than in the US. Algerian War was France’s Vietnam War. Even though fewer died, it was, in some ways, more traumatic because France had ruled over Algeria as an integral part of France for so long.
    When Vietnam War proved unwinnable in the US, the issue was simply between ‘keep fighting commies’ or ‘bring troops home’.

    Once the US was out of Vietnam, the nation meant little in the US imagination. If Americans thought about Vietnam at all, it was in terms of war. In contrast, France had a long history with Algeria prior to war. So, even when the French left Algeria, a part of French psyche sought deeper reconciliation. (Turning France itself into Algeria isn’t a good idea, btw.)
    Though Algeria was a special case due to close alignment with France for over 100 yrs, other parts of the Muslim world also came under decisive control of Europeans. Nearly all the current Muslim nations are really the result of Western Imperialist meddling. The borders were imposed by foreigners. Upon taking power from the Ottomans, the West had no clear idea what to do. The Ottomans had had no use for nation-states in the Arab World. They just regarded the land as part of their empire; indeed, even the idea of the Turkic core was vague back then.

    Turks ruled over various tribes with no fixed borders. If a single European power had taken over the Middle East, it might have carried on like the Turks. But Britain and France decided to divvy up the region, and this led to ersatz-nation-states. European mindset was a contradiction. Europe was the birthplace of the modern-nation-state(though one could argue the US was the first true nation-state), but it was also a World Empire. So, Europeans wanted to rule the Muslim MENA in an imperial way(like Brits ruled over India) but also to impose something like nation-state-ism over the area. The Brits themselves practiced a kind of contradiction in their rule over India. On the one hand, India was not supposed to be like a nation-state. It was too big, too diverse, too varied to come together as a nation.

    It was an imperial domain. But on the hand, the idea of ‘India’ did eventually lead to the coalescing of countless peoples of that region against the British. Indeed, the genius of Gandhi and early nationalists was to both value and oppose British rule. Even as they were trying to push the Brits out, they knew that it was British domination that had a galvanizing effect all across diverse and divided India with so many ethnic groups and languages. And it was English as language that united various Indian elites together.

    Anyway, the US role in the Middle East has been different than the European role… at least up to the End of the Cold War. Especially beginning with the Suez Crisis, the US posited itself as the friend of the Arabs against the European(and even Zionist) imperialists. This won the US some real capital in the Middle East. And had it not been for Israel(and Vietnam, much romanticized by the Third World), the US might have been an admired nation in the region. But the US backing of Israel drove rest of Middle East closer to the USSR. America’s one real hold in the region was Iran under the Shah, but that turned to be a mixed blessing. With the CIA coup, US had Iran as a loyal ally… but this planted the seeds of anti-Americanism. The other great prize was Egypt under Sadat that turned from the USSR and drew closer to the US, even making peace with Israel. (But democracy led to anti-American government that was the removed by the Egyptian military with US backing.) Still, for most Americans, the Middle East was just part of foreign policy, not something intimately linked with US history. Things were different for Europeans whose relations with Middle East goes back forever, sometimes with the Middle East having the upperhand over the West. Given this complicated history, someone like Edward Said wouldn’t have stood out much in Europe.

    But he stood out in America. This would have been less so had it not been for the Israel-Palestinian issue. It was Israel and Jewish power that drew the US ever closer to the Middle East.

    [MORE]

    And after the Cold War, the US would become the main imperial power in the region, causing more trouble than Europeans once did. And the US motives in the region and vis-a-vis Muslims has to be one of the most schizo things in American history. As a staunch supporter of Israel, the US has been hostile to much of the Muslim world. After all, both Libs and Cons have said over and over while pointing at the map, “little democratic Israel surrounded by all those big bad hostile Muslim nations.” Such perspective implies ‘Jews and Israel GOOD and CIVILIZED’ and ‘Muslims and Arabs BAD and BARBARIC’. Also, the US has been going around calling every other Arab leader a ‘new hitler’. Both Conservatives and Liberals love to point out how corrupt and repressive the Saudis are depending on who’s in office. So, when Bush was in office, Libs loved to point out how the Bushes were close to those loathsome Saudis. But when Obama was in office, it was the Cons who were saying Obama bows down to those murderous camel jockeys. It was commonplace for both Libs and Cons to point out how backward the Muslims are. And if GOP and Democratic Party — and ‘conservative’ pundits and ‘liberal’ celebrities — are agreed on one thing, it’s that we must support Israel. That issue makes both political parties seem like mere branches of One True Party that rules the US: the AIPAC party.
    So, the US is a nation that looks on Israel as the only civilized nation in the region at war with all those barbaric Muslims. The US also believes that the Muslim World is either ruled by ‘new hitlers’ or ‘terrorists’(though the US seems to be creating conditions that favor terrorists running amok to fight the ‘new hitlers’). The US also has been saying that Persian Iran, a nation with no nukes, has this grand 007 villain plan to make all these nukes to blow up Israel: ‘wipe it off the map’. GOP is heavily funded by Adelson who even calls for nuking of Iran. So, given all this talk from both Cons and Libs, you’d think the Muslim World is Forever-Enemy. And Jews played a big role in creating this impression. Hollywood often used the Muslim Terrorist as main villain. And Jewish-dominated Media favor the kind of people who praise Israel, show little sympathy for Palestinians, and hate Iran as much as they hate Russia. But at the same time, we are now supposed to look upon Muslims as poor little helpless darlings, the new ‘huddled’ masses yearning to be free, and, most surreal of all, the new best friends of Jews!! But if we’ve been told for so long that Muslims are nuts, why are they suddenly these wonderful little darlings? If we had to defend free and democratic Israel from all these terrible Muslim nations(the new nazi nations), why must we now dote on the Muslims as the nicest people(who need to be saved from Hitler Trump)? Of course, there is an excuse for that too. We are told Islam is a religion of peace but some bad eggs gave it a bad name. Also, most Muslims want democracy and liberal values, BUT ‘new hitlers’ like Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad have prevented them from having nice societies over there. But what happened in those nations when the US(and its coalition of the swilling) took out the ‘new hitlers’? Either democracy doesn’t work there or the diverse conditions created by European imperialists do not make for stable democracy. (Democracy didn’t work in Yugoslavia either, and it broke apart. And can anyone imagine democracy working in something like the Austro-Hungarian Empire?) And even when democracy did work, like in Egypt with rise of Muslim Brotherhood, the US aided the military to retake power through a violent coup. Also, it’s hilarious that the Jewish community would be attacking Trump for his anti-Muslim sentiments when it was Jewish Power that has spread the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab trope over the yrs through Hollywood movies and news that always favored Israel over Palestinians.
    The one time that the US was unequivocally for Muslim Warriors was in Afghanistan when Carter-Reagan’s support of the Jihadis did defeat the Soviet Empire… but then it came to haunt the US until things finally came to a head in 9/11.
    But the real decisive break came in the Gulf War. US had been inching in and out of the Muslim World. Reagan entered Lebanon but soon left. He bombed Libya for a day to send a message. The CIA pulled off dirty tricks here and there, the biggest one being in Iran. But all these meddlings led to more complications. US support of ‘freedom fighters’ in Afghanistan would later lead to 9/11, but maybe not if the Gulf War hadn’t happened. After all, the MAIN motivation of the terrorists was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, the holy land. Osama and his cohorts tagged on the Palestinian issue and starving Iraqi children to their list of grievances, but the big kahuna was the US ‘occupation’ of Saudi Arabia. That was TOO MUCH. But why did the Gulf War happen? Again, it had something to do with US meddling. When Iran was in crisis following the Islamic Revolution, Hussein gambled and attacked to take a chunk of Iran. The US aided Hussein under the table, and when Iraq finally ‘won’, it filled Hussein with hubris, and he took Kuwait, and that was green light for Neocon Zionists to destroy Iraq first through war and then sanctions. (Iraq ‘won’ the Iran-Iraq War in context of what Iran had promised. Iran said the war won’t end until Hussein is driven out of power. Having failed in that stated goal, Iraq seemed the winner. If Iran had no stated goals, Iraq might have been seen as the loser since Hussein also failed in his objective as well.)

    Anyway, the Gulf War made the US the premier global power in the Middle East. Even though Hussein was a punk and few Arabs liked him, many did see him as the Big Guy who isn’t pushed around by the West. So, his defeat was deeply humiliating to the Muslim World. Initially, this seemed to lead to some positive dividends. So many Palestinians had banked on US humiliation in Iraq(like in Vietnam). But the overwhelming victory of the US in Iraq made Palestinians give up hope on violent change, and this brought them to the peace table under Clinton. (Back then, few thought that Gulf War would lead to 9/11.) With the US now deep into the Middle East, it had to find moral justification for its destruction of so many Muslim lives through starvation, bombing, invasion, and sanctions. With Iran, the excuse was always ‘nukes’. With Iraq, it was evil Hussein the ‘new hitler’. Iraqis were just yearning to be free, so if we get rid of Hussein, Iraq will become nice and democratic. (And maybe Afghanistan too if we rid it of the Taliban.) Iraqis were so dying to be free that it was worth it kill 100,000s of Iraqi women and children with sanctions. Those sanctions were supposedly necessary to bring down Hussein to save the people who were hurt most by sanctions. The whole thing was turning into a farce. And US needed to be there to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Right, because the US has been an impartial and fair player between the two sides since 1948. American complications in the Middle East make its involvement in Vietnam seem like a picnic. The problem of macro-politics is it’s difficult to pull back from once the game is on. It’s like making movies. If you are writing a book, writing a song, or drawing a painting, you might quit early on or even halfway if it’s not going right. After all, not much money and time is invested in such endeavors. It’s do it or drop it. But once many millions and large personnel have been poured into a movie, it’ difficult to call it quits halfway. Even if the project seems doomed, it goes on simply because it’s too grand a project. It’s like what David Thompson said of Cimino’s HEAVEN’S GATE. Everyone began to feel it’s gonna be a disaster, but so much had been committed to the project that no one could say NO. It’s like after Hitler invaded Russia, he couldn’t undo it. It was too big, and it had a logic of its own. Once you commit yourself to something like that, you have to stick to it to the very end, win or lose. Quitting is no longer an option. And this is why Merkel’s mass-migration is a huge disaster. When you take in all those people on such grandiose moral claims, it’s hard to say, “Oh, we made a mistake, you must go back.” Sweden is also sinking due to the grandiosity of its project. If Sweden had experimented with just a few refugees to see what would happen, it could easily reverse things. But Sweden declared itself a ‘humanitarian superpower’ and loudly invited the world to showcase its wonderfulness. It’s now do-or-die or more like do-and-die.

    America got itself so deeply involved in the Middle East that its narrative is now totally batty. We must side with Israel against those barbaric Muslims… who are helpless darlings yearning to be free… but they are oppressed by ‘new hitlers’… so we must promote democracy in the region by invading them or bombing them… or by aiding Jihadis(the kind who did 9/11) against a modernizer like Assad… and if indeed democracy there leads to victory of regimes ‘we’ don’t like, we must support a military coup like the one against Morsi in Egypt… and when all fails, we must pretend that Muslim women in hijabs are united with white women with pussy-hats against Trump the literally Hitler… because he wants to fight ISIS and work with Russia to stabilize Syria so that it won’t lead to more refugees… or whatever. Gaddafi went with Western Political logic, and look how he turned out. Even the fact that he paid good money to invite American pop stars didn’t make him ‘cool enough’ to be spared.

    Edward Said was a man of courage and venality. He missed his chance due to fundamental intellectual dishonesty. But he has a compelling narrative to the extent that the West has been so full of BS about the Middle East.
    Said, ever the polemicist, had to turn everything into cops and robbers. He is half-right that imperialist powers paint the Other in such a way to gain control over them. We see that happening today. And it’s not just with the Other but among Europeans. Consider the wide range of British views of Germans(once Huns) and Russians(sometimes the mongol hordes) in the 19th and 20th century. Politics has always been like this, and I think most people know this. Where Said was more interesting was his argument that this wan’t just a political ploy but a deeply entrenched intellectual one as well. Said was onto something. We tend to think of politics and academics(and media) as separate. Politics is a compromised game where one says and does whatever to gain an advantage. It is inherently unfair, and its purpose is to gain or win, not to be objective or impartial. In contrast, modern academia is supposed to be objective, rational, factual, empirical, and impartial. Scientific. It must favor truth above all. And this goes for journalism as well. Unlike traditional scholars who were little more than scribes of the Power, the modern ideal of the Western academic is someone who who unflinchingly seeks the truth. Said’s argument was that this was never true of Western scholars. Even the ones who claimed to be or tried to be impartial were conditioned by Western biases and chauvinism. Knowingly or not, they were also part of the imperialist project. And this could be said for journalists too.
    This accusation is true enough(but then for all scholars of all cultures, Said included). If anyone should know this, it is Conservatives and race-realists(or race-ists). The current academia, though claiming to be free and impartial, is totally PC, totally biased and censorious, totally dogmatic in its core assumptions. I mean, who really trusts most of what is written about Russia, Iran, or Syria by most of the academia or media? Also, ethnic bias does color even supposedly dry research and academics and reporting. When journalist Jonathan Brent was sent to Russia to pore over Stalinist archives, his conclusion was totally Judeo-centric. Anne Applebaum’s history is geared to cover up Jewish crimes and magnify everything bad about Russia. Gee, I wonder why that is. Books on race-relations are a total joke despite their high academic tone.
    And American media and academia have been so biased in favor of Israel and Jews over Arabs and Palestinians… until relatively recently(in the academia than in the media that are still privately owned by Jewish oligarchs).
    Prior to arrival of masses of Third World immigrants, US intellectual life was defined by Anglos, Anglo-ized ethnics, Jews, and some token blacks. Blacks were into little else but blackness. Jews were all about the Holocaust and Israel. Jews might show sympathy for Third Worlders if useful in shaming Anglos(like its role in Vietnam). But there was very little Third World presence in American academia. But with rising immigration from non-white nations, this began to change. Though Said became a big name, he was an outlier because very few Palestinian or Arab intellectuals became heavy-hitters. For everyone like Said among Arab-Americans, there were a 1000 among Jews. The arrival of Hindus probably had more to do with rise of Third World subaltern studies. Also, there was the French influence. Since May 68, French intellectual radicalism became obsessed with the Other, with even homo Foucault going so far as to show sympathy for Islamists in Iran. And there are East Asians. Yellow Logic or Yellogic is actually quite simple. Lacking agency and spark, it will bend toward whatever happens to be prevailing wind, and since PC prevails in America, yellows will go that way. (But if the wind blows the other way any time soon, yellows will blow the new way.) Also, the logic of PC will naturally make the academia more pro-Palestinian over the long run. With more non-whites filling up universities that teach them that they are noble non-white ‘victims’ of evil whites, the non-whites will eventually connect the dots and see Jews as whites too. If non-whites are good and if whites are bad, then it means Palestinians(non-whites) are good while Jews(whites) are bad. No wonder Jews are scrambling all over the map in desperation. No matter which way they turn, they see ‘hitler’(in the form of Trump, Iran, Russia, Palestinians, Muslims, etc.) On the one hand, they still got the Holocaust card and still invoke it to defend Israel, but Netanyahu seems more and more like a nasty figure, especially as he has good relations with Trump. And if the evil white GOP is so pro-Israel, what does that mean? If the ‘far right’ parties in the EU are so pro-Zionist, does it mean Israel is ‘far right’ too? In a way, White Conservatives offer Jews a hand: “If Jews side with white nationalists, they can form a powerful pact against the non-whites.” BUT, the entire edifice of Jewish moral capital has been built on denouncing any White Consciousness as ‘racism’ and ‘nazism’.

    Also, how can Jews call for such hostile policies toward the Muslim World yet also claim to be such dear friends of Muslims who are being ‘victimized’ by Trump? After all, Trump has been in office just a few weeks whereas the desperate conditions in the Middle East are the result of Clinton, Bush, and Obama’s policies largely shaped by powerful Jewish hands.

    Edward Said could have been an honest critic of all these contradictions, but he chose to play the partisan-polemical game. Though he wrote about colonialism and imperialism around the world, his core angst had to do with Palestine, and that issue shaped his views of the past as well. He figured that since the West is so biased in favor of Zionists and against Palestinians NOW, things must have been the same BACK THEN. Indeed, current biases were rooted in past biases.
    His trick was to conflate the Zionist narrative with the ‘racist’ imperialist narrative. Said knew very well that ‘racism’ became the biggest sin in the modern world. Indeed, Israel was justified as a necessary nation constructed as bulwark against anti-Jewish ‘racism’ or antisemitism. But Said argued that Zionist assumptions about Arabs have roots in Western Imperialist assumptions about Arabs and the Orient.
    If Zionists tried to associate Arabs with ‘racism’ — “Nazi antisemitism died in Europe after WWII but had a second life among Arabs” — , people like Said returned the favor. So, Zionism was merely a replay of all the Western Imperialist ‘racist’ views of the Orient. And Jewish Zionists were hypocrites for encouraging anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice while making a big noise about Jews as main victims of white ‘racism’ in WWII. Zionism was the continuance of the grand ole tradition of European imperialism and ‘racism’.

    Now, Said was right about the political use of Orientalism. All nations see other cultures through the prism of political expediency. Indeed, Orientalism could be as positive as could be negative. What we are seeing now among the so-called ‘left’ is a kind of positive Orientalism. The hijab, instead of being depicted as a symbol of oppression, is being promoted as a symbol of cultural authenticity, tolerance, and diversity. Also, the Muslims are being idealized as a decent wonderful people being victimized by Hitler Trump. And during the Reagan Era, there was the positive Orientalism of Afghan ‘freedom fighters’(comparable to the Founding Fathers) at war with the cold ruthless killing machine of the Modern Soviet Union. Muslims were traditionalists and cultural conservatives at war with godless communism.
    This was also the case with the American Indians. Many old westerns presented them as hostile savages. But most movies since the late 60s have presented Indians as the misunderstood, the noble and courageous, or nature folks living in harmony with wolves and rivers. (How does one live in peace with predators like wolves?)
    So, Savagism could be noble or ignoble.

    Said was right about the bum rap that the Palestinians got from America(and still gets). And he was right about the venality of so many Zionist intellectuals and Jewish scholars. One doesn’t have to be a Palestinian to sense this. Just ask any Russian. Given what Jewish oligarchs and ‘advisers’ did to Russia in the 90s, you’d think that would be a crucial part of the narrative as to why Russia turned to Putin and nationalism. But read the NYT and most articles by scholars, and we get utter BS.
    And just ask white people in the US and EU. Jews in media and academia have been pushing policies to reduce, say, Hungarians and Poles into something like Palestinians through massive immigration. Globalists want millions of black Africans to colonize the wombs of Polish women. I hear that Brussels, the capital of EU, is now 1/3 Muslim. This is nuts, the Palestinianization of Europe. It’s displacement of the native people, just like what happened to Palestinians. But Jewish intellectuals and media people — and their cuck stooges and dogs — are using their power of narrative to argue that it’s all for the good and, if you disagree, you are an ‘extremist’ or ‘far right’ or ‘neo-nazi’ who should be punched in the head. (Maybe, Jews figure they can come to an understanding with Muslims. If Jews help Muslims reduce Europeans into New Palestinians, then the Muslims will forgive what Zionists did to Palestinians.)

    But Said, due to either venality of his own or bitterness, decided to fight fire with fire, and his positions became just as disingenuous and full of BS. Like Sartre, he ended up championing anything deemed anti-West or radical. So, his view of the USSR shows NO sympathy for the millions killed in Ukraine during the famine. He made common cause with the clown Ali Mazrui, whose show AFRICANS was so ludicrous that even PBS decided not to run it. (It’s good for laughs though, as Mazrui gushes about inspiring figures like Idi Amin.) Granted, such partisanship didn’t make Said worse than most louts and leeches in the academia or media. Also, despite his outsized influence, it is still totally overshadowed by that of Zionists. After all, the US policy toward Israel, Iran, Russia, China, Syria, Palestinians, and etc. owes everything to Jewish influence and NOTHING to Said’s influence. Said’s influence has been sequestered in the academia… but to the extent that the head controls the body, it may have long-term effect, especially as elite colleges will have more and more non-whites. (On the other hand, the most successful non-whites in the academia tend to be East Asians and Hindus, and their commitment to the Muslim cause seems perfunctory than passionate. Hindus have their own problem with Muslims, and India routinely goes with anti-Muslim politicians. And even though yellows might make obligatory noises, many will be like Amy Chua, marry Jews, and raise their kids as Jews. Their pro-Palestinian position seems more conformism on campus than conviction to lead a movement. Indeed, you’re likely to find more firebrand Jews in the BDS movement .)

    After WWII, Samuel Huntington’s CLASH OF CIVILIZATION became a big deal. Said argued against it, but I think both men were missing the point. The fact is, yes, the West and the Muslim World are indeed very different. But that shouldn’t be a problem as long as both avoid the clash. But why does the clash happen? Huntington didn’t want to touch too much on the WHY of the clash because he would have to address the J-question, a real risky move for a white gentile scholar.

    Also, Said’s always been of two minds about both the West and Middle East. He prefers to live in the West and in the Western way. He likes Western culture more, and his area of expertise is Western literature, which he read critically but admired. So, I’m not sure that his position was necessarily “Don’t come around here no more”. I think he would have welcomed Western influence and presence in the Middle East as long as Palestinians could have their own homeland and be masters over it. He was not like North Korean regime that really wants to shut the world out as a threat. Said was too cultured, educated, and cosmopolitan for that kind of ‘conservatism’. Indeed, even if Palestine had existed, I think he would have preferred ‘exile’ or ‘expat’ existence in Paris or NY or some place where he could rub shoulders with ‘better kind of people’. He was an elitist. But he did have an identity, it did have roots in Palestine, and he found it most unjust that their grievances went so unheard.

    In some ways, Palestinians are the most wronged people since the end of WWII. By this, I don’t mean they suffered the most. Even the Nakba had relatively low death count. And what Palestinians suffered is nothing compared to Great Leap Forward, Killing Fields in Cambodia, Rwanda massacre, Hussein’s gassing of Kurds, the endless jungle lunacies in Africa, the repression in North Korea and mass famines, US sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s, the war in Chechnya, NATO destruction of Libya, and etc.
    Not many Palestinians were killed. And those living within Israel have it pretty good. Things are bad in West Bank, but no one is starving there. Things are dire in Gaza, but the Hamas is committed to a war it simply can’t win.

    So, why are Palestinians the most wronged people since end of WWII? Because few people have been both so affected and so neglected(and even dehumanized) by the US narrative. Israel was made possible with US help. And Israel has been a main concern(even religion) in American politics for a long time. We’ve been told over and over that Israel is America’s #1 ally. So, no nation matters more to the US than Israel, yet the people who were mostly direly affected by the creation and expansion of Israel, the Palestinians, have been treated like either an Invisible People or ‘terrorists’. Also, the US prides itself as the policeman of the world. It claims to favor the weak people and nations against big bully nations like Russia, China, and Iran. US even came around on the issue of South Africa and sided with blacks against white minority rule. US now claims to be defending Lithuania and Estonia against Big Bad Russia that is about to start WWIII(or more like WWLOL). But if this is the globo-US narrative, why has it been so blind to the plight of Palestinians? Why the silence when Israel continues to take more of West Bank?
    So, within the context of US moral narrative, the Palestinians are the most wronged people. And I think this is what fueled Said’s bitterness. Suppose Zionism never happened. Suppose Syria or Egypt had swallowed up Palestine. Said might have been pissed, but he never would have expected much from grubby Egyptians or insidious Syrians. But then, Egyptians and Syrians never made grand moral claims.
    But Jews, esp after the Holocaust, made super-moral claims, and the US, as destroyer of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, enemy of Evil Soviet Empire, and redemptive nation following the Civil Rights Movement, billed itself as the Champion of all that is good, decent, and free around the world. A beacon of light, city on a hill, an exceptional and indispensable nation, and etc. Given such highfalutin claims, why the near-total blindspot on the plight of Palestinians?

    Said also had a strange relation with Jews, esp as he taught at Columbia, essentially a Jewish university. Some Jews hated him totally. Neocons painted him as a Jew-hating anti-American anti-Semite. But some Jews had a complicated relation with him. Most Liberal Jews have supported Israel, but they never felt good about what happened to Palestinians. So having Said around as a token critic of Israel relieved their conscience somewhat. It’s like they are for Israel but sensitive to its critic, ahem and amen.

    As for BDS lately, maybe it owes to the fact that the ‘left’ has run out of ‘great causes’. Their sense of righteous rage has to latch onto something, and what else is left, especially since Netanyahu loved to stick it to Obama and is so highly praised by the GOP?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I can't believe I read the whole thing! I don't mean that in a bad way, either, anon.

    That was very interesting and one hell of a summary. You should pick a handle.
  102. Thea says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Ironically, Said had the IQ and cultural sophistication to devise complex-sounding and thus hugely influential justifications for his basically redneck and wholesome emotion: Don’t come around here no more.

    Here's the famous and/or headscratching video to Tom Petty's "Don't Come Around Here No More" that I linked to in the last line of my essay:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JvF9vpqx8

    Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics is the Orientalist "hookah-smoking caterpillar" who plays the sitar.

    Petty is playing the Mad Hatter because he looks exactly like the Mad Hatter in Tenniel's original illustrations for Alice in Wonderland.

    Petty himself is kind of a redneck from the Florida Panhandle.

    Although everything is as always more complicated. He grew up in a redneck family, but felt alienated from his redneck dad because he didn't like football, he was a delicate lad interested in poetry, music, and art.

    But, presumably, making his career in the music industry sometimes brings out his redneck roots in reaction to his new environment: e.g., the video and the arrangement are crazy Lewis Carroll stuff, but Petty's lyrics are quintessentially redneck.

    He is really not redneck at all. He was an artistic fish-out-of-water until he left. (Not that it matters but Gainesville isn’t in the panhandle, just FYI) he was very out of step with the good ole boy culture of small town Florida.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right, but put Petty in the Hollywood Hills, and he starts feeling like a redneck a little.

    That kind of tension keeps people interesting.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Absolutely, Thea, that's about the only part of Florida that's still Southern - north of a line from Tampa through Orlando to Melbourne and east of Panama City. There's still a lot of Southerners interspersed in-between though (the partisans, if I may).

    Off-the-topic, but "Learning to Fly" is about skydiving, not flying, in my opinion. That's another great song by Petty, but (let's see if embedding works here) so is the one not many have heard of:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_td-Li1auAk

    Don't worry about - 0 through 1:10 "It's just the normal noises in here".
    , @Louis Renault
    Gainesville ain't like it was when Petty lived there.
  103. Lugash says:
    @Lot
    Pudzer was the worst cabinet pick, I hope he goes down. He is an open borders guy against the minimum wage. Trump needs a blue collar union man in that position.

    Glad to see Pudzer go. Trump seems to want to restore 1950s liberal capitalism. Pudzer is completely 21st century sociopath capitalism. Completely at odds with each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    I think you're giving Trump too much credit. He ran on restoring 1950s liberal capitalism. But when he got elected? Who did he pick to fill his positions? Generals (OK, 1950s-ish) and billionaires.

    He needs an right (alt or otherwise) to make sure he doesn't backslide on immigration, and a left to keep him from doing nothing more than enriching his buddies. That's what the left used to do before they decided it was more important to make sure men had the right to use the women's room.

    I didn't vote for Bernie, but I'm glad he's around.
  104. @Thea
    He is really not redneck at all. He was an artistic fish-out-of-water until he left. (Not that it matters but Gainesville isn't in the panhandle, just FYI) he was very out of step with the good ole boy culture of small town Florida.

    Right, but put Petty in the Hollywood Hills, and he starts feeling like a redneck a little.

    That kind of tension keeps people interesting.

    Read More
  105. Bill B. says:

    Robert Irwin’s take down of Edward Said’s Orientalism: “a scandal of pseudo-scholarship comparable to the works of Aleister Crowley or Madame Blavatsky”.

    https://www.amazon.com/Lust-Knowing-Orientalists-Their-Enemies-ebook/dp/B002RI9Z90/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1487199753&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=irwin+orientalits

    The great Australian skeptic Keith Windschuttle tears into Said (a good easy read):

    http://i-epistemology.net/v1/literature/159-edward-saids-qorientalismq-revisited.html

    EG:

    “The allegedly false essentialism of Orientalism, not only contradicts his own methodological assumptions, but is a curious argument in itself. Going back to the origins of a culture to examine its founding principles is hardly something to be condemned. This is especially so in the case of Islam where the founding book, the Koran, is taken much more literally by its adherents than the overt text of the Bible is taken by Christians today. In several countries, the Koran is both a religious and legal text. In others, like Egypt and Algeria, there are political movements prepared to resort to terrorism to have it made the basis of national law and authority. Moreover, one could not understand the most bitter division in the modern Islamic world, that between Shi’ites and Sunnis, without knowing its origins in the conflicts over succession after the death of Muhammed in 632, any more than one could properly understand events in contemporary Northern Ireland without some knowledge of the breach in the Christian world that occurred during the Reformation. One Muslim critic, Sadik Jalal al-’Azm, has argued that the kind of religious essentialism of which Said indicts Orientalism is actually necessary to understand the Muslim mind:

    ‘[I]t is true that in general the unseen is more immediate and real to the common citizens of Cairo and Damascus than it is to the present inhabitants of New York and Paris; it is true that religion “means everything” to the life of the Moroccan peasants in a way that must remain incomprehensible to present day American farmers.’”

    Read More
  106. @Discordiax
    This has nothing to do with Edward Said, but it's a Saileresque argument that I'd like to see Steve float and see if it goes anywhere.

    Sailer has extolled "citizenism" as an American policy approach, drawing the line of "us" and "them" at US citizenship. Sailer has also Noticed the data on the disadvantages of black Americans in the aggregate. These two are obviously in tension, if not in contradiction.

    But Sailer has also defined "race" as "an extended family that is partly inbred." Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage. Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws--flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    Steve has already addressed your “entitled to some consideration” question (minus your formulation) as a tangent in a 2005 debate with Jared Taylor “Citizenism vs. White Nationalism (II)” which Steve reiterated in 2011:

    I did propose conceding permanent quotas for the descendants of American slaves. That’s a high cost, but one we’re likely to pay anyway.

    You wrote:

    But Sailer has also defined “race” as “an extended family that is partly inbred.” Family includes blood, but family also famously includes people related not by blood, but by marriage.

    Your inclusion of “marriage” in the analogy goes well beyond what Steve said and needs to be more specific. Does simply living on the same 3.8 million square mile piece of Magic Dirt constitute marriage? Is it History—perpetual multigenerational white obligation due to sins of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, occasional Grammy winning?

    Is there potential in regarding black Americans as troublesome inlaws–flawed and undesirable in many ways, but family nonetheless and entitled to some consideration on that basis?

    [bold emphasis added]

    Regarding family, I believe you’re begging the question there.

    Forget mere “in-laws”—One should be willing to cut off (hypothetical) immediate blood relatives who rape, murder, or otherwise remorselessly criminally transgress… and dismiss anyone who makes excuses for that behavior. That’s a whole lot of metaphorical “in-laws,” nationally speaking.

    P.S., I don’t consider all black individuals troublesome. Those who follow the law and achieve on merit need not be “entitled to some consideration” based on bizarre trans-racial ‘in-law metaphor’ nepotism. Those who don’t follow the law and/or underperform should be as exposed to legal/social consequences as any citizen. If that results in racial “disparate impact,” too bad.

    Read More
  107. iffen says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    "I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders."

    This is not a great example. For one thing, the Japanese didn't found Los Angeles, and there isn't any record of their living in California prior to Europeans.

    Also, I doubt that Said's father referred to himself as 'Palestinian.' Any references to 'Palestinians' prior to '48 were referring to Jewish colonists. If you called a South Syrian ( which is what they called themselves) Palestinian prior to sometime in the 50s they would have tried to cut your throat.

    The problem for Palestinians as they exist today is that nationalism never really caught on with the Arabs. Nasser tried uniting with Syria, but that was a disaster. The Hashemites control Jordan, but they're essentially from Saudia. Persians are nationalistic, and so are Turks. But Arabs, not really. Comes from being nomadic.

    Hamas rules Gaza, but they aren't Palestinian nationalists, they are Islamists, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Fatah is a nationalist organization, but there is a good chance they would lose any free election in the West Bank to an Islamist-oriented party. George Habash was Christian, bit the PFLP was pan-Arabist and then Marxist-Leninist. Just look at the demographics to see how Christians are faring in the occupied territories. Not good, even in Bethlehem.

    Palestinian nationalism appeals to Westerners, and to Said because that was his world. There are many more Westerners passionate about Palestinian statehood per se than Arabs. Most Pals have real grievances about the loss of territory, but Arabs generally just see it as Muslim Arab land lost to the West.

    For them, all Muslim past conquests are forever, and the West is just territory to be conquered in the future.

    A better analogy might be if the Christians re-took Constantinople.

    There are many more Westerners passionate about Palestinian statehood per se than Arabs.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Hell, there are more Jew-haters that support Palestinian nationalism than there are Arabs that support it.

    Read More
  108. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    "I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders."

    This is not a great example. For one thing, the Japanese didn't found Los Angeles, and there isn't any record of their living in California prior to Europeans.

    Also, I doubt that Said's father referred to himself as 'Palestinian.' Any references to 'Palestinians' prior to '48 were referring to Jewish colonists. If you called a South Syrian ( which is what they called themselves) Palestinian prior to sometime in the 50s they would have tried to cut your throat.

    The problem for Palestinians as they exist today is that nationalism never really caught on with the Arabs. Nasser tried uniting with Syria, but that was a disaster. The Hashemites control Jordan, but they're essentially from Saudia. Persians are nationalistic, and so are Turks. But Arabs, not really. Comes from being nomadic.

    Hamas rules Gaza, but they aren't Palestinian nationalists, they are Islamists, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Fatah is a nationalist organization, but there is a good chance they would lose any free election in the West Bank to an Islamist-oriented party. George Habash was Christian, bit the PFLP was pan-Arabist and then Marxist-Leninist. Just look at the demographics to see how Christians are faring in the occupied territories. Not good, even in Bethlehem.

    Palestinian nationalism appeals to Westerners, and to Said because that was his world. There are many more Westerners passionate about Palestinian statehood per se than Arabs. Most Pals have real grievances about the loss of territory, but Arabs generally just see it as Muslim Arab land lost to the West.

    For them, all Muslim past conquests are forever, and the West is just territory to be conquered in the future.

    A better analogy might be if the Christians re-took Constantinople.

    Replace Japanese with Mexicans, et voila. A good alt-history fiction might have a Carlist colony there, taking over California in the 1840s (so not involved in the Mexican-American War) and drawing Mexican/South American monarchists to create a Spanish-speaking west coast country.

    Or a bilingual Basque/Spanish country, which would be stranger.

    The analogy of Catholic Carlists / Jewish Zionists is interesting. Jerry Pournelle already did a “Carlists in Space” type story, but iirc it was a pretty lame rehash of the Spanish Civil War (entertaining, though).

    Read More
  109. Arclight says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Arclight, certainly the most incompatible, aggressive, and dangerous groups to admit to our countries are Africans and Muslims.

    But I wouldn't be so sanguine about the tens of millions of Mexicans here in the USA. I don't find many of them to be so similar to us, at all. They exhibit quite a bit of laziness and welfare dependence compared to native-born white or Asian Americans, and we deal with many truly "dim bulbs" among the Mexican-"American" populations here in L.A. (Or is that redundant).

    I will admit that my experience with Mexicans/Latin Americans will necessarily be different than that of someone in SoCal – I have only lived in Rust Belt and East Coast cities where they are only about 10% of the population, and I would describe very few as lazy. Perhaps in areas where you have a really large share of the population being immigrants from points south you tend to attract more lackadaisical people than in areas where they are still a fairly small minority with less social and cultural support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    It's always the same with you apologists and accommodaters:

    "They haven't dispalced me and overrun the place I live yet, so why all the complaining?"

    I've written it before and I'll write it again: Remember you said that.
  110. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    Great column.

    Said's influence was everywhere back when I was in grad school in the early 1990s. Said's great triumph was to convince a generation of well-meaning, earnest, budding scholars that they were wrong -- even evil -- for being curious about and trying to describe others' cultures.

    Coupled with the contemporaneous post-structuralist attacks on the trustworthiness of language and meaning, Orientalism seriously undermined the fields of anthropology, religious studies, history, and more.

    Said himself was talked about in hushed tones. Your description certainly coincides with the larger-than-life superstar most of the members of my department saw him as.

    I wonder to what extent Said’s jihad for ignorance was related to Islam’s own enforced ignorance. Islam has long discouraged scholarship about pre-Islamic history. It’s been left to Europeans to decipher pre-Islamic texts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    I wonder to what extent Said’s jihad for ignorance was related to Islam’s own enforced ignorance. Islam has long discouraged scholarship about pre-Islamic history. It’s been left to Europeans to decipher pre-Islamic texts.

     

    This is a very good question. Perhaps Said engaged in a kind of meta-'noticing', i.e. he noticed that while Arabs are pretty much interested in Arabs -- and that this is the norm for most human cultures, i.e. they're not really all that curious about The Other -- for some reason Europeans are different. They are interested in learning about The Other not just to win battles or gain levarage in trade negotiations. They want to know about The Other in a much deeper and broader way. Perhaps some of Said's polemic against western anthropological and philological scholarship was indeed fueled by his resentment of this grossly unbalanced equation.
  111. IBC says:

    What was Said’s view on the Ottomans? I would have thought that several hundred years of Ottoman colonialism would have influenced the trajectory of Middle Eastern development more than a few decades of actively contested rule by France and Britain (excluding North Africa) –and of course, the Ottomans were not Arabs.

    It’s also a little ironic that Said chose to highlight the late 19th century Western fascination with the erotic and exotic elements of Middle Eastern culture, given that the real-life people who did the types of sex work depicted, were often from non-Arab and Muslim backgrounds and were brought to the Middle East as slaves from Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or the hinterlands of Africa. Their local status as the “other” combined with their exotic looks, justified salacious rule- and gender-bending treatment and probably added to their titillation value.

    It sounds like Orientalism contains a strong element of who/whom thinking. It’s been on my reading list for a while, but in deference to Mr. Said himself, I’m waiting to find a copy signed by Barbara Eden before I take the plunge…

    Read More
  112. @Thea
    He is really not redneck at all. He was an artistic fish-out-of-water until he left. (Not that it matters but Gainesville isn't in the panhandle, just FYI) he was very out of step with the good ole boy culture of small town Florida.

    Absolutely, Thea, that’s about the only part of Florida that’s still Southern – north of a line from Tampa through Orlando to Melbourne and east of Panama City. There’s still a lot of Southerners interspersed in-between though (the partisans, if I may).

    Off-the-topic, but “Learning to Fly” is about skydiving, not flying, in my opinion. That’s another great song by Petty, but (let’s see if embedding works here) so is the one not many have heard of:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_td-Li1auAk

    Don’t worry about – 0 through 1:10 “It’s just the normal noises in here”.

    Read More
  113. @JackOH
    Good essay, Steve. I only had time for a quick scan. I recall Wm. F. Buckley's TV interview with Said, who made a good impression, and that Said was a university intellectual and something of a standard-bearer for the Palestinian cause.

    My immediate, gut-level reaction, though, on finishing your essay was to ask myself: How many educated elites of other nations has America's grasping empire alienated, and for whom a position, no matter how comfy, in the academy, bureaucracy, or corporate America is no consolation for the loss of homeland, and, maybe, the loss of moral legitimacy/certitude that comes from having your homeland whacked? (There's a retired U. N. lawyer, Alfred de Zayas, who's come up with something like a legal theory for the right to a homeland.)

    How about Barack Obama Sr.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    My first thought was of an interview I'd read with an Iraqi woman, a well-educated curator or art historian, who told her Western interviewer after Iraq II that Saddam Hussein was a son of a bitch, and that the Americans were sons of bitches, too. If my memory's okay, she cited bombing, the unleashing of fundamentalist schisms, and Iraqi refugees seeking to escape chaos. Does anyone seriously believe, I wondered, that offering her a good job in a Western gallery or museum is going to make up for that?

    I suppose that's why I find the dust-up between President Trump and Bill O'Reilly over "moral equivalence" obnoxious and beside the point. Most folks, I think, need to reach a modus vivendi with whatever crap government, dictator, or occupation regime they're living under. Having that applecart upset, whether by the United States or Country X, is wrenching stuff, and there's no guarantee that "compulsory Americanism" (my made-up phrase) is the price people want to pay for that intervention. "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss".

    I'm rambling. I'd be interested to know whether there've been any "intervention simulations" or "intervention gaming", in which actor-participants living under an explicitly described bad regime are asked whether they wish to be liberated, whether they wish to have an outside party intervene militarily or diplomatically in their behalf, and so on. Thanks for your reply, and I'll stop rambling now.
  114. donut says:

    I had that book , but I couldn’t get through it . But if we so subservient to the Jew , so willing to do the bidding of our Jew masters then we have to expect this kind pushback as well . I have to ask what interest we had in taking sides in WW1 , or WW2 ? Who , in whose interest ultimately was it for us to involve ourselves in these disputes ? They are not even our neighbors . Having been led into those conflicts that did not concern us we find ourselves 72 years still throwing our own interests aside to fight the Jew’s wars . Trump has made plain that he will never put “America First” over the interests of the
    Jew . So with Trump we are no better off in my opinion than before . He’s beginning to look like a little bitch and a bad bet to me . Trump is a Strawman . He was hired to do a job that he doesn’t seem to have the balls or will to do . BTW , the police are not on our side . Think of all the times they stood by and watched Trumps supporters being attacked by the mud people . They received their orders to “stand down” with relief . And when the next administration gives them orders to come and take your guns they will do so with enthusiasm and as much brutality as they can get away with .

    Read More
  115. @Thea
    He is really not redneck at all. He was an artistic fish-out-of-water until he left. (Not that it matters but Gainesville isn't in the panhandle, just FYI) he was very out of step with the good ole boy culture of small town Florida.

    Gainesville ain’t like it was when Petty lived there.

    Read More
  116. @Vinay
    This whole notion of obsessing about the motivations behind the ideas of influential people seems wrongheaded to me. It makes some sense to do so for ideas which are prominent BECAUSE an influential person is advocating them but is pointless when those ideas are the very reason why the person is famous or influential.

    For example, Naipaul's fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims so it makes sense to question what motivated him to use his talent and prestige to write about them. Washington Post was hugely influential long before Bezos bought it so it makes sense to analyze how his ownership affects how they use their influence.

    It doesn't make much sense to obsess about Tom Wolfe's southernness or Edward Said's Middle Eastern heritage. "Orientalism" isn't taken seriously because of Said's prestige, rather, Said is prestigious BECAUSE of "Orientalism".

    Exactly! The question isn’t ‘why did Edward Said write orientalism?’, which is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The question is: ‘Why did so many Western intellectuals agree with orientalism?”, which is to me a much more difficult question to answer.

    That being said, Steve is probably right about what motivated Edward Said, (at least it helps to explain everything that I’ve read by Said), but I don’t see it as a productive line of inquiry.

    Why did so many Western intellectuals like Said’s work? That’s the question. I think a lot of it goes back to politics — Said was very liberal, and had a soft spot for communism. I think also part of it is that Said was seen of as a rebel — the rock throwing anecdote kinda backs that up. Other than that, I honestly can’t say. But this is the question that’s important to answer.

    Read More
  117. @iffen
    Arab Christians

    Good post by Razib on ME Christians:

    https://gnxp.nofe.me/article/5890eb392fab740d79000004

    I couldn’t see the actual slide show around which the entire post was written. I found the format of that blog a bit confusing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I didn't see a slide show. It is a written post.
  118. iffen says:
    @Percy Gryce
    I couldn't see the actual slide show around which the entire post was written. I found the format of that blog a bit confusing.

    I didn’t see a slide show. It is a written post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce

    The slide show below has what I believe are the most pertinent figures (I’ve reedited them a bit). The first two are ADMIXTURE plots. So they’re showing you the breakdowns by population/individual for K ancestral quantum (8 and 10) respectively. The rest are MDS [18]​ which relate individuals within populations on a two-dimensional surface.
     
    ???
  119. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @bomag

    Said’s great triumph was to convince a generation of well-meaning, earnest, budding scholars that they were wrong...
     
    I'm thinking that the success and ascendance of the physical sciences last century primed scholars to think that the old ways were "wrong", the new ways are "right"; i.e. the new germ theory in medicine replaced old thinking and was much more effective.

    Thus the search was on for the new and better to replace the old, and Said was there to exploit this.

    I’m thinking that the success and ascendance of the physical sciences last century primed scholars to think that the old ways were “wrong”, the new ways are “right”

    I strongly agree. The soft sciences as well as lit crit aped what they saw as a revolutionary spirit in the hard sciences. They also aped the tools and jargon, developing their own arcane language in a way that they thought made them look smart but actually made them look like a cargo cult.

    But they erred in thinking physics was revolutionary. It conserves more than it discards. Relativity and quantum mechanics are still about momentum and energy, which have been central to physics since at least Hamilton. (William, not the politician.)

    Read More
  120. snorlax says:
    @Gabriel M

    It didn’t help Said become reconciled to Western supremacy that perhaps the greatest movie of his young manhood, Lawrence of Arabia, was about how the Arabs had needed a weird gay English Orientalist named T.E. Lawrence to teach them enough about nationalism to throw off the Ottoman Yoke.
     
    Well he should have got over it because it's true. Arab nationalism is about indigenous to the Middle East as a Mars bar is to Jupiter. It's primary appeal was always to western educated Christians like Said itself and like all western imports it has been a disaster and, in the long term, failed to take.

    But cruel accidents of history deprived Said of a nation to govern and sent him into exile in the capital of his enemy, New York, where he became a professor of European literature at Columbia.

     

    Wow, that's rough. In reality, Said could have gone to any Arab country he wanted and governed it; he grew up in Egypt, his family had branches all around the Middle East and, anyway, that's what pan-Arab nationalism is all about. He didn't want to because, generally speaking, Arab countries suck and, specifically, his family's business in Cairo was looted by a mob in 1952: revealed preferences.

    The neoconservative magazine Commentary devoted much effort in the 1990s to proving that the building hadn’t been the property of Said’s father. Instead, Commentary triumphantly but anticlimactically trumpeted, the house had belonged to…his aunt.

     

    The article is quite boring and pedantic, but it more than adequately demonstrates that a lot of Said's autobiography is fiction. This is not wholly insignificant. Palestinian propaganda makes much of Palestinians fondly stoking the keys to their stolen houses, forever etched upon their memory in truly organic way that interloper Zionists cannot understand. Whenever you actually bother to look into one of these stories, you find it's made up.

    The story just made me feel sorry for Said. I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders. Said must have felt toward the Israelis rather like a South Carolinian whose plantation had been burned down by General Sherman felt toward the damn Yankees
     
    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance. Incidentally, Egyptian Jews had property confiscated in excess of the entirety of mandate Palestine. My step-grandmother was one of them; I don't remember her going to the border to throw rocks like a retarded seven year old, but I'll call her up to check.

    P.S.


    Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_vengeance_of_edward_said_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4YmQmSw2b
     
    Taki is so beta it's unreal.

    I’d be interested to see if you agree with me Israel’s biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze. (IIRC, there’s now some movement in that direction, but it’s slow-going and they’re mostly gone now anyway).

    Whatever the backstory to Said’s aunt’s house, it may have been nominally free, but it was possibly the most expensive real estate acquisition ever. The heart and mind of Edward Said turned out to be an asset to the Islamic world worth many divisions of tanks, flotillas of fighter jets and whole cities of fine Ottoman mansions.

    Israel (and Western civilization, as a plus) would be in a far more secure position had Said not converted American and European academia (from which politics and culture are downstream) to the Palestinian cause, and the Muslims had only their own half-wits to argue their case.

    More salutary effects: The Arab world would’ve expelled or alienated the rest of their high-quality human capital, besides the odd outlier like Steve Jobs’ dad. And there’d be a lot less anti-Zionism on the American and European right, if the destruction of Israel implied the slaughter of millions of civilized Christians.

    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance.

    Irish-Americans did organize the Fenian raids and (much later) NORAID. (In one of the odder episodes in Trump history, he attended a Sinn Féin fundraiser in 1996). Not that I approve, but it’s pretty typical for ethnic diasporas, including US-based, to side with their violent irredentist coethnics.

    I’m not sure if I’d go with “self-destructive.” Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it’d otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I’d say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they’ve been since 1948, and for a complete victory (Israel goes the way of French Algeria) the highest since the Balfour Declaration. Israeli public opinion might be the least charitable to the Palestinians it’s ever been, but theirs is not the public opinion which matters.

    The pattern is, if you keep your left-wing (Puritan-Whig, American, Bolivar, 1848er, Irish, Bolshevik, Indian, FLN, ANC, Latin American Marxist, Islamist) or even de facto right-wing (Greek, Soviet & Yugoslav nationalities, Tibet, Zionist) resistance movement going long enough, you will win friends in the capitals of America and Europe, sufficient to ensure your victory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    There weren't that many Christian Arabs to begin with and they were, like Said, often in the vanguard of Arab nationalism (because it gave them a common identity with their neighbors outside of Islam and because they were more intellectually equipped to deal with Western "isms") so I don't think the Israelis were ever really in a position to co-opt them and even if they had it wouldn't have amount to anything.

    The early Zionists were really into Arab culture - they were going to reject Europe and get back to being middle easterners and the Arabs were their model. There are pictures of early settlers in Arab dress and of course the Israeli national dish is not gefilte fish but Arab felafel and hummus, etc. The problem was that the Arabs were not into Jewish culture. It's just like the situation with blacks in America - it's the minority that rejects the majority culture as an act of rebellion, not vice versa.
    , @Dan Hayes
    snorlax:

    Until you pointed it out, I was unaware that Donald J Trump had attended a Sinn Fein fundraiser in 1995. Videos of his cameo fundraiser appearance are readily available on the Internet.

    Bravo. By his appearance he showed more support for Irish nationalism than provided by most residents of the Irish Republic!

    DJT is truly a man for all seasons. We're lucky to have him.
    , @Gabriel M

    I’d be interested to see if you agree with me Israel’s biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze.
     
    Better late than never.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Naddaf

    But it all seriousness, I don't think what you describe was really an option at the time. Christian Arabs were not just into Arab nationalism, they basically were Arab nationalism.

    I’m not sure if I’d go with “self-destructive.” Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it’d otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I’d say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they’ve been since 1948.
     
    But why is that a good thing for Palestinians (as opposed to the PLO)? Palestinian national identity is a made up thing to fight Zionism. The founders of the PLO say this explicitly. So the a Palestinian state, even if they do achieve such a thing, cannot be considered an end in itself, let alone one worth what they have had to go through to get it.
  121. @Anon
    Said is the great outlier in American intellectualism.

    Someone like him would stand out less in Europe with its sizable Muslim presence. Also, due to European colonialism over Muslim lands, there is more sympathy toward Muslims there than in the US. Algerian War was France's Vietnam War. Even though fewer died, it was, in some ways, more traumatic because France had ruled over Algeria as an integral part of France for so long.
    When Vietnam War proved unwinnable in the US, the issue was simply between 'keep fighting commies' or 'bring troops home'.

    Once the US was out of Vietnam, the nation meant little in the US imagination. If Americans thought about Vietnam at all, it was in terms of war. In contrast, France had a long history with Algeria prior to war. So, even when the French left Algeria, a part of French psyche sought deeper reconciliation. (Turning France itself into Algeria isn't a good idea, btw.)
    Though Algeria was a special case due to close alignment with France for over 100 yrs, other parts of the Muslim world also came under decisive control of Europeans. Nearly all the current Muslim nations are really the result of Western Imperialist meddling. The borders were imposed by foreigners. Upon taking power from the Ottomans, the West had no clear idea what to do. The Ottomans had had no use for nation-states in the Arab World. They just regarded the land as part of their empire; indeed, even the idea of the Turkic core was vague back then.

    Turks ruled over various tribes with no fixed borders. If a single European power had taken over the Middle East, it might have carried on like the Turks. But Britain and France decided to divvy up the region, and this led to ersatz-nation-states. European mindset was a contradiction. Europe was the birthplace of the modern-nation-state(though one could argue the US was the first true nation-state), but it was also a World Empire. So, Europeans wanted to rule the Muslim MENA in an imperial way(like Brits ruled over India) but also to impose something like nation-state-ism over the area. The Brits themselves practiced a kind of contradiction in their rule over India. On the one hand, India was not supposed to be like a nation-state. It was too big, too diverse, too varied to come together as a nation.

    It was an imperial domain. But on the hand, the idea of 'India' did eventually lead to the coalescing of countless peoples of that region against the British. Indeed, the genius of Gandhi and early nationalists was to both value and oppose British rule. Even as they were trying to push the Brits out, they knew that it was British domination that had a galvanizing effect all across diverse and divided India with so many ethnic groups and languages. And it was English as language that united various Indian elites together.

    Anyway, the US role in the Middle East has been different than the European role... at least up to the End of the Cold War. Especially beginning with the Suez Crisis, the US posited itself as the friend of the Arabs against the European(and even Zionist) imperialists. This won the US some real capital in the Middle East. And had it not been for Israel(and Vietnam, much romanticized by the Third World), the US might have been an admired nation in the region. But the US backing of Israel drove rest of Middle East closer to the USSR. America's one real hold in the region was Iran under the Shah, but that turned to be a mixed blessing. With the CIA coup, US had Iran as a loyal ally... but this planted the seeds of anti-Americanism. The other great prize was Egypt under Sadat that turned from the USSR and drew closer to the US, even making peace with Israel. (But democracy led to anti-American government that was the removed by the Egyptian military with US backing.) Still, for most Americans, the Middle East was just part of foreign policy, not something intimately linked with US history. Things were different for Europeans whose relations with Middle East goes back forever, sometimes with the Middle East having the upperhand over the West. Given this complicated history, someone like Edward Said wouldn't have stood out much in Europe.

    But he stood out in America. This would have been less so had it not been for the Israel-Palestinian issue. It was Israel and Jewish power that drew the US ever closer to the Middle East.



    And after the Cold War, the US would become the main imperial power in the region, causing more trouble than Europeans once did. And the US motives in the region and vis-a-vis Muslims has to be one of the most schizo things in American history. As a staunch supporter of Israel, the US has been hostile to much of the Muslim world. After all, both Libs and Cons have said over and over while pointing at the map, "little democratic Israel surrounded by all those big bad hostile Muslim nations." Such perspective implies 'Jews and Israel GOOD and CIVILIZED' and 'Muslims and Arabs BAD and BARBARIC'. Also, the US has been going around calling every other Arab leader a 'new hitler'. Both Conservatives and Liberals love to point out how corrupt and repressive the Saudis are depending on who's in office. So, when Bush was in office, Libs loved to point out how the Bushes were close to those loathsome Saudis. But when Obama was in office, it was the Cons who were saying Obama bows down to those murderous camel jockeys. It was commonplace for both Libs and Cons to point out how backward the Muslims are. And if GOP and Democratic Party --- and 'conservative' pundits and 'liberal' celebrities --- are agreed on one thing, it's that we must support Israel. That issue makes both political parties seem like mere branches of One True Party that rules the US: the AIPAC party.
    So, the US is a nation that looks on Israel as the only civilized nation in the region at war with all those barbaric Muslims. The US also believes that the Muslim World is either ruled by 'new hitlers' or 'terrorists'(though the US seems to be creating conditions that favor terrorists running amok to fight the 'new hitlers'). The US also has been saying that Persian Iran, a nation with no nukes, has this grand 007 villain plan to make all these nukes to blow up Israel: 'wipe it off the map'. GOP is heavily funded by Adelson who even calls for nuking of Iran. So, given all this talk from both Cons and Libs, you'd think the Muslim World is Forever-Enemy. And Jews played a big role in creating this impression. Hollywood often used the Muslim Terrorist as main villain. And Jewish-dominated Media favor the kind of people who praise Israel, show little sympathy for Palestinians, and hate Iran as much as they hate Russia. But at the same time, we are now supposed to look upon Muslims as poor little helpless darlings, the new 'huddled' masses yearning to be free, and, most surreal of all, the new best friends of Jews!! But if we've been told for so long that Muslims are nuts, why are they suddenly these wonderful little darlings? If we had to defend free and democratic Israel from all these terrible Muslim nations(the new nazi nations), why must we now dote on the Muslims as the nicest people(who need to be saved from Hitler Trump)? Of course, there is an excuse for that too. We are told Islam is a religion of peace but some bad eggs gave it a bad name. Also, most Muslims want democracy and liberal values, BUT 'new hitlers' like Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad have prevented them from having nice societies over there. But what happened in those nations when the US(and its coalition of the swilling) took out the 'new hitlers'? Either democracy doesn't work there or the diverse conditions created by European imperialists do not make for stable democracy. (Democracy didn't work in Yugoslavia either, and it broke apart. And can anyone imagine democracy working in something like the Austro-Hungarian Empire?) And even when democracy did work, like in Egypt with rise of Muslim Brotherhood, the US aided the military to retake power through a violent coup. Also, it's hilarious that the Jewish community would be attacking Trump for his anti-Muslim sentiments when it was Jewish Power that has spread the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab trope over the yrs through Hollywood movies and news that always favored Israel over Palestinians.
    The one time that the US was unequivocally for Muslim Warriors was in Afghanistan when Carter-Reagan's support of the Jihadis did defeat the Soviet Empire... but then it came to haunt the US until things finally came to a head in 9/11.
    But the real decisive break came in the Gulf War. US had been inching in and out of the Muslim World. Reagan entered Lebanon but soon left. He bombed Libya for a day to send a message. The CIA pulled off dirty tricks here and there, the biggest one being in Iran. But all these meddlings led to more complications. US support of 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan would later lead to 9/11, but maybe not if the Gulf War hadn't happened. After all, the MAIN motivation of the terrorists was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, the holy land. Osama and his cohorts tagged on the Palestinian issue and starving Iraqi children to their list of grievances, but the big kahuna was the US 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia. That was TOO MUCH. But why did the Gulf War happen? Again, it had something to do with US meddling. When Iran was in crisis following the Islamic Revolution, Hussein gambled and attacked to take a chunk of Iran. The US aided Hussein under the table, and when Iraq finally 'won', it filled Hussein with hubris, and he took Kuwait, and that was green light for Neocon Zionists to destroy Iraq first through war and then sanctions. (Iraq 'won' the Iran-Iraq War in context of what Iran had promised. Iran said the war won't end until Hussein is driven out of power. Having failed in that stated goal, Iraq seemed the winner. If Iran had no stated goals, Iraq might have been seen as the loser since Hussein also failed in his objective as well.)

    Anyway, the Gulf War made the US the premier global power in the Middle East. Even though Hussein was a punk and few Arabs liked him, many did see him as the Big Guy who isn't pushed around by the West. So, his defeat was deeply humiliating to the Muslim World. Initially, this seemed to lead to some positive dividends. So many Palestinians had banked on US humiliation in Iraq(like in Vietnam). But the overwhelming victory of the US in Iraq made Palestinians give up hope on violent change, and this brought them to the peace table under Clinton. (Back then, few thought that Gulf War would lead to 9/11.) With the US now deep into the Middle East, it had to find moral justification for its destruction of so many Muslim lives through starvation, bombing, invasion, and sanctions. With Iran, the excuse was always 'nukes'. With Iraq, it was evil Hussein the 'new hitler'. Iraqis were just yearning to be free, so if we get rid of Hussein, Iraq will become nice and democratic. (And maybe Afghanistan too if we rid it of the Taliban.) Iraqis were so dying to be free that it was worth it kill 100,000s of Iraqi women and children with sanctions. Those sanctions were supposedly necessary to bring down Hussein to save the people who were hurt most by sanctions. The whole thing was turning into a farce. And US needed to be there to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Right, because the US has been an impartial and fair player between the two sides since 1948. American complications in the Middle East make its involvement in Vietnam seem like a picnic. The problem of macro-politics is it's difficult to pull back from once the game is on. It's like making movies. If you are writing a book, writing a song, or drawing a painting, you might quit early on or even halfway if it's not going right. After all, not much money and time is invested in such endeavors. It's do it or drop it. But once many millions and large personnel have been poured into a movie, it' difficult to call it quits halfway. Even if the project seems doomed, it goes on simply because it's too grand a project. It's like what David Thompson said of Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE. Everyone began to feel it's gonna be a disaster, but so much had been committed to the project that no one could say NO. It's like after Hitler invaded Russia, he couldn't undo it. It was too big, and it had a logic of its own. Once you commit yourself to something like that, you have to stick to it to the very end, win or lose. Quitting is no longer an option. And this is why Merkel's mass-migration is a huge disaster. When you take in all those people on such grandiose moral claims, it's hard to say, "Oh, we made a mistake, you must go back." Sweden is also sinking due to the grandiosity of its project. If Sweden had experimented with just a few refugees to see what would happen, it could easily reverse things. But Sweden declared itself a 'humanitarian superpower' and loudly invited the world to showcase its wonderfulness. It's now do-or-die or more like do-and-die.

    America got itself so deeply involved in the Middle East that its narrative is now totally batty. We must side with Israel against those barbaric Muslims... who are helpless darlings yearning to be free... but they are oppressed by 'new hitlers'... so we must promote democracy in the region by invading them or bombing them... or by aiding Jihadis(the kind who did 9/11) against a modernizer like Assad... and if indeed democracy there leads to victory of regimes 'we' don't like, we must support a military coup like the one against Morsi in Egypt... and when all fails, we must pretend that Muslim women in hijabs are united with white women with pussy-hats against Trump the literally Hitler... because he wants to fight ISIS and work with Russia to stabilize Syria so that it won't lead to more refugees... or whatever. Gaddafi went with Western Political logic, and look how he turned out. Even the fact that he paid good money to invite American pop stars didn't make him 'cool enough' to be spared.

    Edward Said was a man of courage and venality. He missed his chance due to fundamental intellectual dishonesty. But he has a compelling narrative to the extent that the West has been so full of BS about the Middle East.
    Said, ever the polemicist, had to turn everything into cops and robbers. He is half-right that imperialist powers paint the Other in such a way to gain control over them. We see that happening today. And it's not just with the Other but among Europeans. Consider the wide range of British views of Germans(once Huns) and Russians(sometimes the mongol hordes) in the 19th and 20th century. Politics has always been like this, and I think most people know this. Where Said was more interesting was his argument that this wan't just a political ploy but a deeply entrenched intellectual one as well. Said was onto something. We tend to think of politics and academics(and media) as separate. Politics is a compromised game where one says and does whatever to gain an advantage. It is inherently unfair, and its purpose is to gain or win, not to be objective or impartial. In contrast, modern academia is supposed to be objective, rational, factual, empirical, and impartial. Scientific. It must favor truth above all. And this goes for journalism as well. Unlike traditional scholars who were little more than scribes of the Power, the modern ideal of the Western academic is someone who who unflinchingly seeks the truth. Said's argument was that this was never true of Western scholars. Even the ones who claimed to be or tried to be impartial were conditioned by Western biases and chauvinism. Knowingly or not, they were also part of the imperialist project. And this could be said for journalists too.
    This accusation is true enough(but then for all scholars of all cultures, Said included). If anyone should know this, it is Conservatives and race-realists(or race-ists). The current academia, though claiming to be free and impartial, is totally PC, totally biased and censorious, totally dogmatic in its core assumptions. I mean, who really trusts most of what is written about Russia, Iran, or Syria by most of the academia or media? Also, ethnic bias does color even supposedly dry research and academics and reporting. When journalist Jonathan Brent was sent to Russia to pore over Stalinist archives, his conclusion was totally Judeo-centric. Anne Applebaum's history is geared to cover up Jewish crimes and magnify everything bad about Russia. Gee, I wonder why that is. Books on race-relations are a total joke despite their high academic tone.
    And American media and academia have been so biased in favor of Israel and Jews over Arabs and Palestinians... until relatively recently(in the academia than in the media that are still privately owned by Jewish oligarchs).
    Prior to arrival of masses of Third World immigrants, US intellectual life was defined by Anglos, Anglo-ized ethnics, Jews, and some token blacks. Blacks were into little else but blackness. Jews were all about the Holocaust and Israel. Jews might show sympathy for Third Worlders if useful in shaming Anglos(like its role in Vietnam). But there was very little Third World presence in American academia. But with rising immigration from non-white nations, this began to change. Though Said became a big name, he was an outlier because very few Palestinian or Arab intellectuals became heavy-hitters. For everyone like Said among Arab-Americans, there were a 1000 among Jews. The arrival of Hindus probably had more to do with rise of Third World subaltern studies. Also, there was the French influence. Since May 68, French intellectual radicalism became obsessed with the Other, with even homo Foucault going so far as to show sympathy for Islamists in Iran. And there are East Asians. Yellow Logic or Yellogic is actually quite simple. Lacking agency and spark, it will bend toward whatever happens to be prevailing wind, and since PC prevails in America, yellows will go that way. (But if the wind blows the other way any time soon, yellows will blow the new way.) Also, the logic of PC will naturally make the academia more pro-Palestinian over the long run. With more non-whites filling up universities that teach them that they are noble non-white 'victims' of evil whites, the non-whites will eventually connect the dots and see Jews as whites too. If non-whites are good and if whites are bad, then it means Palestinians(non-whites) are good while Jews(whites) are bad. No wonder Jews are scrambling all over the map in desperation. No matter which way they turn, they see 'hitler'(in the form of Trump, Iran, Russia, Palestinians, Muslims, etc.) On the one hand, they still got the Holocaust card and still invoke it to defend Israel, but Netanyahu seems more and more like a nasty figure, especially as he has good relations with Trump. And if the evil white GOP is so pro-Israel, what does that mean? If the 'far right' parties in the EU are so pro-Zionist, does it mean Israel is 'far right' too? In a way, White Conservatives offer Jews a hand: "If Jews side with white nationalists, they can form a powerful pact against the non-whites." BUT, the entire edifice of Jewish moral capital has been built on denouncing any White Consciousness as 'racism' and 'nazism'.

    Also, how can Jews call for such hostile policies toward the Muslim World yet also claim to be such dear friends of Muslims who are being 'victimized' by Trump? After all, Trump has been in office just a few weeks whereas the desperate conditions in the Middle East are the result of Clinton, Bush, and Obama's policies largely shaped by powerful Jewish hands.

    Edward Said could have been an honest critic of all these contradictions, but he chose to play the partisan-polemical game. Though he wrote about colonialism and imperialism around the world, his core angst had to do with Palestine, and that issue shaped his views of the past as well. He figured that since the West is so biased in favor of Zionists and against Palestinians NOW, things must have been the same BACK THEN. Indeed, current biases were rooted in past biases.
    His trick was to conflate the Zionist narrative with the 'racist' imperialist narrative. Said knew very well that 'racism' became the biggest sin in the modern world. Indeed, Israel was justified as a necessary nation constructed as bulwark against anti-Jewish 'racism' or antisemitism. But Said argued that Zionist assumptions about Arabs have roots in Western Imperialist assumptions about Arabs and the Orient.
    If Zionists tried to associate Arabs with 'racism' --- "Nazi antisemitism died in Europe after WWII but had a second life among Arabs" --- , people like Said returned the favor. So, Zionism was merely a replay of all the Western Imperialist 'racist' views of the Orient. And Jewish Zionists were hypocrites for encouraging anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice while making a big noise about Jews as main victims of white 'racism' in WWII. Zionism was the continuance of the grand ole tradition of European imperialism and 'racism'.

    Now, Said was right about the political use of Orientalism. All nations see other cultures through the prism of political expediency. Indeed, Orientalism could be as positive as could be negative. What we are seeing now among the so-called 'left' is a kind of positive Orientalism. The hijab, instead of being depicted as a symbol of oppression, is being promoted as a symbol of cultural authenticity, tolerance, and diversity. Also, the Muslims are being idealized as a decent wonderful people being victimized by Hitler Trump. And during the Reagan Era, there was the positive Orientalism of Afghan 'freedom fighters'(comparable to the Founding Fathers) at war with the cold ruthless killing machine of the Modern Soviet Union. Muslims were traditionalists and cultural conservatives at war with godless communism.
    This was also the case with the American Indians. Many old westerns presented them as hostile savages. But most movies since the late 60s have presented Indians as the misunderstood, the noble and courageous, or nature folks living in harmony with wolves and rivers. (How does one live in peace with predators like wolves?)
    So, Savagism could be noble or ignoble.

    Said was right about the bum rap that the Palestinians got from America(and still gets). And he was right about the venality of so many Zionist intellectuals and Jewish scholars. One doesn't have to be a Palestinian to sense this. Just ask any Russian. Given what Jewish oligarchs and 'advisers' did to Russia in the 90s, you'd think that would be a crucial part of the narrative as to why Russia turned to Putin and nationalism. But read the NYT and most articles by scholars, and we get utter BS.
    And just ask white people in the US and EU. Jews in media and academia have been pushing policies to reduce, say, Hungarians and Poles into something like Palestinians through massive immigration. Globalists want millions of black Africans to colonize the wombs of Polish women. I hear that Brussels, the capital of EU, is now 1/3 Muslim. This is nuts, the Palestinianization of Europe. It's displacement of the native people, just like what happened to Palestinians. But Jewish intellectuals and media people --- and their cuck stooges and dogs --- are using their power of narrative to argue that it's all for the good and, if you disagree, you are an 'extremist' or 'far right' or 'neo-nazi' who should be punched in the head. (Maybe, Jews figure they can come to an understanding with Muslims. If Jews help Muslims reduce Europeans into New Palestinians, then the Muslims will forgive what Zionists did to Palestinians.)

    But Said, due to either venality of his own or bitterness, decided to fight fire with fire, and his positions became just as disingenuous and full of BS. Like Sartre, he ended up championing anything deemed anti-West or radical. So, his view of the USSR shows NO sympathy for the millions killed in Ukraine during the famine. He made common cause with the clown Ali Mazrui, whose show AFRICANS was so ludicrous that even PBS decided not to run it. (It's good for laughs though, as Mazrui gushes about inspiring figures like Idi Amin.) Granted, such partisanship didn't make Said worse than most louts and leeches in the academia or media. Also, despite his outsized influence, it is still totally overshadowed by that of Zionists. After all, the US policy toward Israel, Iran, Russia, China, Syria, Palestinians, and etc. owes everything to Jewish influence and NOTHING to Said's influence. Said's influence has been sequestered in the academia... but to the extent that the head controls the body, it may have long-term effect, especially as elite colleges will have more and more non-whites. (On the other hand, the most successful non-whites in the academia tend to be East Asians and Hindus, and their commitment to the Muslim cause seems perfunctory than passionate. Hindus have their own problem with Muslims, and India routinely goes with anti-Muslim politicians. And even though yellows might make obligatory noises, many will be like Amy Chua, marry Jews, and raise their kids as Jews. Their pro-Palestinian position seems more conformism on campus than conviction to lead a movement. Indeed, you're likely to find more firebrand Jews in the BDS movement .)

    After WWII, Samuel Huntington's CLASH OF CIVILIZATION became a big deal. Said argued against it, but I think both men were missing the point. The fact is, yes, the West and the Muslim World are indeed very different. But that shouldn't be a problem as long as both avoid the clash. But why does the clash happen? Huntington didn't want to touch too much on the WHY of the clash because he would have to address the J-question, a real risky move for a white gentile scholar.

    Also, Said's always been of two minds about both the West and Middle East. He prefers to live in the West and in the Western way. He likes Western culture more, and his area of expertise is Western literature, which he read critically but admired. So, I'm not sure that his position was necessarily "Don't come around here no more". I think he would have welcomed Western influence and presence in the Middle East as long as Palestinians could have their own homeland and be masters over it. He was not like North Korean regime that really wants to shut the world out as a threat. Said was too cultured, educated, and cosmopolitan for that kind of 'conservatism'. Indeed, even if Palestine had existed, I think he would have preferred 'exile' or 'expat' existence in Paris or NY or some place where he could rub shoulders with 'better kind of people'. He was an elitist. But he did have an identity, it did have roots in Palestine, and he found it most unjust that their grievances went so unheard.

    In some ways, Palestinians are the most wronged people since the end of WWII. By this, I don't mean they suffered the most. Even the Nakba had relatively low death count. And what Palestinians suffered is nothing compared to Great Leap Forward, Killing Fields in Cambodia, Rwanda massacre, Hussein's gassing of Kurds, the endless jungle lunacies in Africa, the repression in North Korea and mass famines, US sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s, the war in Chechnya, NATO destruction of Libya, and etc.
    Not many Palestinians were killed. And those living within Israel have it pretty good. Things are bad in West Bank, but no one is starving there. Things are dire in Gaza, but the Hamas is committed to a war it simply can't win.

    So, why are Palestinians the most wronged people since end of WWII? Because few people have been both so affected and so neglected(and even dehumanized) by the US narrative. Israel was made possible with US help. And Israel has been a main concern(even religion) in American politics for a long time. We've been told over and over that Israel is America's #1 ally. So, no nation matters more to the US than Israel, yet the people who were mostly direly affected by the creation and expansion of Israel, the Palestinians, have been treated like either an Invisible People or 'terrorists'. Also, the US prides itself as the policeman of the world. It claims to favor the weak people and nations against big bully nations like Russia, China, and Iran. US even came around on the issue of South Africa and sided with blacks against white minority rule. US now claims to be defending Lithuania and Estonia against Big Bad Russia that is about to start WWIII(or more like WWLOL). But if this is the globo-US narrative, why has it been so blind to the plight of Palestinians? Why the silence when Israel continues to take more of West Bank?
    So, within the context of US moral narrative, the Palestinians are the most wronged people. And I think this is what fueled Said's bitterness. Suppose Zionism never happened. Suppose Syria or Egypt had swallowed up Palestine. Said might have been pissed, but he never would have expected much from grubby Egyptians or insidious Syrians. But then, Egyptians and Syrians never made grand moral claims.
    But Jews, esp after the Holocaust, made super-moral claims, and the US, as destroyer of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, enemy of Evil Soviet Empire, and redemptive nation following the Civil Rights Movement, billed itself as the Champion of all that is good, decent, and free around the world. A beacon of light, city on a hill, an exceptional and indispensable nation, and etc. Given such highfalutin claims, why the near-total blindspot on the plight of Palestinians?

    Said also had a strange relation with Jews, esp as he taught at Columbia, essentially a Jewish university. Some Jews hated him totally. Neocons painted him as a Jew-hating anti-American anti-Semite. But some Jews had a complicated relation with him. Most Liberal Jews have supported Israel, but they never felt good about what happened to Palestinians. So having Said around as a token critic of Israel relieved their conscience somewhat. It's like they are for Israel but sensitive to its critic, ahem and amen.

    As for BDS lately, maybe it owes to the fact that the 'left' has run out of 'great causes'. Their sense of righteous rage has to latch onto something, and what else is left, especially since Netanyahu loved to stick it to Obama and is so highly praised by the GOP?

    I can’t believe I read the whole thing! I don’t mean that in a bad way, either, anon.

    That was very interesting and one hell of a summary. You should pick a handle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    TITLES IN CAPS would be a good handle.

    Better than Erratic Paragraph Break Spacing, although that could work too.
  122. SPMoore8 says:

    As I understand it, Said’s argument is that the “West” defined the “Orient” as an “Other” and then used it as a sink for all of their pathologies, and then, with colonialism, reinforced those pathologies. And, since the West was a “participant/observer” in this definition, and reinforcement, it cannot see the “Orient” as it really is, and because of western depredations, the “Orient” cannot be what it really is. It sounded kind of deep in 1978.

    However, societies always use an “other” to comment on themselves, that’s the point of Montesquieu, Mozart’s operas in this region, Goethe’s Westoestlicher Diwan, and the fad for Sanskrit among Germans from the late 1700′s onward. It was also the point of Herodotus’ anecdotes, Marco Polo, and the Travels of John Mandeville. It was also the point for why Sir Thomas More picked Japan: nobody knew anything about “Cipangu.”

    It’s also the reason why there was so much written about Native Americans back in the day: They are the other — but, hey, look how in some respects they are no worse than we are, and perhaps, even better (Montaigne). I think it was Tacitus in Rome who wrote something similar about Germans. And, of course, alternative civilizations in Science Fiction, all the way from Wells and Verne through Star Trek and beyond, is always a commentary about ourselves.

    Said’s book was successful because he was a learned guy; he could mention a lot of things in a synthesis that sounded very impressive, even when he was doing so in order to basically ignore them (Germans) and appropriated the language of post-Marxists when it suited him (Fanon, Gramsci) which tended to mask that this was basically a typical book of literary criticism which consisted in talking about a rather narrow group of books that he concentrated on.

    For all that, the Muslim world has been pretty primitive since the Medieval period. The West really has revolutionized our understanding of the pre-Christian past in the region, including Egypt, in just the past 200 years. The advances have been huge. As far as I know, it was all done by European linguists and archaeologists. It’s hard to remind ourselves that 200 years ago we had no idea about the languages or the literatures of the region, because no one could read them, and all of the archaeological artifacts — the same artifacts that ISIS is destroying — were only dug up since about the 1830′s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    It was all done by Europeans because the Arabs had zero interest in the heathen past that was filled with kufr idol worshipers. Islamic culture affords some small measure of tolerance to Christians and Jews as People of the Book but zero to heathens. Actually the Spanish in the New World had the same attitude.

    It's also interesting that the Arabs (not unlike Medieval Europeans who painted biblical scenes that made the Middle East in the time of Jesus look like Northern Europe) rather than being interested in the other, turned others into Moslem Arabs. Many of the stories in 1,001 Nights were originally Persian or even Indian but in the Arab versions the characters are associated with Arab figures and the setting is moved to Arab lands.
  123. @Arclight
    I will admit that my experience with Mexicans/Latin Americans will necessarily be different than that of someone in SoCal - I have only lived in Rust Belt and East Coast cities where they are only about 10% of the population, and I would describe very few as lazy. Perhaps in areas where you have a really large share of the population being immigrants from points south you tend to attract more lackadaisical people than in areas where they are still a fairly small minority with less social and cultural support.

    It’s always the same with you apologists and accommodaters:

    “They haven’t dispalced me and overrun the place I live yet, so why all the complaining?”

    I’ve written it before and I’ll write it again: Remember you said that.

    Read More
  124. Not Raul says:

    You just wrote the most insightful brief analysis of Said I’ve seen.

    Said was right to break with Arafat. Palestinians (other than top PLO leadership and their cronies) have been much worse off since Oslo. It was a scam.

    Read More
  125. Dahlia says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Petty put down some roots in my part of the world. This ranks with Valley Girl as the all-time San Fernando Valley song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A

    “Refugee” is about the sexiest song, certainly one of the sexiest videos ever made.

    Gainesville is very proud of him and he does fit in so well. It’s not just big ol’ galuts here: lot of smart, sensitive guys and they’re very special, too! (And, IMHO, the most attractive…)

    He could afford a second home here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    For whatever reason, Petty is really associated with L.A., although he didn't get here until he was an adult, kind of like the Eagles. Although they kvetched about L.A. a lot, while Petty does only a little (e.g., "Century City).

    Most of the other pop stars I associate with LA -- Beach Boys, Zappa, Van Halen, Guns & Roses, etc. -- have more roots here.
  126. Jack D says:
    @kaganovitch
    "When Said was an adolescent, the new state of Israel expropriated a house in Jerusalem that had been owned by his extended family. The neoconservative magazine Commentary devoted much effort in the 1990s to proving that the building hadn’t been the property of Said’s father. Instead, Commentary triumphantly but anticlimactically trumpeted, the house had belonged to…his aunt.

    That Commentary article was a moment when I began to feel severe doubts about neoconservatism. The story just made me feel sorry for Said. I’d be sore too, I realized, if my aunt had lost a nice house in the 1940s in Southern California to, say, Japanese invaders."

    The point of the article , as you must know, was that Said had misrepresented his biography. He had repeatedly claimed that he had grown up in a beautiful old house on Brenner street in Jerusalem, only to “flee in panic” with his family in 1947 when the Haganah warned the Arabs to evacuate. This was largely B.S. of course. Proving that the house belonged to his aunt rather than his father, was only in aid of demonstrating that he was making the details of his bio up . If you are claiming that this article soured you on neoconservatism/ zionism , then you are likely engaging in retconning of your own.

    Almost every Jew in Israel could “be carrying the keys” to a house somewhere – either in Baghdad or Warsaw or Alexandria or Lviv. But they have long since moved on. I visited my grandfather’s house and mill in western Ukraine, outside of Lviv (house is the village library, the mill is in ruins) and I wasn’t sore about it at all. If it wasn’t for Hitler and Stalin I might still be back in that village heaving flour sacks into a horse drawn wagon instead of enjoying my nice suburban American life. That’s how life goes – one door closes and another one opens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Honestly, though, that mostly works for groups with a high enough mean IQ they can do better somewhere else. Plenty of Europeans went to the USA and escaped the grinding poverty in their villages. Chinese-Americans have done pretty well for themselves...but then the Chinese do pretty well around the world. They have affirmative action for native Malays in Malaysia, because the Chinese would otherwise take all the top spots.

    Some things only work for white and yellow people.

    The Pals...well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?
  127. Dahlia says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I just clicked on Steve's last line link and am listening now. I saw a great Halloween show back in the late '80's by this guy. What I really liked about him was that, way back in early '80 or so his hit "(Don't Want to Live like a) Refugee" was like the first disco-era destroyer, along with Pat Beaneater's "Heartbreaker" These 2 songs broke the back of Disco!

    I knew guys who said they skydived with Petty in S. Carolina. All I know is he was a proud Southerner too, like Tom Wolfe using rock vs. words.

    Youtube has changed his video of "Rebels" to "password required" because he wrapped himself in the Rebel flag that an audience member through up onto the stage. You gotta sign in to view the Rebel flag now. What a (sorry excuse for a) country!

    Thanks, will definitely check out.

    Read More
  128. Jack D says:
    @SPMoore8
    As I understand it, Said's argument is that the "West" defined the "Orient" as an "Other" and then used it as a sink for all of their pathologies, and then, with colonialism, reinforced those pathologies. And, since the West was a "participant/observer" in this definition, and reinforcement, it cannot see the "Orient" as it really is, and because of western depredations, the "Orient" cannot be what it really is. It sounded kind of deep in 1978.

    However, societies always use an "other" to comment on themselves, that's the point of Montesquieu, Mozart's operas in this region, Goethe's Westoestlicher Diwan, and the fad for Sanskrit among Germans from the late 1700's onward. It was also the point of Herodotus' anecdotes, Marco Polo, and the Travels of John Mandeville. It was also the point for why Sir Thomas More picked Japan: nobody knew anything about "Cipangu."

    It's also the reason why there was so much written about Native Americans back in the day: They are the other -- but, hey, look how in some respects they are no worse than we are, and perhaps, even better (Montaigne). I think it was Tacitus in Rome who wrote something similar about Germans. And, of course, alternative civilizations in Science Fiction, all the way from Wells and Verne through Star Trek and beyond, is always a commentary about ourselves.

    Said's book was successful because he was a learned guy; he could mention a lot of things in a synthesis that sounded very impressive, even when he was doing so in order to basically ignore them (Germans) and appropriated the language of post-Marxists when it suited him (Fanon, Gramsci) which tended to mask that this was basically a typical book of literary criticism which consisted in talking about a rather narrow group of books that he concentrated on.

    For all that, the Muslim world has been pretty primitive since the Medieval period. The West really has revolutionized our understanding of the pre-Christian past in the region, including Egypt, in just the past 200 years. The advances have been huge. As far as I know, it was all done by European linguists and archaeologists. It's hard to remind ourselves that 200 years ago we had no idea about the languages or the literatures of the region, because no one could read them, and all of the archaeological artifacts -- the same artifacts that ISIS is destroying -- were only dug up since about the 1830's.

    It was all done by Europeans because the Arabs had zero interest in the heathen past that was filled with kufr idol worshipers. Islamic culture affords some small measure of tolerance to Christians and Jews as People of the Book but zero to heathens. Actually the Spanish in the New World had the same attitude.

    It’s also interesting that the Arabs (not unlike Medieval Europeans who painted biblical scenes that made the Middle East in the time of Jesus look like Northern Europe) rather than being interested in the other, turned others into Moslem Arabs. Many of the stories in 1,001 Nights were originally Persian or even Indian but in the Arab versions the characters are associated with Arab figures and the setting is moved to Arab lands.

    Read More
  129. @Dahlia
    "Refugee" is about the sexiest song, certainly one of the sexiest videos ever made.

    Gainesville is very proud of him and he does fit in so well. It's not just big ol' galuts here: lot of smart, sensitive guys and they're very special, too! (And, IMHO, the most attractive...)

    He could afford a second home here.

    For whatever reason, Petty is really associated with L.A., although he didn’t get here until he was an adult, kind of like the Eagles. Although they kvetched about L.A. a lot, while Petty does only a little (e.g., “Century City).

    Most of the other pop stars I associate with LA — Beach Boys, Zappa, Van Halen, Guns & Roses, etc. — have more roots here.

    Read More
  130. @Dave Pinsen
    I wonder to what extent Said's jihad for ignorance was related to Islam's own enforced ignorance. Islam has long discouraged scholarship about pre-Islamic history. It's been left to Europeans to decipher pre-Islamic texts.
    https://twitter.com/Lin_Anderson/status/831821260707487744

    I wonder to what extent Said’s jihad for ignorance was related to Islam’s own enforced ignorance. Islam has long discouraged scholarship about pre-Islamic history. It’s been left to Europeans to decipher pre-Islamic texts.

    This is a very good question. Perhaps Said engaged in a kind of meta-’noticing’, i.e. he noticed that while Arabs are pretty much interested in Arabs — and that this is the norm for most human cultures, i.e. they’re not really all that curious about The Other — for some reason Europeans are different. They are interested in learning about The Other not just to win battles or gain levarage in trade negotiations. They want to know about The Other in a much deeper and broader way. Perhaps some of Said’s polemic against western anthropological and philological scholarship was indeed fueled by his resentment of this grossly unbalanced equation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Americans are probably losing interest in the rest of the world. Mexico has receded from American interest over the course of my lifetime.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I also wonder to what extent both are related to enforced ignorance about HBD and sex differences. There's actual scholarship today that purports to explain biological differences in strength between the sexes, for example, as a result of women conforming to stereotypes.
  131. @Achmed E. Newman
    I can't believe I read the whole thing! I don't mean that in a bad way, either, anon.

    That was very interesting and one hell of a summary. You should pick a handle.

    TITLES IN CAPS would be a good handle.

    Better than Erratic Paragraph Break Spacing, although that could work too.

    Read More
  132. Jack D says:
    @snorlax
    I'd be interested to see if you agree with me Israel's biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze. (IIRC, there's now some movement in that direction, but it's slow-going and they're mostly gone now anyway).

    Whatever the backstory to Said's aunt's house, it may have been nominally free, but it was possibly the most expensive real estate acquisition ever. The heart and mind of Edward Said turned out to be an asset to the Islamic world worth many divisions of tanks, flotillas of fighter jets and whole cities of fine Ottoman mansions.

    Israel (and Western civilization, as a plus) would be in a far more secure position had Said not converted American and European academia (from which politics and culture are downstream) to the Palestinian cause, and the Muslims had only their own half-wits to argue their case.

    More salutary effects: The Arab world would've expelled or alienated the rest of their high-quality human capital, besides the odd outlier like Steve Jobs' dad. And there'd be a lot less anti-Zionism on the American and European right, if the destruction of Israel implied the slaughter of millions of civilized Christians.

    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance.
     
    Irish-Americans did organize the Fenian raids and (much later) NORAID. (In one of the odder episodes in Trump history, he attended a Sinn Féin fundraiser in 1996). Not that I approve, but it's pretty typical for ethnic diasporas, including US-based, to side with their violent irredentist coethnics.

    I'm not sure if I'd go with "self-destructive." Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it'd otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I'd say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they've been since 1948, and for a complete victory (Israel goes the way of French Algeria) the highest since the Balfour Declaration. Israeli public opinion might be the least charitable to the Palestinians it's ever been, but theirs is not the public opinion which matters.

    The pattern is, if you keep your left-wing (Puritan-Whig, American, Bolivar, 1848er, Irish, Bolshevik, Indian, FLN, ANC, Latin American Marxist, Islamist) or even de facto right-wing (Greek, Soviet & Yugoslav nationalities, Tibet, Zionist) resistance movement going long enough, you will win friends in the capitals of America and Europe, sufficient to ensure your victory.

    There weren’t that many Christian Arabs to begin with and they were, like Said, often in the vanguard of Arab nationalism (because it gave them a common identity with their neighbors outside of Islam and because they were more intellectually equipped to deal with Western “isms”) so I don’t think the Israelis were ever really in a position to co-opt them and even if they had it wouldn’t have amount to anything.

    The early Zionists were really into Arab culture – they were going to reject Europe and get back to being middle easterners and the Arabs were their model. There are pictures of early settlers in Arab dress and of course the Israeli national dish is not gefilte fish but Arab felafel and hummus, etc. The problem was that the Arabs were not into Jewish culture. It’s just like the situation with blacks in America – it’s the minority that rejects the majority culture as an act of rebellion, not vice versa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    There weren’t that many Christian Arabs to begin with
     
    They were ~13% of the non-Jewish population in 1945. Assuming an average IQ of 85 for Muslims and 105 for Christians, Christians were ~60% of the non-Jewish IQ 115+ population.

    And of course they could've been co-opted; they were IRL in Lebanon. The Druze and Bedouins are both more foreign as cultures than Christians are, and both were co-opted. Their views towards Muslims range from ambivalent to hostile, mixed with a great deal of fear in either case. They largely insist they aren't "Arabs," but rather Copts, Assyrians, Lebanese, etc. They'd very much like to be in a position to turn the tables on the Muslims.

    Christians were overrepresented in Arab nationalism for the same reasons Jews were overrepresented in Communism; because they're a high-IQ minority that's massively overrepresented in most any political circle (several Hamas members of the PA legislature are from Gaza's miniscule Christian minority), and to feed the hostile majority an ideology that said "don't hate us, hate [capitalism/Zionism]! Also, how about we cut out all this religion and ethnicity stuff and just agree we're all [workers/Arabs]?"

    But I really don't get the impression that their (incl. Said's) beef with Israel runs any deeper than 1) they don't like that their houses were stolen and 2) because they're afraid of their Muslim neighbors. The ones who remain in Israel have nearly all taken Israeli citizenship, they don't blow themselves up, their school test scores are about as good as the Ashkenazim, they're pretty well-integrated and while they do, understandably, vote for a hostile political party, Hadash is relatively-speaking by far the most reasonable of the Arab parties.
    , @Steve Sailer
    "The early Zionists were really into Arab culture "

    I've never been there, so I'm just guessing, but it seems like Israelis are turning into a Mediterranean culture, kind of like Greeks or Southern Italians, with a disco scene like Ibiza. Or maybe like Miami Beach.
  133. SFG says:
    @Jack D
    Almost every Jew in Israel could "be carrying the keys" to a house somewhere - either in Baghdad or Warsaw or Alexandria or Lviv. But they have long since moved on. I visited my grandfather's house and mill in western Ukraine, outside of Lviv (house is the village library, the mill is in ruins) and I wasn't sore about it at all. If it wasn't for Hitler and Stalin I might still be back in that village heaving flour sacks into a horse drawn wagon instead of enjoying my nice suburban American life. That's how life goes - one door closes and another one opens.

    Honestly, though, that mostly works for groups with a high enough mean IQ they can do better somewhere else. Plenty of Europeans went to the USA and escaped the grinding poverty in their villages. Chinese-Americans have done pretty well for themselves…but then the Chinese do pretty well around the world. They have affirmative action for native Malays in Malaysia, because the Chinese would otherwise take all the top spots.

    Some things only work for white and yellow people.

    The Pals…well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Pals…well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?

    In Said's case, become Ivy League professors.

    Compared to the Gulf Arabs, the Palestinians are high IQ (less African admixture) and expat Palestinians do professional work in the Gulf (but are never given citizenship).

    In the US they do OK also - grocery stores and restaurants & such plus some professionals as well. They are at least as smart as Mexicans.
    , @Anon
    Do Ireland and Poland not mean anything to you? But, oddly, if the Pals were real traditional Arabs (i.e. Bedouin), they wouldn't care any for their ancestral land. It's because they're not Arab nomads but locals who got co-opted into an Arab identity that they put up such a fuss. (Aside from the foreigners who just want to get into Israel, of course).

    And the way the Chinese whine about Western imperialism and "unequal treaties", well, they're not people to cite as examples of "moving on".
  134. @Steve Sailer
    Tom Petty's performance of "I Won't Back Down" at the 9/11 concert was pretty awesome. He looked like a starving Confederate enlistee who wanted General Lee to lead the boys into the hills in April 1865 to keep the war going guerilla-style.

    In comparison, Neil Young performed "Imagine."

    That is who we are.

    Read More
  135. Dan Hayes says:
    @snorlax
    I'd be interested to see if you agree with me Israel's biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze. (IIRC, there's now some movement in that direction, but it's slow-going and they're mostly gone now anyway).

    Whatever the backstory to Said's aunt's house, it may have been nominally free, but it was possibly the most expensive real estate acquisition ever. The heart and mind of Edward Said turned out to be an asset to the Islamic world worth many divisions of tanks, flotillas of fighter jets and whole cities of fine Ottoman mansions.

    Israel (and Western civilization, as a plus) would be in a far more secure position had Said not converted American and European academia (from which politics and culture are downstream) to the Palestinian cause, and the Muslims had only their own half-wits to argue their case.

    More salutary effects: The Arab world would've expelled or alienated the rest of their high-quality human capital, besides the odd outlier like Steve Jobs' dad. And there'd be a lot less anti-Zionism on the American and European right, if the destruction of Israel implied the slaughter of millions of civilized Christians.

    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance.
     
    Irish-Americans did organize the Fenian raids and (much later) NORAID. (In one of the odder episodes in Trump history, he attended a Sinn Féin fundraiser in 1996). Not that I approve, but it's pretty typical for ethnic diasporas, including US-based, to side with their violent irredentist coethnics.

    I'm not sure if I'd go with "self-destructive." Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it'd otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I'd say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they've been since 1948, and for a complete victory (Israel goes the way of French Algeria) the highest since the Balfour Declaration. Israeli public opinion might be the least charitable to the Palestinians it's ever been, but theirs is not the public opinion which matters.

    The pattern is, if you keep your left-wing (Puritan-Whig, American, Bolivar, 1848er, Irish, Bolshevik, Indian, FLN, ANC, Latin American Marxist, Islamist) or even de facto right-wing (Greek, Soviet & Yugoslav nationalities, Tibet, Zionist) resistance movement going long enough, you will win friends in the capitals of America and Europe, sufficient to ensure your victory.

    snorlax:

    Until you pointed it out, I was unaware that Donald J Trump had attended a Sinn Fein fundraiser in 1995. Videos of his cameo fundraiser appearance are readily available on the Internet.

    Bravo. By his appearance he showed more support for Irish nationalism than provided by most residents of the Irish Republic!

    DJT is truly a man for all seasons. We’re lucky to have him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    It has more to do with being from New York, I think. Not so many nowadays but NYC used to be a huge Irish town--the St. Patrick's Day parade was a huge deal. There used to be a joke that the mayor had to visit the three I's--Ireland, Italy, and Israel. (An American Tail makes a lot more sense if you know that.)
  136. AKAHorace says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Naipaul’s fame is unrelated to his ideas about Muslims

    Naipaul, who doesn't much like Muslims, didn't win his Nobel Prize before 9/11, but he got it about 6 weeks after 9/11.

    Naipaul, who doesn’t much like Muslims, didn’t win his Nobel Prize before 9/11, but he got it about 6 weeks after 9/11.

    I thought that the “Sir Vidays shadow” by Paul Theroux may have helped him as Theroux gloated that Naipaul would never get a Nobel

    Read More
  137. SFG says:
    @Lugash
    Glad to see Pudzer go. Trump seems to want to restore 1950s liberal capitalism. Pudzer is completely 21st century sociopath capitalism. Completely at odds with each other.

    I think you’re giving Trump too much credit. He ran on restoring 1950s liberal capitalism. But when he got elected? Who did he pick to fill his positions? Generals (OK, 1950s-ish) and billionaires.

    He needs an right (alt or otherwise) to make sure he doesn’t backslide on immigration, and a left to keep him from doing nothing more than enriching his buddies. That’s what the left used to do before they decided it was more important to make sure men had the right to use the women’s room.

    I didn’t vote for Bernie, but I’m glad he’s around.

    Read More
  138. AKAHorace says:

    And my favorite example of “Orientalism”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6tuzHUuuk

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Medinah Country Club near O'Hare Airport, where they often play the Ryder Cup golf tournament, is a giant orientalist fantasy:

    http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2015/Aril15/03/01.HTM

  139. Calogero says:

    I don’t understand the current Western phenomenon of making out Arabs to be “the most oppressed people in history”. Blacks and American Indians sure, but not Arabs who have been among the worst oppressors in the world in the last 1400 years. Any problems in the Middle East now are their fault for choosing fundamentalism over modernism. Anyway, Muslims colonized the West for far longer and far more brutally than Westerners colonized the Middle East or North Africa. So much for Said’s “colonialism” nonsense.

    Read More
  140. Jack D says:
    @SFG
    Honestly, though, that mostly works for groups with a high enough mean IQ they can do better somewhere else. Plenty of Europeans went to the USA and escaped the grinding poverty in their villages. Chinese-Americans have done pretty well for themselves...but then the Chinese do pretty well around the world. They have affirmative action for native Malays in Malaysia, because the Chinese would otherwise take all the top spots.

    Some things only work for white and yellow people.

    The Pals...well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?

    The Pals…well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?

    In Said’s case, become Ivy League professors.

    Compared to the Gulf Arabs, the Palestinians are high IQ (less African admixture) and expat Palestinians do professional work in the Gulf (but are never given citizenship).

    In the US they do OK also – grocery stores and restaurants & such plus some professionals as well. They are at least as smart as Mexicans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.

    at least as smart as Mexicans.
     
    That would be a great slogan for any ambitious nation.
    , @Steve Sailer
    For example, my opthometrician (sp?) at Costco is a Pal.
  141. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @SFG
    Honestly, though, that mostly works for groups with a high enough mean IQ they can do better somewhere else. Plenty of Europeans went to the USA and escaped the grinding poverty in their villages. Chinese-Americans have done pretty well for themselves...but then the Chinese do pretty well around the world. They have affirmative action for native Malays in Malaysia, because the Chinese would otherwise take all the top spots.

    Some things only work for white and yellow people.

    The Pals...well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?

    Do Ireland and Poland not mean anything to you? But, oddly, if the Pals were real traditional Arabs (i.e. Bedouin), they wouldn’t care any for their ancestral land. It’s because they’re not Arab nomads but locals who got co-opted into an Arab identity that they put up such a fuss. (Aside from the foreigners who just want to get into Israel, of course).

    And the way the Chinese whine about Western imperialism and “unequal treaties”, well, they’re not people to cite as examples of “moving on”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Ireland and Poland work both ways...they left for greener pastures (less green in the case of the Irish perhaps) but they eventually did get their country back.

    The Chinese whine, but that doesn't keep them from getting down to business. And the Irish and Poles whined quite a bit. The Irish turned their whines into some very good music, in fact.
  142. @AKAHorace
    And my favorite example of "Orientalism"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6tuzHUuuk

    The Medinah Country Club near O’Hare Airport, where they often play the Ryder Cup golf tournament, is a giant orientalist fantasy:

    http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2015/Aril15/03/01.HTM

    Read More
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    An acceptable fantasy. Would be curious to see modern Egyptian reaction to the Bangles song.
  143. AKAHorace says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The Medinah Country Club near O'Hare Airport, where they often play the Ryder Cup golf tournament, is a giant orientalist fantasy:

    http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2015/Aril15/03/01.HTM

    An acceptable fantasy. Would be curious to see modern Egyptian reaction to the Bangles song.

    Read More
  144. SFG says:
    @Anon
    Do Ireland and Poland not mean anything to you? But, oddly, if the Pals were real traditional Arabs (i.e. Bedouin), they wouldn't care any for their ancestral land. It's because they're not Arab nomads but locals who got co-opted into an Arab identity that they put up such a fuss. (Aside from the foreigners who just want to get into Israel, of course).

    And the way the Chinese whine about Western imperialism and "unequal treaties", well, they're not people to cite as examples of "moving on".

    Ireland and Poland work both ways…they left for greener pastures (less green in the case of the Irish perhaps) but they eventually did get their country back.

    The Chinese whine, but that doesn’t keep them from getting down to business. And the Irish and Poles whined quite a bit. The Irish turned their whines into some very good music, in fact.

    Read More
  145. SFG says:
    @Dan Hayes
    snorlax:

    Until you pointed it out, I was unaware that Donald J Trump had attended a Sinn Fein fundraiser in 1995. Videos of his cameo fundraiser appearance are readily available on the Internet.

    Bravo. By his appearance he showed more support for Irish nationalism than provided by most residents of the Irish Republic!

    DJT is truly a man for all seasons. We're lucky to have him.

    It has more to do with being from New York, I think. Not so many nowadays but NYC used to be a huge Irish town–the St. Patrick’s Day parade was a huge deal. There used to be a joke that the mayor had to visit the three I’s–Ireland, Italy, and Israel. (An American Tail makes a lot more sense if you know that.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    SFG:

    You are correct, New York City used to be a huge Irish town - past tense. There are very few Irish or Irish-American sections left in NYC, one notable exception being Woodlawn in the Bronx. Most left (or to be more honest were forced) by demographic changes to Long Island or Westchester and Rockland Counties.

    But the St. Patrick's Day Parade is bigger than ever. It has morphed into a Pre-Spring Bacchanal. Before it was a celebration of Roman Catholicism, now it is a quasi-pagan festival presided over by a church prelate who has authorized/sanctified its "inclusiveness" ( translation: surrendering to the powerful gay activist lobby).
  146. @snorlax
    OT/Flynn: Here's what I said on Lion of the Blogosphere's post criticizing the DeVos selection 2 weeks ago:

    I’d be pretty disappointed [if she were voted down], not because I think she’s even remotely a good pick but because it’s critically important to keep up the momentum in the early days of an administration. Defeats and momentum-stalling pyrrhic victories are what stop Presidents from realizing their agendas.

    That’s why everyone always talks about the first 100 days. You want the waverers to feel caught up in the historical moment instead of worrying about their reelections.
     
    Now CNN's reporting the Pudzer nomination is dead. Like Flynn, I think his was a nomination that was ill-advised in the first place, but that's not what's important. The gazelle's wounded, the hyenas smell blood, and it can't outrun them anymore.

    Every Trump initiative, from good (addressing immigration) to unimportant (rapprochement with Russia) to bad (replace Obamacare with Libertariancare) is looking dead in the water. For example, the "muh free trade" shitbirds have taken the opportunity to kill even the mildest, most free-market libertarian-approved proposal to preserve good-paying blue-collar jobs.

    I get a lot of flak for being a "defeatist" or "concern troll," and I admit I've been too quick to predict doom for Trump on a number of occasions, but this really does feel like a low moment where there isn't a clear path to recovery.

    Tiny Duck agreed with you, which means you are not just wrong, you are evil.

    Read More
  147. @iffen
    I didn't see a slide show. It is a written post.

    The slide show below has what I believe are the most pertinent figures (I’ve reedited them a bit). The first two are ADMIXTURE plots. So they’re showing you the breakdowns by population/individual for K ancestral quantum (8 and 10) respectively. The rest are MDS [18]​ which relate individuals within populations on a two-dimensional surface.

    ???

    Read More
  148. snorlax says:
    @Jack D
    There weren't that many Christian Arabs to begin with and they were, like Said, often in the vanguard of Arab nationalism (because it gave them a common identity with their neighbors outside of Islam and because they were more intellectually equipped to deal with Western "isms") so I don't think the Israelis were ever really in a position to co-opt them and even if they had it wouldn't have amount to anything.

    The early Zionists were really into Arab culture - they were going to reject Europe and get back to being middle easterners and the Arabs were their model. There are pictures of early settlers in Arab dress and of course the Israeli national dish is not gefilte fish but Arab felafel and hummus, etc. The problem was that the Arabs were not into Jewish culture. It's just like the situation with blacks in America - it's the minority that rejects the majority culture as an act of rebellion, not vice versa.

    There weren’t that many Christian Arabs to begin with

    They were ~13% of the non-Jewish population in 1945. Assuming an average IQ of 85 for Muslims and 105 for Christians, Christians were ~60% of the non-Jewish IQ 115+ population.

    And of course they could’ve been co-opted; they were IRL in Lebanon. The Druze and Bedouins are both more foreign as cultures than Christians are, and both were co-opted. Their views towards Muslims range from ambivalent to hostile, mixed with a great deal of fear in either case. They largely insist they aren’t “Arabs,” but rather Copts, Assyrians, Lebanese, etc. They’d very much like to be in a position to turn the tables on the Muslims.

    Christians were overrepresented in Arab nationalism for the same reasons Jews were overrepresented in Communism; because they’re a high-IQ minority that’s massively overrepresented in most any political circle (several Hamas members of the PA legislature are from Gaza’s miniscule Christian minority), and to feed the hostile majority an ideology that said “don’t hate us, hate [capitalism/Zionism]! Also, how about we cut out all this religion and ethnicity stuff and just agree we’re all [workers/Arabs]?”

    But I really don’t get the impression that their (incl. Said’s) beef with Israel runs any deeper than 1) they don’t like that their houses were stolen and 2) because they’re afraid of their Muslim neighbors. The ones who remain in Israel have nearly all taken Israeli citizenship, they don’t blow themselves up, their school test scores are about as good as the Ashkenazim, they’re pretty well-integrated and while they do, understandably, vote for a hostile political party, Hadash is relatively-speaking by far the most reasonable of the Arab parties.

    Read More
  149. Dan Hayes says:
    @SFG
    It has more to do with being from New York, I think. Not so many nowadays but NYC used to be a huge Irish town--the St. Patrick's Day parade was a huge deal. There used to be a joke that the mayor had to visit the three I's--Ireland, Italy, and Israel. (An American Tail makes a lot more sense if you know that.)

    SFG:

    You are correct, New York City used to be a huge Irish town – past tense. There are very few Irish or Irish-American sections left in NYC, one notable exception being Woodlawn in the Bronx. Most left (or to be more honest were forced) by demographic changes to Long Island or Westchester and Rockland Counties.

    But the St. Patrick’s Day Parade is bigger than ever. It has morphed into a Pre-Spring Bacchanal. Before it was a celebration of Roman Catholicism, now it is a quasi-pagan festival presided over by a church prelate who has authorized/sanctified its “inclusiveness” ( translation: surrendering to the powerful gay activist lobby).

    Read More
  150. Bill B. says:
    @Jack D
    The Pals…well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?

    In Said's case, become Ivy League professors.

    Compared to the Gulf Arabs, the Palestinians are high IQ (less African admixture) and expat Palestinians do professional work in the Gulf (but are never given citizenship).

    In the US they do OK also - grocery stores and restaurants & such plus some professionals as well. They are at least as smart as Mexicans.

    at least as smart as Mexicans.

    That would be a great slogan for any ambitious nation.

    Read More
  151. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    In the end, the Orientalists did less damage to the Middle East than the Disorientalists(Invade and Inviite) though, to be sure, Orientalists planted the seeds that would grow to bear poison fruits.

    But I’m not sure the later troubles in MENA could be blamed on Orientalism per se. The worst thing that the West did was in creating unstable inorganic nations in the Middle East along imperialist designs, mainly of UK and France. As their main priority was control and dominance, neither Brits nor French cared about creating political borders that complemented ethnic divides. Even with the best intentions, creating new nations would have been difficult since the ethnic populations weren’t neatly concentrated in separate areas. Still, something like Kurdistan could have been created for areas with large majority Kurdish populations. So much headache in the yrs ahead could have been avoided IF the boundaries had been more consciously drawn.

    But the tragic result owed more to naked short-term ambition of empires than any ‘world-view’. Indeed, one could argue that if true Orientalists had been given the chance to draw national borders in the Middle East, they would have done so with more careful attention to cultural, linguistic, and ethnic differences.

    But in the end, politicians, businessmen, and military men got to decide. And they didn’t care about culture, ethnos, or language. And their counterparts in our globalist age do the same thing. They don’t care what happens to cultures, nations, and languages as long as their own power expands around the world.

    Maybe Said wouldn’t have been so bitter about the Orientalists if not for the sad fate of Palestinians. If Palestine than Israel had been allowed to develop as a modern Arab nation, maybe Said would have been grateful to Orientalists.
    After all, Arab nationalism was the result of the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire. Also, it was Western archaeology that rediscovered much of the glories of the Middle East that had been forgotten, destroyed, and buried by Christians and Muslims. The recovery of lost pagan cultures.

    Said argued that even this recovery of ancient glory could be used to justify Western domination. After all, it was Western science and methods that ‘discovered’ them. Aside from considerable ‘looting’ of these treasures, much of which ended up in Western museums, there was the Western Imperialist notion that it was the white man’s burden to reconnect the natives with their TRUE past and heritage. The West, with its methodology in archaeology and etymology, would be the proper teacher of ‘true’ native cultures to the natives who’d forgotten their glorious past due to neglect, earlier conquests, and decline. The most spectacular finds were perhaps in Egypt.

    The thing is… nobody is a saint in history, and a tremendous amount of credit must be given to Orientalists and archaeologists who did key work that allowed us to rethink the past. And this methodology would have profound impact not just on the Middle East but in Latin America and Asia. Indeed, much of what non-whites know of their history and heritage owes to archaeology and etymology as developed in the West. Prior to that, they just relied on official narrative of the ruling elites.

    Also, the great Orientalists really cared about the histories and cultures of the Middle East. They were filled with admiration. And their theories and ideas had a positive impact on Arabs in their modernization efforts. I mean what did Arabs have before they gained access to Western methods? They were fighting over camels and water wells.

    Maybe, Said’s antipathy toward Orientalists was partly just envy. The fact that Westerners rediscovered and learned so much about the Orient was bound to rub some Arabs the wrong way. So, an easy and convenient way to gain upperhand over the European Orientalists was to call them ‘racist’ and ‘imperialist’. In other words, “you did great work, but you are racist.” So, even as whites do get scholarly credit, the moral credit belongs with non-whites(as victims of even well-meaning scholarly whites).
    But more than that, Said connected the dots between Orientalism and the fate of Palestine. But this is where he overreached. It’s like Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan theory. People tend to connect the dots between what came before and what came after, as if indeed what WAS had been decisive in what CAME AFTER. That could be the case, but then, maybe not.

    Though one could argue that Orientalism paved the way for Zionist takeover of Palestine and other troubles in the Middle East, the fact is things could easily have turned out DIFFERENTLY, in which case some sour Zionists might argue that Orientalists were to blame for the failure of Zionism: “Damn Orientalists filled Arabs with nationalist and cultural pride, making it difficult for Jews to get a foothold in the Middle East.”

    After all, Orientalism did lead to much admiration for Oriental Civilization, and many Orientalists were sympathetic toward native modernizers who were trying to forge a new Arab identity based on not only Islam but on prior cultures that had predated the rise of Muhammad’s empire.

    In the end, the success of Zionism had more to do with Jewish networks, Jewish wealth, Jewish clout, and Jewish influence in the USSR, the US, and especially the US.

    That was the key, and Orientalism played little role in the final outcome. Truman surely didn’t know much about the Middle East when he made his decision. He just knew that pushy Jews were slamming their fists on the table, and there were powerful forces behind them. And Jews represented a key power bloc in the Democratic Party. And decisions made by superpowers that would lead to massive displacement of peoples was nothing unique to Palestine. The decision was mainly geo-political than cultural. After all, I highly doubt if US decision to divide Korea and Vietnam had much to do with any grand theory of Asian Civilization. Great powers divide up weaker regions like a cake.

    But intellectuals don’t like simple explanations. They love to create some elaborate theory to explain historical phenomena by connecting the dots among philosophy, philology, archaeology, economics, culture, and politics.

    Occam’s Razor explanation of Zionism would be too obvious, thus ‘un-intellectual’.

    The fact is Jews simply had much more firepower in the West than the Palestinians did. They had the connections with big money, media power, politicians, and etc. And that would mean Jews are just more successful, smarter, and savvier than the Arabs are.

    It’s like how PC carefully coordinates any discussion of black problems with some grand intellectual theory. Every black problem in the here-and-now are connected to all the stuff that happened in the past.

    [MORE]

    Yes, it is true enough that the present is a continuation of the past, but the past has no determinist impact on the present. Besides, history, like Angkor Wat, is often easily forgotten and lost. Consider how fast so many whites have lost their sense of heritage and history because they were no longer educated and cultivated by patriot parents, teachers, politicians, and media people. After just a few generations of pop culture and PC, so many whites think Harriet Tubman is the greatest person that ever lived. And now, a whole bunch of morons will think three Negresses sent white boys to the moon.
    So, the past can easily be expunged and lost.
    When it comes to today’s black problems, it has little to do with the past. It has to do with the simple fact that too many blacks are tougher, more aggressive, wilder, and less intelligent than non-blacks. Being tougher, they know they can whup and push around other races. Being more aggressive, they are more likely to act on their wilder whims. Being less intelligent and less patient, they fail in schools and life. Also, being more egotistical and uninhibited, blacks are less likely to be self-critical and self-reflective while being more susceptible to praise and adulation. (The fact that the least accomplished race — except in sports and pop music — is heaped with praise over achievement in EVERY field had easily persuaded blacks that they was the ‘kangs’ of Egypt and did everything, which was STOLEN by whites. Whites, either out of anxious condescension or servile cuck-instincts, seem addicted to playing this game.) This leads to resentment and rage. But such a simple and obvious explanation isn’t very ‘intellectual’. What’s the point of being an academic in an elite institution if you come up with an explanation that sounds so simple and true? I mean anyone with an honest pair of eyes and ears could have come to same conclusion WITHOUT becoming a professor with tons of credentials.
    For the scholar class, it’d be more highfalutin, seemingly erudite, and ethically concerned to connect today’s black pathologies with Jim Crow, Birth of a Nation, KKK, failure of Reconstruction, slavery, and etc.
    Now, people should know their histories and their roots, but it doesn’t follow that just because something happened long ago, it affects today’s reality. After all, if we use the theory of trauma, China should not be rising today since Chinese underwent one massive trauma after another since the Opium Wars. Taiping Rebellion, imperialist invasion, fall of dynasty, fall of Republic and warlord era, famines, Japanese invasion, civil war, communist lunacies under Mao, and etc. Yet, China emerged from that mess. Why? Under half-decent leadership since Deng, they put their large talent pool in organization, work ethic, and intelligence to work. So, biology and culture matter to economic achievement. Look at what happened to Detroit and Hiroshima since end of WWII. Today, Detroit looks like it was hit with a nuke. Why is that? We must discuss race and biology to explain this. Imagine if you held Mike Tyson and Alan Dershowitz captive when they were both 15 yrs old. Suppose you used both of them as slaves for 20 yrs, and you treated them both the same. And then, both are released. What are the odds that freed Tyson and freed Dershowitz will act the same in freedom because they underwent the same experience in captivity? It’s likely that Tyson will turn to crime whereas Dershowitz might get some learning and open a trade. If one were to argue that Tyson turned to crime because of 20 yrs of captivity, why didn’t Dershowitz end up the same way even though he too was treated the same way? The only explanation is biology. Tyson is born thug with low IQ and big muscles. I mean what is the chances that Woody Allen and the Negro in TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN will act the same if they were freed? Despite same treatment on the chain gang, they would use freedom differently if set free.

    https://youtu.be/-kKzO1mfaK8?t=5m17s

    If Said had written ORIENTALISM before the creation of Israel, it might not have been so negative. Or, if Palestine than Israel existed in 1978, the book’s tone might not been so bitter. But when the book was written, Said must have been pissed plenty. When Palestinians lost out to Zionists, they looked to other Arab nations for help. But in 1967, tiny Israel kicked some serious butt in only 6 days. The big kahuna of Arab nations, Egypt, got totally whupped. And then in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Arabs got licked again despite the surprise attack. Also, there was so much acrimony among the Arabs who never seemed to get along(like in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). And in all this mess, more Palestinians were killed by other Arabs than by Jews. There was massive pogroms against Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria. And even though Arabs all over(and Muslims all over) paid lip-service to the Palestinian cause, no one really liked them or did much for them; indeed, back then as today, Arabs don’t want to take refugees from other Arab nations; Arabs know how much trouble fellow Arabs are. How many Syrian refugees has Saudi Arabia taken in?
    And Edward Said notwithstanding, Palestinians failed to produce the kind of big thinkers, big inventors, big businessmen, and etc. who could amass power around the world and press global affairs against Israel. So, Said must have felt very lonely. He was a true intellectual and heavy-hitter in the academia, but most Palestinians were a bunch of dodo’s. Even when Jews were in exile, they were good at organization and had lots of talent. But Palestinians seemed to have no idea except to come up with dumb-dumb stuff like Munich terrorist attack that only besmirched their name — I mean what were they thinking? If Palestinians had real brains, they would have played like Gandhi and used the ‘peaceful resistance’ method. Or by like Mexicans, smile a lot, and slowly plot reconquista by picking lettuce. But they were too filled with macho pride to pull that clever stunt. If Palestinians had played it like Mexicans, they’d be in a much better shape. Had there been no Intifada, Jews never would have built a wall around West Bank. Palestinians in WB would have been eagerly allowed into Israel to supply cheap labor, and with Jewish guard down, Palestinians could slowly work themselves into all of Israeli society. Look at Mexicans in California. The Felipe Way proved more effective than the Intifada Way that only awakened the Jews up and made them more militantly nationalistic.

    https://youtu.be/S23ECEa_-4c?t=15m52s

    Being an intellectual leader of the Palestinians was like being coach of the Bad News Bears. It was like leading the guys in STRIPES. Low talent.

    When Said was at Columbia, he must have met a super-smart Jew in every department, every hall, every classroom. Jews were clearly the smarter Semites than the Arab Semites. (Well, Middle Eastern Jews aren’t that smart, but Ashkenazi European Jews have the smarts, and as they are EUROPEAN Semites, that might have rubbed Said the wrong way. The other famous Semite in American media/academia was Helen Thomas, and she blurted out that EUROPEAN Jews should leave ‘Palestine’. Presumably, the native Semitic Jews could stay. Since media folks don’t have tenure, she was fired and become an overnight nobody despite her renowned standing in American journalism. Interestingly enough, even though most Arabs are Muslim, many of the most prominent Arab scholars are Christian.)

    Hanan Ashrawi was often featured on NIGHTLINE in the 80s and 90s, and she is Christian Arab too. Said’s Christian background prepared him for more of a secular, modern, and Western outlook. Given the tensions between Muslims and Christians in the Arab world, it’s possible that Said might have been less hostile to the West had Palestine existed, in which case, the main political division in Palestine would have been between Arab Muslims and Arab Christians. But because of Zionism, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims found themselves on the same boat. Indeed, anti-Zionism was the galvanizing factor among all Arabs: Sunni, Shia, and Christian. And since Christian Arabs were more worldly and modern(and because the West is Christian), they made better & more appealing spokesmen for the Palestinian and Arab cause. (While American Christians might not care about Jews whupping Muslims, they might not feel so good about supporting Jews against fellow Christians, even if Arab.)
    So, it’s not surprising that there ‘s been almost no sympathy in the Western(Jewish-dominated) media about all the violence done to Arab Christians in the Middle East. It serves Zionist interests to cause a rift among not only Shias and Sunnis but between Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs. With so much anti-Christian violence by Muslim Arabs in Iraq and Syria(and Egypt), it is difficult for worldly and educated Christian Arabs to play the role of spokesmen for Arabs as a whole.

    https://youtu.be/B3lzAp2WXGo?t=23m18s

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

    In one sense, the Israeli-Palestine Conflict is between the West(that backs Israel) vs the Near East(mostly Muslim world). But in another way, it is a brothers’ war, Semite vs Semite. Furthermore, at least from Said’s own experience, it’s been an exiled-brothers’ war: Jews-in-exile vs Arabs-in-exile.
    After all, the founders of Israel were not native Sephardic Jews but Ashkenazi Jews returning from exile. Furthermore, most Ashkenazi Jews did NOT return to Israel but fought for it in preferred ‘exile’ in the US, UK, and European nations.
    Since Palestinians had so little power in Israel and in occupied territories — due to discrimination, oppression, lack of high IQ and culture of ambition — , they had to fight their war in exile also. So, Palestinians sought help from the USSR, other Arab nations, Muslim World, European anti-imperialist intellectuals, and anti-Zionists(even on the far right). But there were too many divisions among the Arabs. Also, there wasn’t much quality there in terms of talent or ideas. Saudis had money but ONLY because they sat on a ton of oil. Gaddafi played the role of defender of the oppressed, but it was essentially a Michael Jackson act. Empty suit. Also, as some Arab and Muslim nations were very close to the US — Indonesia, Saudis, Gulf states, Pakistan(allied with US against India that was backed by USSR back then), Jordan, etc — , the most that the Palestinians could hope for was lip-service. And when Egypt too went over to the US, what a bummer. And then, when the USSR collapsed, bigger bummer. And when Hussein got beaten in Gulf War, more humiliation. Palestinians looked to Iran for help, but this was mixed blessing. While Iran did send help, it only pissed off Saudis and other Sunni nations that loathed Iran’s brand of Shia power.

    Palestinians lost the land-conflict within Israel/Palestine, but they also lost the war-of-exile as Jews-in-exile outgunned Palestinians-in-exile. This was especially apparent as US gained the upperhand in the Cold War against the USSR. Though Vietnam War seemed fatal to the US power(compounded by fall of Shah in 79), USSR was facing darker clouds. Afghanistan would be a bigger headache for USSR than Vietnam was for US. When US came home, Vietnam was far away. In contrast, Afghanistan neighbored the USSR and its brand of Islam could easily spread to USSR itself(and Russia would come to taste some of this violence in the 1990s and 2000s). Also, when China went fully with the US, USSR found itself on the ropes.

    Another key difference between Jews and Palestinians was Jews gained real power whereas Palestinians could only gain sympathy. So, even though Palestinians did gain sympathy from some nations, they had no means to press them to help the Palestinians in any consequential way. They were at the whim and mercy of sympathetic nations. Some just said nice words. Some donated some money and blankets. Some gave some guns and ammo, but not much that would make a difference. Also, due to Jewish power in the US, even nations sympathetic toward Palestinians didn’t dare do anything that might really piss off Israel since it would piss off the US too, and that could mean trouble diplomatically, economically, and even militarily. In contrast, Jews didn’t just rely on sympathy(much of it deriving from Holocaust narrative). They had the economic, media, cultural, and political might to pressure leaders and politicians all over the world into supporting Israel. Since Jews controlled the US, they also controlled Japan and EU. EU was esp vulnerable to moral blackmail due to Holocaust being a new religion over there.
    Consider the 2008 campaign when Obama collected a few tens of thousands from the Palestinian business community. In contrast, he got gazillions from the Jews. Which side was he going to listen to? Of course, the likes of Mark Levin made a big stink about how Obama took a few thousands from Palestinian-Americans but was mum about the many many millions received from Jews. In the US, Palestinian-Americans might run some small store in a Detroit ghetto. Jews run Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. There are some Arab scholars in elite colleges, but for every Arab, there are many more Jews. Given the huge divergence in power, Said must have felt lonely in a world full of talented Jews. Indeed, even his position at Columbia owed to Jewish sympathy. Imagine that. The premier intellectual of Palestinians who relied on the sympathy of his main enemy to have a limited voice in Western academia.

    In some ways, Said’s bluntness was admirable. Had he been savvier, he should have played more like Gandi and MLK than like Jinnah the hothead. Said should have realized that Palestinians couldn’t do what Algerians or Vietnamese did. Algerians were the solid majority under French rule. And Vietnamese outnumbered the Americans. Also, whereas most Americans didn’t care about South Vietnamese, they did care about Jews, the people of the Book who also came to be billed as the Holocaust Tribe. US could cut and run from Vietnam and abandon the Viets to the communists, but there was no way US would ever abandon the Holocaust people. Besides, unlike the useless South Vietnamese military, the Israeli military was pound-for-pound, one of the best in the world, and it wasn’t gonna be brought down by a bunch of guerrilla fighters or terrorists.
    Also, due to 1948 mass expulsion, Israel was solidly majority Jewish. It’s difficult to fight a people’s war against a majority population. If Israel had been like Algeria or South Africa where the native majority outnumbers the colonizers, it might have been different. So, the PLO was in a useless struggle even if some peoples around the world recognized their cause as righteous. It’d be like American Indians fighting to take back Wisconsin. Not gonna happen. Just take the Reservations and casinos. PLO wasted so much energy and time because it relied on the Third World Liberation Struggle template(which ONLY WORKED in non-white nations where the natives outnumbered whites by a huge margin; after all, the natives failed to regain any Latin American nation because of substantial white and mestizo populations there).
    The most that the Palestinian Struggle could have hoped for was ending the Occupation in Gaza and West Bank. But that was regarded as defeatism to the PLO and Said. PLO held onto the struggle for the fantastical destruction of Israel for too long. And Said could never let it go since his pride had been invested in the struggle for too long. But it was a fool’s game.

    Now, suppose Palestinians had gotten smart and focused on at least saving West Bank and Gaza(when they had far fewer settlers than they do today and when there were almost no walls). The best strategy would have been to play like Gandhi and MLK or Felipe of Tres compañía. But Arab hotheadedness and Muslim Machismo, or Muslimismo, just couldn’t handle this sort of thing. A Muslim would rather blow himself up with the enemy than stand around and get smacked around by the infidel before a camera. Even when Palestinians feature themselves as victims of Zionist oppression and terror, it is in the form of the FIGHT. Palestinian kids gunned down by IDF after throwing rocks at them.
    Muslims don’t like the idea of non-violence. Actually, some Muslims did join Gandhi, but those were Asian-Indians who are not a very warrior-like people. Arabs are less likely to stand around and get twacked on the head like this. Arabs are willing to die in the fight but not without a fight.

    https://youtu.be/y1DHNoHxB_c?t=2m6s

    Anyway, Said’s bluntness(despite his intellectual dishonest) meant he was less likely to bullshi* us with highfalutin values. Gandhi was really a BS artist. So was MLK. So was Mandela at the end. I don’t mind their struggle for freedom and power, but they were NOT high-minded idealists like they pretended. Maybe Gandhi did have some genuine idealism; after all, he did weave his own underwear, but his main motivation was still nationalism, not some universalist principles(which was really for the suckers like Richard Attenborough who later fell for a fat Jew to guard the T-rex). Said was for Palestinian nationalism and, in this, had much in common with Arafat. Later, it was easy for Said to denounce Arafat since Said spent most of his time in the West. Whereas Arafat had to deal with worsening situation on the ground, Said preached resoluteness from a safe distance.
    In the end, he failed as both theorist and fighter because he was too rigid in strategy and too distant from the actual struggle. He was too much of a purist-idealist to come up with a pragmatic strategy for long-term success, and he was too compromised as an apologist of PLO fighters and terrorists(who were sometimes just a few notches above gangsterism) to maintain intellectual integrity. Imagine John Reed and Zinoviev rolled into one, and you get Said. Too corrupt/compromised and innocent/naive at the same time.

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

    So, in the end, he was one big failure…

    But paradoxically, possibly a greater success due to the failure. A kind of triumph after all. Even though Said lost the Battle of Palestine, he did plant the seeds for the Battle of the West. And the moral logic of this larger battle has roots in the earlier battle: Even though Palestinians did NOTHING to white people and the West, the West supported the Zionists in the destruction of Palestinians. And when people like Said tried to bring attention to this injustice, most of the Western world ignored him; worse, so many white people heaped abuse on Palestinians as ‘terrorists’. (Many Americans found it convenient to project the ‘antisemitism’ of their forefathers on the no-good Arabs. Almost overnight, white Christians made themselves into the noblest defenders of Jews from Arab/Muslim Nazis hellbent on destruction of Israel. It was a disingenuous way to overlook the fact that the Holocaust happened in the heart of the West.) Ironically, the people who paid Said much mind were some Jews in academia. But Said must have felt like a bird that picks the teeth of crocodile. To be a Palestinian advocate in a Jewish and pro-Zionist university like Columbia would have been uneasy. After all, even those Jews who did sympathize did, in the end, support Zionism. The Nation magazine(when I used to read it) could be harshly critical of Israel, BUT it still defended ‘its right to exist’, which means the Nakba was worth it. So, Jews could be critical of Israel but not condemn the historical premise of its existence. But Said wasn’t just about criticism of Israeli abuse of power. He was opposed to the very founding myth of Israel. So, even with sympathetic Jews, he had to deal with the fact that they were, when push came to shove, for the necessity of Nakba.

    Anyway, since Palestine is lost forever, what could someone like Said hope for? This is where vengeance comes into play. Since the West helped the Zionists destroy a people who did no harm to the West, the least Said could do is plant the seeds that could ‘Palestinian-ize’ the West itself. I’m not saying Said had this is in mind when he wrote ORIENTALISM, but his ideas have mutated and taken on new agendas. All intellectual ideas turn crude in the struggles in the streets. Darwinism unwittingly bred Nazism. Socialism led to Marxism that led to Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. And all the fancy theories of the French Enlightenment turned into KILL THE ENEMY during the Revolution. Today, there is the call to ‘punch nazis’.
    It’s like all the fancy theory about the ‘sweet science’ turns into a bloodfest inside the boxing ring.

    Said tried to win back Palestine. His struggle was mostly in exile. Since most Westerners didn’t care much about Palestine, he tried to tie the struggle of Palestinians with the whole of European/Western imperialist history. Just like Jewish historiography of the Holocaust would have us believe that there was a sickness in the soul of white folks and Christianity that finally and inevitably led to antisemitism and the Holocaust — therefore ALL white gentiles, not just Germans of WWII era, are to blame and must atone before Jews — , Said’s contention was what happened in Palestine wasn’t just some isolated incident but the culmination of all of Western history’s imperialist fantasies of dominating the Other.
    Nevertheless, despite the book’s success in academia, it simply could not compete with Jewish firepower in media, entertainment, politics, courts, finance, and etc.

    Still, seeds of certain ideas sprout and grow bigger and bigger and take on a life of their own. And what failed for Palestine might succeed for the Third World as a whole.
    During the Roman Occupation, many Jews sought to resist and regain control of the homeland from Romans and collaborator Jews. Some like the Zealots fought. Some came up with new prophecies and interpretations of the faith. Some sought to convert the Jews to the new prophecy, the new revelation. The most notable were, of course, Jesus and Disciples. Historians say Jesus and inner circle were really about influencing fellow Jews than the gentiles. But they failed in that endeavor, and then St. Paul came along and dramatically altered it for worldwide movement. In time, Jews would lose Jerusalem and all of Holy Land to the Romans. And Jews would reject the teachings of Jesus and ideas of Paul. But St. Paul did get his ‘vengeance’ — if it may be characterized as such — by spreading the seeds among the gentiles who would in time be profoundly affected by them.

    Is Said like a modern-day prophet, a kind of Palestinian Paul? He failed with the Palestinians. Israel grows more nationalist by the day. Jews now have high birthrates. And Jews keep taking more and more of what remains of West Bank. So, everything Said tried to do for Palestine came to nothing.
    But the idea of ‘Palestinian’ might be taking on a larger meaning. All the refugees of the world can be seen as ‘Palestinians’ uprooted by wars, strife, chaos, and famine(which can always be blamed on global warming due to first world emissions). So, just as Palestinians expelled from Palestine/Israel ended up in Jordan and elsewhere, some might argue that all the Third Worlders uprooted by Western Imperialism(especially US foreign policy of INVADE) have a ‘right’ to seek refuge in the West.
    But then, it may soon dawn on white native folks of Europe that they too are being ‘Palestinianized’ because massive exodus of third worlders into white homelands will turn white people into something like Palestinians who were displaced from their own homelands. Under this globalist new order, every people can claim to be a ‘Palestinian’, both the victims of the ‘Invade’ and the ‘Invite’.

    Said’s dream was not about the Refugee but the Returnee. He wished that Palestinians could RETURN to their ancient homeland. But if you cannot return, you must accept refugee/exile status. You must find a homeland SOMEWHERE.. and why not in the West since the West was most instrumental in turning the Middle East and North Africa into a hellhole? Thus, the meaning of ‘Palestinian’ becomes fluid, a status and condition than a mere nationality. It’s like how the term ‘Syrian’ also became fluid, invoked to designate any ‘refugee’ in Europe as a ‘Syrian’ seeking safety.
    Said lost Palestine, but his ideas may prove useful in turning the West into one big ‘Palestine’. It’s like Paul couldn’t convert the Jews, so he set about turning gentiles into ‘new Jews’. Anyway, if ‘Palestine’ becomes synonymous with the ‘refugee’ and ‘exile’, whereas Jewishness becomes synonymous with homeland with the most ‘extreme’ nationalism in the world, then a kind of role reversal has been enacted. Jews, who had for so long been associated with nomadism and homelessness, are now associated with homeland and rootedness, whereas Palestinians have become like the ‘new Jews’ who are like the classic old Jews of rootlessness.

    Still, even if there is an element of vengeance in Said’s posthumous influence, it is nevertheless controlled by Jews. After all, Jews have lifted certain ideas from ORIENTALISM to shame the Christian-Gentile West into taking more ‘refugees’. It is a twist of the original meaning that was premised on dream of Return. Said’s hope wasn’t for Palestinians to seek refuge in the West. His hope was for them to return. But no chance of that since Jews monopolized the ‘return’ narrative in regards to the Holy Land.
    But the idea of Western culpability in the suffering of Arabs and Muslims is something that is useful to Jewish globalists. Of course, Jews leave out the fact that most of the horrors in the Muslim world since the end of the Cold War are the result of Zionist/Globalist control of US government and NATO. But then, those who control the Narrative get to cherrypick the ideas that are useful in the Current Year. And what is useful to Jewish globalists from ORIENTALISM is “Muslims and Arabs are victims of Western aggression, Western imperialism, and Western racism.” Therefore, if white people in the US and EU object to Muslim/Arab migration, then they are nasty ‘orientalists’.

    This intellectual sleight-of-hand trick by the Jews — what might be called Disorientalism — is the real reason why there are so many troubles between the Middle East and the West. Those who use the West to foment wars and strife in the Middle East today are mostly associated with Jewish power. Refugees aren’t spontaneously generated out of nowhere. They are people who’ve been forced into homelessness by wars, invasions, bombings, and their after-effects.
    By combining Lazarus-ism and Said-ism, we are hoodwinked into forgetting all about the horrific effects of the Disorientalist invade-and-invite syndrome. Instead, just look at those poor huddled refugees!! Invoke Colossusism to feel such pity for those poor poor helpless ‘refugees’ and would-be-immigrants. And then invoke Orientalism to condemn any ‘nativist’ who opposes mass migration as a ‘racist’ whose mind has been poisoned by Orientalist stereotyping of the Other as the enemy. This way, what Said had intended as Dream of Return has been rewritten into a Hope of Refugee. The image of the Muslim woman with a American Flag Hijab is telling. It’s as if Muslims, Palestinians included, must find their real homeland in the West.

    But then, how long can Jews play this game? If California college politics and the rise of Keith Ellison are any indication, there may come a time when Jews may have to answer for all the contradictory policies and narratives they’ve pushed on gentiles. Also, as non-whites gain greater foothold in America and compete for elite power and privileges, they may look for Jewish vulnerabilities to exploit for their own ends. Moral vulnerability can be fatal, as we’ve seen with whites who fell for the cult of ‘white guilt’ that paralyzed them against Jewish power, black thuggery, homo degeneracy, and mass demographic invasion. Place a people on a morally defensive position in an idealistic nation like the US, and they can easily slip from power. It is more difficult for them to say NO in apologetic mode.
    On the other hand, maybe white decline has more to do with being outgunned by Jews intellectually & financially and by blacks athletically & musically. After all, consider American Indians. One could argue that no people have more of a moral claim against whites than Indians do. After all, the current narrative says ‘racist’ and ‘imperialist’ whites stole the land from ‘noble Indians’. Okay, but has this really made any real difference? Indians are not gaining on whites despite their great moral capital. So, moral capital alone without special powers and abilities gets you nowhere. If Jews had all the moral capital in the world due to the Holocaust but had an average IQ of 90, what would their power amount to in our world? As 2% of the US population, the would probably have 2% of wealth and media power. No one would pay them much attention.

    Anyway, as time passes, Said may indeed be seen as a prophetic figure, and ORIENTALISM may be regarded as something like Paul’s epistles.
    Though Noam Chomsky is the more famous figure referenced more frequently by radicals, activists, dissidents, and ‘progressives’, his ideology is of ideas and theories. As such, they are rather dry and intellectual despite the sharp moralistic content. Chomsky was never much interested in cultures or even different languages. One gets the sense that he would be happy if there was just one language for all humanity. What matters to him is his idea of truth and justice, and these are universal values that can be demonstrated through logical use of language… or so Chomsky seems to indicate. But man doesn’t live on ideas alone.

    In contrast, Said cannot be understood without consideration of(even obsession with) culture, identity, and particular histories. For Chomsky, history is a tragic series of annoyances that keep getting in the way of the One True Path for all mankind. In contrast, Said’s worldview says different cultures exist, and no culture shouldn’t seek dominance by treating another culture as its defective doppelganger. After all, the Other is both a contrast and a copy(or the dark side of the symmetry).
    Chomsky’s politics can be seen as anti-white, but if we follows its full logic, it is anti-all-races. It is only for one truth and one vision of humanity.

    But identity politics takes revenge on Orientalism by making the West and white folks the dark Other of the Noble People of Color. So, if Orientalist outlook of the West saw the West as rational, progressive, civilized, orderly, enlightened, balanced, & free in contrast to the East that was irrational, backward, chaotic, servile, superstitious, & repressive, the new PC formula posits the POC as righteous, just, noble, oppressed, victimized, & courageous in contrast to the West that is privileged, spoiled, oppressive, exploitative, exclusionary, & craven.
    If Orientalism was intellectual, academic, and creative, the rallying cry of the POC — Occidentalism? — is emotional, enraged, contemptuous, and aggressive. Perhaps Orientalism was more gentlemanly since Western power over the East became more assured in the 19th century. It could maintain composure because the West was in the commanding position. In contrast, POC see themselves as being in an uphill fight — event though those making the most noise in colleges are actually non-white members of the elites — and therefore feel justified in being as combative and nasty as possible.

    This vile and vicious movie says that even white European children are guilty of ‘genocide’ by having made their white parents favor them over the Other. That the sick West has been infected with ideas like this will be its undoing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvT_9TqIEtM

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    In the end, the success of Zionism had more to do with Jewish networks, Jewish wealth, Jewish clout, and Jewish influence in the USSR, the US, and especially the US.
     
    The US was NOT an early backer of Israel. US policy toward Israel was neutral to negative at least until Nixon and even after there was (still is) a large Arabist contingent in the Deep State who (besides liking Arab oil) admire the brave Arab on horseback and despise the spectacled Jewish accountant. Eisenhower pushed back against Israel (and UK and France) in the '56 War. France was Israel's major weapon supplier, not the US and was the one who gave them a nuclear reactor. Etc.
  152. @Jack D
    The Pals…well, they want their villages back. What else are they going to do?

    In Said's case, become Ivy League professors.

    Compared to the Gulf Arabs, the Palestinians are high IQ (less African admixture) and expat Palestinians do professional work in the Gulf (but are never given citizenship).

    In the US they do OK also - grocery stores and restaurants & such plus some professionals as well. They are at least as smart as Mexicans.

    For example, my opthometrician (sp?) at Costco is a Pal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    For example, my opthometrician (sp?) at Costco is a Pal.
     
    My daughter was checked out thoroughly by an optometrician when she experienced headaches as a grade-schooler. While he checked her eyes, we chatted and he explained that it was quite a demanding post-graduate certification to acquire-his was from the Pennsylvania College of Optometry, also known as Salus University.

    I had assumed that his was a medium-skill trade, measuring eyesight, that required an easy to get diploma.

    But to get his Doctor of Optometry diploma, he had to attend a four year graduate program with serious undergraduate course prerequisites. I looked it up.

    General Biology or Zoology (with labs) - one year
    General Chemistry (with labs) - one year
    Organic Chemistry (with labs) - one year or ½ year Organic Chemistry plus ½ year of either Biochemistry or Molecular Biology (lab highly recommended)
    English Composition or English Literature - one year
    Mathematics - one year ( ½ year Calculus fulfills math requirement; however, one year Calculus highly recommended)
    Microbiology or Bacteriology (with lab) - ½ year
    General Physics (with labs) - one year
    Psychology - ½ year
    Statistics (Math, Biology or Psychology) - ½ year

    Basically, it seems that optometricians/optometrists learn everything about the eye that M.D. opthalmologist doctors do. But they aren't allowed to touch or treat the eye.

    Now I understand why my prescription glasses cost so much.

  153. @Jack D
    There weren't that many Christian Arabs to begin with and they were, like Said, often in the vanguard of Arab nationalism (because it gave them a common identity with their neighbors outside of Islam and because they were more intellectually equipped to deal with Western "isms") so I don't think the Israelis were ever really in a position to co-opt them and even if they had it wouldn't have amount to anything.

    The early Zionists were really into Arab culture - they were going to reject Europe and get back to being middle easterners and the Arabs were their model. There are pictures of early settlers in Arab dress and of course the Israeli national dish is not gefilte fish but Arab felafel and hummus, etc. The problem was that the Arabs were not into Jewish culture. It's just like the situation with blacks in America - it's the minority that rejects the majority culture as an act of rebellion, not vice versa.

    “The early Zionists were really into Arab culture ”

    I’ve never been there, so I’m just guessing, but it seems like Israelis are turning into a Mediterranean culture, kind of like Greeks or Southern Italians, with a disco scene like Ibiza. Or maybe like Miami Beach.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Maybe 30 years ago a lot of young (non-Orthodox) Israelis were sort of vaguely Mediterranean in that Greek/ S. Italian disco way but Israeli has passed those places economically and now young Israelis give off the tattooed hipster latte bar "I'm working on my app" vibe. It's sort of like Brooklyn - their past was John Travolta and the present is more Lena Dunham.
    , @biz
    Yes and no. Israel is infinitely complex and packs an unbelievable amount of different cultures into a tiny space.

    You can be in a certain spot and see a girl in a tiny bikini who looks like an Italian model with her shaven-ape boyfriend, a little to the left a hipster computer programmer with Elvis Costello glasses and a messenger bag, and across the street two woman in burkas shuffling ten paces behind their bearded husband.
    , @Anonymous
    Israelis on the whole do have a pretty Mediterranean culture, but they also mostly don't descend from those early Zionist settlers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC-RD5tGay4

    , @Jack D
    Perhaps the reason you think that is that a lot of the Israelis who live in LA left in the '70s or so and are frozen in time in the unbuttoned shirt and gold chain disco phase of their national development.
  154. @The Last Real Calvinist

    I wonder to what extent Said’s jihad for ignorance was related to Islam’s own enforced ignorance. Islam has long discouraged scholarship about pre-Islamic history. It’s been left to Europeans to decipher pre-Islamic texts.

     

    This is a very good question. Perhaps Said engaged in a kind of meta-'noticing', i.e. he noticed that while Arabs are pretty much interested in Arabs -- and that this is the norm for most human cultures, i.e. they're not really all that curious about The Other -- for some reason Europeans are different. They are interested in learning about The Other not just to win battles or gain levarage in trade negotiations. They want to know about The Other in a much deeper and broader way. Perhaps some of Said's polemic against western anthropological and philological scholarship was indeed fueled by his resentment of this grossly unbalanced equation.

    Americans are probably losing interest in the rest of the world. Mexico has receded from American interest over the course of my lifetime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterike

    Mexico has receded from American interest over the course of my lifetime.
     
    Well, you are less interested in a place when you see denizens of that place literally everywhere you go, in every state, in every town. And when my little town alone has what? four or five Mexican food places. The exoticism is pretty much dead and gone.
  155. @Charles Pewitt
    Robert E. Lee should have known that he wasn't surrendering to military man Ulysses S. Grant. Robert E. Lee was surrendering to the Northern WASP scum politicians.

    Still in Saigon baby boomer James Webb is a big fan of Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down."

    Neil Young is a Canadian baby boomer arsehole.

    About 30 of my rants disguised as comments have failed to go through. Sometimes rants bring to light ways of thinking that need to be brought to the fore.

    “We have fought this fight as long, and as well as we know how. We have been defeated. For us as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation.” — Robert Edward Lee

    Lee didn’t surrender to any person or even government, as such. He surrendered to reality because he was not stupid; he’d lost a war of attrition.

    He faced an army twice the size of his own, with an overwhelming capacity for industrial and agricultural production and complete naval superiority precluding supply and trade. It’s a testament to his genuius and their valor his men withstood four years. The war was effectively a historical experiment in how the American Revolutionary War would have ended but for the Atlantic Ocean and the intercession of third parties, so great were the disparities.

    The man would have surrendered to a monkey in a top hat if that was called for to end the inevitable massacre he could finally stave off more.

    Neither Grant nor any politician in Washington or elsewhere had much to do with it, so I don’t understand that portion of the rant. Maybe the sense is list in another one Steve embargoed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    It is believed that one (of many) thing that convinced Lee his surrender was inevitable was that he saw two of his soldiers eating rotting horseflesh on the outskirts of Richmond. He tried a few long-shots to continue the fight but he knew it was effectively over.
  156. @Arclight
    The left studiously ignores the very ugly aspects of Arab Islamic culture just to try an rub everyone else's nose in a dogpile of "diversity", which shows it is far more concerned with political/cultural supremacy than the human rights it professes to champion. Reason number 1,176 I checked out on the left in the middle of the Bush Administration despite the enormous flaws in that crowd's approach to the ME and culture in general.

    While we certainly have a problem with too much low education/low skill Latino immigration, at the end of the day they aren't that different from a lot of the people who already live here. We can deal with that - in contrast, Europe has accepted huge numbers of people from literally the least compatible societies on the planet with Western civilization and its rules and norms, one that can only be solved by the currently unthinkable expulsion of huge numbers of immigrants.

    I think you’re right. Would Hispanics from the Americas be rioting like Muslims?

    I think they would not. They’re culturally closer to us.

    Do you ever read about the Vietnamese in France in the news? No.

    Islam is at the opposite pole. In fact, if you read about ANY part of the world where Muslims coexist with others, those others typically have problems with them (including Hindus and Buddhists).

    One thing Muslims (not just Arab ones either) all have in common is that they go crazy with rage if they think someone is insulting Islam.

    No other religion is like that. And the US currently has a pretty small number compared to Europe or even Canada.

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump’s temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I’m very discouraged. I don’t think I’ll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here's Colin Quinn: on how the Arabs aren’t big on observational humor:

    "Arabs are the most intense people on earth…. If you start a joke, “You ever notice when people do X?” and mention something annoying, you don’t hear laughter. You hear stony silence, and then, “Why would you allow that impudence to go unpunished?”"

    http://takimag.com/article/true_colin_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4YpPGpMxd

    , @Steve Sailer
    Here's Colin Quinn: on how the Arabs aren’t big on observational humor:

    "Arabs are the most intense people on earth…. If you start a joke, “You ever notice when people do X?” and mention something annoying, you don’t hear laughter. You hear stony silence, and then, “Why would you allow that impudence to go unpunished?”"

    http://takimag.com/article/true_colin_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4YpPGpMxd

    , @snorlax
    Hindus are like that. It's a regular occurrence in India for Muslims and the occasional Christian or Sikh to be lynched because someone starts a rumor they ate beef for dinner.
    , @Stan Adams

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump’s temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I’m very discouraged. I don’t think I’ll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.
     
    Nothing is impossible.

    We closed the floodgates in 1924 and we could do it again in 2017, if we had the backbone.

    The struggles to come will make the travel-ban fracas look like a Sunday walk in the park.
  157. @Frau Katze
    I think you're right. Would Hispanics from the Americas be rioting like Muslims?

    I think they would not. They're culturally closer to us.

    Do you ever read about the Vietnamese in France in the news? No.

    Islam is at the opposite pole. In fact, if you read about ANY part of the world where Muslims coexist with others, those others typically have problems with them (including Hindus and Buddhists).

    One thing Muslims (not just Arab ones either) all have in common is that they go crazy with rage if they think someone is insulting Islam.

    No other religion is like that. And the US currently has a pretty small number compared to Europe or even Canada.

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump's temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I'm very discouraged. I don't think I'll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.

    Here’s Colin Quinn: on how the Arabs aren’t big on observational humor:

    “Arabs are the most intense people on earth…. If you start a joke, “You ever notice when people do X?” and mention something annoying, you don’t hear laughter. You hear stony silence, and then, “Why would you allow that impudence to go unpunished?””

    http://takimag.com/article/true_colin_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4YpPGpMxd

    Read More
  158. @Frau Katze
    I think you're right. Would Hispanics from the Americas be rioting like Muslims?

    I think they would not. They're culturally closer to us.

    Do you ever read about the Vietnamese in France in the news? No.

    Islam is at the opposite pole. In fact, if you read about ANY part of the world where Muslims coexist with others, those others typically have problems with them (including Hindus and Buddhists).

    One thing Muslims (not just Arab ones either) all have in common is that they go crazy with rage if they think someone is insulting Islam.

    No other religion is like that. And the US currently has a pretty small number compared to Europe or even Canada.

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump's temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I'm very discouraged. I don't think I'll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.

    Here’s Colin Quinn: on how the Arabs aren’t big on observational humor:

    “Arabs are the most intense people on earth…. If you start a joke, “You ever notice when people do X?” and mention something annoying, you don’t hear laughter. You hear stony silence, and then, “Why would you allow that impudence to go unpunished?””

    http://takimag.com/article/true_colin_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4YpPGpMxd

    Read More
  159. snorlax says:
    @Frau Katze
    I think you're right. Would Hispanics from the Americas be rioting like Muslims?

    I think they would not. They're culturally closer to us.

    Do you ever read about the Vietnamese in France in the news? No.

    Islam is at the opposite pole. In fact, if you read about ANY part of the world where Muslims coexist with others, those others typically have problems with them (including Hindus and Buddhists).

    One thing Muslims (not just Arab ones either) all have in common is that they go crazy with rage if they think someone is insulting Islam.

    No other religion is like that. And the US currently has a pretty small number compared to Europe or even Canada.

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump's temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I'm very discouraged. I don't think I'll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.

    Hindus are like that. It’s a regular occurrence in India for Muslims and the occasional Christian or Sikh to be lynched because someone starts a rumor they ate beef for dinner.

    Read More
  160. Gabriel M says:
    @snorlax
    I'd be interested to see if you agree with me Israel's biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze. (IIRC, there's now some movement in that direction, but it's slow-going and they're mostly gone now anyway).

    Whatever the backstory to Said's aunt's house, it may have been nominally free, but it was possibly the most expensive real estate acquisition ever. The heart and mind of Edward Said turned out to be an asset to the Islamic world worth many divisions of tanks, flotillas of fighter jets and whole cities of fine Ottoman mansions.

    Israel (and Western civilization, as a plus) would be in a far more secure position had Said not converted American and European academia (from which politics and culture are downstream) to the Palestinian cause, and the Muslims had only their own half-wits to argue their case.

    More salutary effects: The Arab world would've expelled or alienated the rest of their high-quality human capital, besides the odd outlier like Steve Jobs' dad. And there'd be a lot less anti-Zionism on the American and European right, if the destruction of Israel implied the slaughter of millions of civilized Christians.

    I guess I must have missed all those cases where South Carolinans went abroad so they could cheer on self-destructive intifadas from a safe distance.
     
    Irish-Americans did organize the Fenian raids and (much later) NORAID. (In one of the odder episodes in Trump history, he attended a Sinn Féin fundraiser in 1996). Not that I approve, but it's pretty typical for ethnic diasporas, including US-based, to side with their violent irredentist coethnics.

    I'm not sure if I'd go with "self-destructive." Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it'd otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I'd say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they've been since 1948, and for a complete victory (Israel goes the way of French Algeria) the highest since the Balfour Declaration. Israeli public opinion might be the least charitable to the Palestinians it's ever been, but theirs is not the public opinion which matters.

    The pattern is, if you keep your left-wing (Puritan-Whig, American, Bolivar, 1848er, Irish, Bolshevik, Indian, FLN, ANC, Latin American Marxist, Islamist) or even de facto right-wing (Greek, Soviet & Yugoslav nationalities, Tibet, Zionist) resistance movement going long enough, you will win friends in the capitals of America and Europe, sufficient to ensure your victory.

    I’d be interested to see if you agree with me Israel’s biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze.

    Better late than never.

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

    But it all seriousness, I don’t think what you describe was really an option at the time. Christian Arabs were not just into Arab nationalism, they basically were Arab nationalism.

    I’m not sure if I’d go with “self-destructive.” Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it’d otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I’d say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they’ve been since 1948.

    But why is that a good thing for Palestinians (as opposed to the PLO)? Palestinian national identity is a made up thing to fight Zionism. The founders of the PLO say this explicitly. So the a Palestinian state, even if they do achieve such a thing, cannot be considered an end in itself, let alone one worth what they have had to go through to get it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    The Palestinian value system clearly places fighting Zionism above any hedonic concerns. As you know, many Palestinians who are eligible for Israeli citizenship (and associated welfare bennies) nevertheless refuse to take it. Palestinians are known to refuse 7-figure-USD offers for their properties in East Jerusalem. I think that's all cuckoo for crazy puffs, nevertheless, Palestinian nationalism has been an effective strategy to realize their revealed preferences.

    Like all asymmetrical warfare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a PR battle, and Trump notwithstanding the Pallies are winning in a rout. The long-term prospects for Israel don't look good unless it can somehow achieve complete autarky while maintaining a first-world standard of living, or there's a greater-than-9/11-scale terrorist attack that decisively turns world opinion against Muslims.

    Blood and soil is a powerful thing. Why would any Jew want to pitch their tent on some crappy sliver of Middle Eastern desert, when in America they average three times the per capita income, with a significantly reduced chance of catching a bus explosion or your kids being conscripted for Kalashnikov-toting savages' target practice? From a Mr. Spock pure hedonic point of view it makes no sense.
    , @Jack D

    Palestinian national identity is a made up thing to fight Zionism. The founders of the PLO say this explicitly. So the a Palestinian state, even if they do achieve such a thing, cannot be considered an end in itself, let alone one worth what they have had to go through to get it.
     
    I think you can already see in Gaza the gap between "what we were promised" and "what we actually got." If Said had moved to Gaza, how long would it have taken before he was standing on the Israeli side of the border and throwing rocks in the direction of Hamas?

    The Palestinians didn't even wait until they had their own state to engage in civil war. If they achieved statehood they would still have the Muslim Fundamentalist vs. Westernized Militarist battles you see in Egypt and Syria and Turkey today and democracy would not last past the 1st election.
  161. Gabriel M says:

    Steve Sailer has elaborated a theory of how arriviste Eastern European Jews retconned their rejection by elite German Jewish golf clubs into a story of rejection by WASP golf clubs as part of an unconscious strategy of maintaining Jewish cohesion.

    On that score it might be interesting to note the following.

    In 1951, Victoria College expelled Edward, who had proved a troublesome boy, despite being a student of great intelligence and much academic achievement; he then attended Northfield Mount Hermon School, Massachusetts, a socially élite, college-prep boarding-school where he lived a difficult year of social alienation. Nonetheless, the student Edward excelled, and achieved the rank of either first (valedictorian) or second (salutatorian) in a class of one hundred sixty students.

    So, basically, Said spent most of his childhood in Egypt, where a promising career lay ahead of him, but this was brought to an end when he was expelled from school and, a year later, his family’s business was looted by a mob. Said retconned this up as a story of how his family was expelled from his imaginary childhood house in Jerusalem by Israelis in order to maintain his commitment to Arab nationalism.

    Read More
  162. snorlax says:
    @Gabriel M

    I’d be interested to see if you agree with me Israel’s biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze.
     
    Better late than never.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Naddaf

    But it all seriousness, I don't think what you describe was really an option at the time. Christian Arabs were not just into Arab nationalism, they basically were Arab nationalism.

    I’m not sure if I’d go with “self-destructive.” Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it’d otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I’d say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they’ve been since 1948.
     
    But why is that a good thing for Palestinians (as opposed to the PLO)? Palestinian national identity is a made up thing to fight Zionism. The founders of the PLO say this explicitly. So the a Palestinian state, even if they do achieve such a thing, cannot be considered an end in itself, let alone one worth what they have had to go through to get it.

    The Palestinian value system clearly places fighting Zionism above any hedonic concerns. As you know, many Palestinians who are eligible for Israeli citizenship (and associated welfare bennies) nevertheless refuse to take it. Palestinians are known to refuse 7-figure-USD offers for their properties in East Jerusalem. I think that’s all cuckoo for crazy puffs, nevertheless, Palestinian nationalism has been an effective strategy to realize their revealed preferences.

    Like all asymmetrical warfare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a PR battle, and Trump notwithstanding the Pallies are winning in a rout. The long-term prospects for Israel don’t look good unless it can somehow achieve complete autarky while maintaining a first-world standard of living, or there’s a greater-than-9/11-scale terrorist attack that decisively turns world opinion against Muslims.

    Blood and soil is a powerful thing. Why would any Jew want to pitch their tent on some crappy sliver of Middle Eastern desert, when in America they average three times the per capita income, with a significantly reduced chance of catching a bus explosion or your kids being conscripted for Kalashnikov-toting savages’ target practice? From a Mr. Spock pure hedonic point of view it makes no sense.

    Read More
  163. Gabriel M says:

    As you know, many Palestinians who are eligible for Israeli citizenship (and associated welfare bennies) nevertheless refuse to take it.

    That is not my understanding.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-the-heart-of-jerusalem-a-squalid-palestinian-refugee-camp-festers/

    Palestinians are known to refuse 7-figure-USD offers for their properties in East Jerusalem.

    Remember your Moldbug; people have minds as well as hearts. The calculation the Palestinians are making is that $$$$ doesn’t mean much if you get shot in the head and this happens to your family.

    In a 2006 interview with the BBC, a Palestinian man living in the West Bank village of Kfar Deek claimed that after approaching the PA to complain that his sister had been molested by PA officials, he was accused of being a collaborator, arrested by the PA and “tortured” (BBC 13 Dec. 2006). The man reportedly said that his oldest and youngest sons were taken by authorities and tortured (ibid.). He also told BBC that “masked men” abducted his middle son, whose dead body was later found in the road near the village with 14 bullet wounds (ibid.).

    Palestinian Nationalism thrives because Palestinians are more scared of Palestinian Nationalists than of Zionists. For good reason. The reason the Islamic version of Palestinian Nationalism has overtaken the secular kind that Said liked is because Palestinians are more scared of Islamic Palestinian Nationalists than secular Palestinian Nationalists.

    The solution is obvious: grasp the nettle.

    Read More
  164. JackOH says:
    @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    How about Barack Obama Sr.?

    My first thought was of an interview I’d read with an Iraqi woman, a well-educated curator or art historian, who told her Western interviewer after Iraq II that Saddam Hussein was a son of a bitch, and that the Americans were sons of bitches, too. If my memory’s okay, she cited bombing, the unleashing of fundamentalist schisms, and Iraqi refugees seeking to escape chaos. Does anyone seriously believe, I wondered, that offering her a good job in a Western gallery or museum is going to make up for that?

    I suppose that’s why I find the dust-up between President Trump and Bill O’Reilly over “moral equivalence” obnoxious and beside the point. Most folks, I think, need to reach a modus vivendi with whatever crap government, dictator, or occupation regime they’re living under. Having that applecart upset, whether by the United States or Country X, is wrenching stuff, and there’s no guarantee that “compulsory Americanism” (my made-up phrase) is the price people want to pay for that intervention. “Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss”.

    I’m rambling. I’d be interested to know whether there’ve been any “intervention simulations” or “intervention gaming”, in which actor-participants living under an explicitly described bad regime are asked whether they wish to be liberated, whether they wish to have an outside party intervene militarily or diplomatically in their behalf, and so on. Thanks for your reply, and I’ll stop rambling now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    With regard to your last paragraph, I'm not sure. There's always a faction that wants foreign involvement, though when they get it they usually regret it. Take Count Julian and the Moors as the obvious example; staying in Spain we have the Spanish Civil War when both sides asked for help; the Reds lived to regret it but Franco managed to keep his "allies" at arms' length, though even so they aroused quite a lot of spite. Then Spain had plenty of foreign involvement in its miserable 19th century, none of which endeared the Spaniards to the British or French.

    The U.S. involvement in Libya was at the behest of some of the parties, as would have been our planned attack on Syria. In neither case do the people who wanted our help like us very much.

    If the foreigners aren't pushy and especially if they go native they can be liked; think of Lafayette, or Napoleon in Poland.

    Tarpeia's case didn't turn out so well for anyone.
  165. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "The early Zionists were really into Arab culture "

    I've never been there, so I'm just guessing, but it seems like Israelis are turning into a Mediterranean culture, kind of like Greeks or Southern Italians, with a disco scene like Ibiza. Or maybe like Miami Beach.

    Maybe 30 years ago a lot of young (non-Orthodox) Israelis were sort of vaguely Mediterranean in that Greek/ S. Italian disco way but Israeli has passed those places economically and now young Israelis give off the tattooed hipster latte bar “I’m working on my app” vibe. It’s sort of like Brooklyn – their past was John Travolta and the present is more Lena Dunham.

    Read More
  166. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Spot on

    Trump pissed off the media and the CIA and now he (and his alt right fellow travelers) are about to feel the backlash

    You started this fight, we are going to finish it

    Rule 1: Never come between Dindu and his turtle….eben ip he be smashin it fo bein diprespckful.

    http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20170215/police-disabled-daytona-veteran-beaten-by-suspects-accused-in-turtle-killing

    Read More
  167. biz says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "The early Zionists were really into Arab culture "

    I've never been there, so I'm just guessing, but it seems like Israelis are turning into a Mediterranean culture, kind of like Greeks or Southern Italians, with a disco scene like Ibiza. Or maybe like Miami Beach.

    Yes and no. Israel is infinitely complex and packs an unbelievable amount of different cultures into a tiny space.

    You can be in a certain spot and see a girl in a tiny bikini who looks like an Italian model with her shaven-ape boyfriend, a little to the left a hipster computer programmer with Elvis Costello glasses and a messenger bag, and across the street two woman in burkas shuffling ten paces behind their bearded husband.

    Read More
  168. Jack D says:
    @Anon
    In the end, the Orientalists did less damage to the Middle East than the Disorientalists(Invade and Inviite) though, to be sure, Orientalists planted the seeds that would grow to bear poison fruits.

    But I'm not sure the later troubles in MENA could be blamed on Orientalism per se. The worst thing that the West did was in creating unstable inorganic nations in the Middle East along imperialist designs, mainly of UK and France. As their main priority was control and dominance, neither Brits nor French cared about creating political borders that complemented ethnic divides. Even with the best intentions, creating new nations would have been difficult since the ethnic populations weren't neatly concentrated in separate areas. Still, something like Kurdistan could have been created for areas with large majority Kurdish populations. So much headache in the yrs ahead could have been avoided IF the boundaries had been more consciously drawn.

    But the tragic result owed more to naked short-term ambition of empires than any 'world-view'. Indeed, one could argue that if true Orientalists had been given the chance to draw national borders in the Middle East, they would have done so with more careful attention to cultural, linguistic, and ethnic differences.

    But in the end, politicians, businessmen, and military men got to decide. And they didn't care about culture, ethnos, or language. And their counterparts in our globalist age do the same thing. They don't care what happens to cultures, nations, and languages as long as their own power expands around the world.

    Maybe Said wouldn't have been so bitter about the Orientalists if not for the sad fate of Palestinians. If Palestine than Israel had been allowed to develop as a modern Arab nation, maybe Said would have been grateful to Orientalists.
    After all, Arab nationalism was the result of the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire. Also, it was Western archaeology that rediscovered much of the glories of the Middle East that had been forgotten, destroyed, and buried by Christians and Muslims. The recovery of lost pagan cultures.

    Said argued that even this recovery of ancient glory could be used to justify Western domination. After all, it was Western science and methods that 'discovered' them. Aside from considerable 'looting' of these treasures, much of which ended up in Western museums, there was the Western Imperialist notion that it was the white man's burden to reconnect the natives with their TRUE past and heritage. The West, with its methodology in archaeology and etymology, would be the proper teacher of 'true' native cultures to the natives who'd forgotten their glorious past due to neglect, earlier conquests, and decline. The most spectacular finds were perhaps in Egypt.

    The thing is... nobody is a saint in history, and a tremendous amount of credit must be given to Orientalists and archaeologists who did key work that allowed us to rethink the past. And this methodology would have profound impact not just on the Middle East but in Latin America and Asia. Indeed, much of what non-whites know of their history and heritage owes to archaeology and etymology as developed in the West. Prior to that, they just relied on official narrative of the ruling elites.

    Also, the great Orientalists really cared about the histories and cultures of the Middle East. They were filled with admiration. And their theories and ideas had a positive impact on Arabs in their modernization efforts. I mean what did Arabs have before they gained access to Western methods? They were fighting over camels and water wells.

    Maybe, Said's antipathy toward Orientalists was partly just envy. The fact that Westerners rediscovered and learned so much about the Orient was bound to rub some Arabs the wrong way. So, an easy and convenient way to gain upperhand over the European Orientalists was to call them 'racist' and 'imperialist'. In other words, "you did great work, but you are racist." So, even as whites do get scholarly credit, the moral credit belongs with non-whites(as victims of even well-meaning scholarly whites).
    But more than that, Said connected the dots between Orientalism and the fate of Palestine. But this is where he overreached. It's like Nassim Taleb's Black Swan theory. People tend to connect the dots between what came before and what came after, as if indeed what WAS had been decisive in what CAME AFTER. That could be the case, but then, maybe not.

    Though one could argue that Orientalism paved the way for Zionist takeover of Palestine and other troubles in the Middle East, the fact is things could easily have turned out DIFFERENTLY, in which case some sour Zionists might argue that Orientalists were to blame for the failure of Zionism: "Damn Orientalists filled Arabs with nationalist and cultural pride, making it difficult for Jews to get a foothold in the Middle East."

    After all, Orientalism did lead to much admiration for Oriental Civilization, and many Orientalists were sympathetic toward native modernizers who were trying to forge a new Arab identity based on not only Islam but on prior cultures that had predated the rise of Muhammad's empire.

    In the end, the success of Zionism had more to do with Jewish networks, Jewish wealth, Jewish clout, and Jewish influence in the USSR, the US, and especially the US.

    That was the key, and Orientalism played little role in the final outcome. Truman surely didn't know much about the Middle East when he made his decision. He just knew that pushy Jews were slamming their fists on the table, and there were powerful forces behind them. And Jews represented a key power bloc in the Democratic Party. And decisions made by superpowers that would lead to massive displacement of peoples was nothing unique to Palestine. The decision was mainly geo-political than cultural. After all, I highly doubt if US decision to divide Korea and Vietnam had much to do with any grand theory of Asian Civilization. Great powers divide up weaker regions like a cake.

    But intellectuals don't like simple explanations. They love to create some elaborate theory to explain historical phenomena by connecting the dots among philosophy, philology, archaeology, economics, culture, and politics.

    Occam's Razor explanation of Zionism would be too obvious, thus 'un-intellectual'.

    The fact is Jews simply had much more firepower in the West than the Palestinians did. They had the connections with big money, media power, politicians, and etc. And that would mean Jews are just more successful, smarter, and savvier than the Arabs are.

    It's like how PC carefully coordinates any discussion of black problems with some grand intellectual theory. Every black problem in the here-and-now are connected to all the stuff that happened in the past.



    Yes, it is true enough that the present is a continuation of the past, but the past has no determinist impact on the present. Besides, history, like Angkor Wat, is often easily forgotten and lost. Consider how fast so many whites have lost their sense of heritage and history because they were no longer educated and cultivated by patriot parents, teachers, politicians, and media people. After just a few generations of pop culture and PC, so many whites think Harriet Tubman is the greatest person that ever lived. And now, a whole bunch of morons will think three Negresses sent white boys to the moon.
    So, the past can easily be expunged and lost.
    When it comes to today's black problems, it has little to do with the past. It has to do with the simple fact that too many blacks are tougher, more aggressive, wilder, and less intelligent than non-blacks. Being tougher, they know they can whup and push around other races. Being more aggressive, they are more likely to act on their wilder whims. Being less intelligent and less patient, they fail in schools and life. Also, being more egotistical and uninhibited, blacks are less likely to be self-critical and self-reflective while being more susceptible to praise and adulation. (The fact that the least accomplished race -- except in sports and pop music -- is heaped with praise over achievement in EVERY field had easily persuaded blacks that they was the 'kangs' of Egypt and did everything, which was STOLEN by whites. Whites, either out of anxious condescension or servile cuck-instincts, seem addicted to playing this game.) This leads to resentment and rage. But such a simple and obvious explanation isn't very 'intellectual'. What's the point of being an academic in an elite institution if you come up with an explanation that sounds so simple and true? I mean anyone with an honest pair of eyes and ears could have come to same conclusion WITHOUT becoming a professor with tons of credentials.
    For the scholar class, it'd be more highfalutin, seemingly erudite, and ethically concerned to connect today's black pathologies with Jim Crow, Birth of a Nation, KKK, failure of Reconstruction, slavery, and etc.
    Now, people should know their histories and their roots, but it doesn't follow that just because something happened long ago, it affects today's reality. After all, if we use the theory of trauma, China should not be rising today since Chinese underwent one massive trauma after another since the Opium Wars. Taiping Rebellion, imperialist invasion, fall of dynasty, fall of Republic and warlord era, famines, Japanese invasion, civil war, communist lunacies under Mao, and etc. Yet, China emerged from that mess. Why? Under half-decent leadership since Deng, they put their large talent pool in organization, work ethic, and intelligence to work. So, biology and culture matter to economic achievement. Look at what happened to Detroit and Hiroshima since end of WWII. Today, Detroit looks like it was hit with a nuke. Why is that? We must discuss race and biology to explain this. Imagine if you held Mike Tyson and Alan Dershowitz captive when they were both 15 yrs old. Suppose you used both of them as slaves for 20 yrs, and you treated them both the same. And then, both are released. What are the odds that freed Tyson and freed Dershowitz will act the same in freedom because they underwent the same experience in captivity? It's likely that Tyson will turn to crime whereas Dershowitz might get some learning and open a trade. If one were to argue that Tyson turned to crime because of 20 yrs of captivity, why didn't Dershowitz end up the same way even though he too was treated the same way? The only explanation is biology. Tyson is born thug with low IQ and big muscles. I mean what is the chances that Woody Allen and the Negro in TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN will act the same if they were freed? Despite same treatment on the chain gang, they would use freedom differently if set free.

    https://youtu.be/-kKzO1mfaK8?t=5m17s

    If Said had written ORIENTALISM before the creation of Israel, it might not have been so negative. Or, if Palestine than Israel existed in 1978, the book's tone might not been so bitter. But when the book was written, Said must have been pissed plenty. When Palestinians lost out to Zionists, they looked to other Arab nations for help. But in 1967, tiny Israel kicked some serious butt in only 6 days. The big kahuna of Arab nations, Egypt, got totally whupped. And then in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Arabs got licked again despite the surprise attack. Also, there was so much acrimony among the Arabs who never seemed to get along(like in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). And in all this mess, more Palestinians were killed by other Arabs than by Jews. There was massive pogroms against Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria. And even though Arabs all over(and Muslims all over) paid lip-service to the Palestinian cause, no one really liked them or did much for them; indeed, back then as today, Arabs don't want to take refugees from other Arab nations; Arabs know how much trouble fellow Arabs are. How many Syrian refugees has Saudi Arabia taken in?
    And Edward Said notwithstanding, Palestinians failed to produce the kind of big thinkers, big inventors, big businessmen, and etc. who could amass power around the world and press global affairs against Israel. So, Said must have felt very lonely. He was a true intellectual and heavy-hitter in the academia, but most Palestinians were a bunch of dodo's. Even when Jews were in exile, they were good at organization and had lots of talent. But Palestinians seemed to have no idea except to come up with dumb-dumb stuff like Munich terrorist attack that only besmirched their name --- I mean what were they thinking? If Palestinians had real brains, they would have played like Gandhi and used the 'peaceful resistance' method. Or by like Mexicans, smile a lot, and slowly plot reconquista by picking lettuce. But they were too filled with macho pride to pull that clever stunt. If Palestinians had played it like Mexicans, they'd be in a much better shape. Had there been no Intifada, Jews never would have built a wall around West Bank. Palestinians in WB would have been eagerly allowed into Israel to supply cheap labor, and with Jewish guard down, Palestinians could slowly work themselves into all of Israeli society. Look at Mexicans in California. The Felipe Way proved more effective than the Intifada Way that only awakened the Jews up and made them more militantly nationalistic.

    https://youtu.be/S23ECEa_-4c?t=15m52s


    Being an intellectual leader of the Palestinians was like being coach of the Bad News Bears. It was like leading the guys in STRIPES. Low talent.

    When Said was at Columbia, he must have met a super-smart Jew in every department, every hall, every classroom. Jews were clearly the smarter Semites than the Arab Semites. (Well, Middle Eastern Jews aren't that smart, but Ashkenazi European Jews have the smarts, and as they are EUROPEAN Semites, that might have rubbed Said the wrong way. The other famous Semite in American media/academia was Helen Thomas, and she blurted out that EUROPEAN Jews should leave 'Palestine'. Presumably, the native Semitic Jews could stay. Since media folks don't have tenure, she was fired and become an overnight nobody despite her renowned standing in American journalism. Interestingly enough, even though most Arabs are Muslim, many of the most prominent Arab scholars are Christian.)

    Hanan Ashrawi was often featured on NIGHTLINE in the 80s and 90s, and she is Christian Arab too. Said's Christian background prepared him for more of a secular, modern, and Western outlook. Given the tensions between Muslims and Christians in the Arab world, it's possible that Said might have been less hostile to the West had Palestine existed, in which case, the main political division in Palestine would have been between Arab Muslims and Arab Christians. But because of Zionism, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims found themselves on the same boat. Indeed, anti-Zionism was the galvanizing factor among all Arabs: Sunni, Shia, and Christian. And since Christian Arabs were more worldly and modern(and because the West is Christian), they made better & more appealing spokesmen for the Palestinian and Arab cause. (While American Christians might not care about Jews whupping Muslims, they might not feel so good about supporting Jews against fellow Christians, even if Arab.)
    So, it's not surprising that there 's been almost no sympathy in the Western(Jewish-dominated) media about all the violence done to Arab Christians in the Middle East. It serves Zionist interests to cause a rift among not only Shias and Sunnis but between Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs. With so much anti-Christian violence by Muslim Arabs in Iraq and Syria(and Egypt), it is difficult for worldly and educated Christian Arabs to play the role of spokesmen for Arabs as a whole.

    https://youtu.be/B3lzAp2WXGo?t=23m18s

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

    In one sense, the Israeli-Palestine Conflict is between the West(that backs Israel) vs the Near East(mostly Muslim world). But in another way, it is a brothers' war, Semite vs Semite. Furthermore, at least from Said's own experience, it's been an exiled-brothers' war: Jews-in-exile vs Arabs-in-exile.
    After all, the founders of Israel were not native Sephardic Jews but Ashkenazi Jews returning from exile. Furthermore, most Ashkenazi Jews did NOT return to Israel but fought for it in preferred 'exile' in the US, UK, and European nations.
    Since Palestinians had so little power in Israel and in occupied territories --- due to discrimination, oppression, lack of high IQ and culture of ambition --- , they had to fight their war in exile also. So, Palestinians sought help from the USSR, other Arab nations, Muslim World, European anti-imperialist intellectuals, and anti-Zionists(even on the far right). But there were too many divisions among the Arabs. Also, there wasn't much quality there in terms of talent or ideas. Saudis had money but ONLY because they sat on a ton of oil. Gaddafi played the role of defender of the oppressed, but it was essentially a Michael Jackson act. Empty suit. Also, as some Arab and Muslim nations were very close to the US --- Indonesia, Saudis, Gulf states, Pakistan(allied with US against India that was backed by USSR back then), Jordan, etc --- , the most that the Palestinians could hope for was lip-service. And when Egypt too went over to the US, what a bummer. And then, when the USSR collapsed, bigger bummer. And when Hussein got beaten in Gulf War, more humiliation. Palestinians looked to Iran for help, but this was mixed blessing. While Iran did send help, it only pissed off Saudis and other Sunni nations that loathed Iran's brand of Shia power.

    Palestinians lost the land-conflict within Israel/Palestine, but they also lost the war-of-exile as Jews-in-exile outgunned Palestinians-in-exile. This was especially apparent as US gained the upperhand in the Cold War against the USSR. Though Vietnam War seemed fatal to the US power(compounded by fall of Shah in 79), USSR was facing darker clouds. Afghanistan would be a bigger headache for USSR than Vietnam was for US. When US came home, Vietnam was far away. In contrast, Afghanistan neighbored the USSR and its brand of Islam could easily spread to USSR itself(and Russia would come to taste some of this violence in the 1990s and 2000s). Also, when China went fully with the US, USSR found itself on the ropes.

    Another key difference between Jews and Palestinians was Jews gained real power whereas Palestinians could only gain sympathy. So, even though Palestinians did gain sympathy from some nations, they had no means to press them to help the Palestinians in any consequential way. They were at the whim and mercy of sympathetic nations. Some just said nice words. Some donated some money and blankets. Some gave some guns and ammo, but not much that would make a difference. Also, due to Jewish power in the US, even nations sympathetic toward Palestinians didn't dare do anything that might really piss off Israel since it would piss off the US too, and that could mean trouble diplomatically, economically, and even militarily. In contrast, Jews didn't just rely on sympathy(much of it deriving from Holocaust narrative). They had the economic, media, cultural, and political might to pressure leaders and politicians all over the world into supporting Israel. Since Jews controlled the US, they also controlled Japan and EU. EU was esp vulnerable to moral blackmail due to Holocaust being a new religion over there.
    Consider the 2008 campaign when Obama collected a few tens of thousands from the Palestinian business community. In contrast, he got gazillions from the Jews. Which side was he going to listen to? Of course, the likes of Mark Levin made a big stink about how Obama took a few thousands from Palestinian-Americans but was mum about the many many millions received from Jews. In the US, Palestinian-Americans might run some small store in a Detroit ghetto. Jews run Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. There are some Arab scholars in elite colleges, but for every Arab, there are many more Jews. Given the huge divergence in power, Said must have felt lonely in a world full of talented Jews. Indeed, even his position at Columbia owed to Jewish sympathy. Imagine that. The premier intellectual of Palestinians who relied on the sympathy of his main enemy to have a limited voice in Western academia.

    In some ways, Said's bluntness was admirable. Had he been savvier, he should have played more like Gandi and MLK than like Jinnah the hothead. Said should have realized that Palestinians couldn't do what Algerians or Vietnamese did. Algerians were the solid majority under French rule. And Vietnamese outnumbered the Americans. Also, whereas most Americans didn't care about South Vietnamese, they did care about Jews, the people of the Book who also came to be billed as the Holocaust Tribe. US could cut and run from Vietnam and abandon the Viets to the communists, but there was no way US would ever abandon the Holocaust people. Besides, unlike the useless South Vietnamese military, the Israeli military was pound-for-pound, one of the best in the world, and it wasn't gonna be brought down by a bunch of guerrilla fighters or terrorists.
    Also, due to 1948 mass expulsion, Israel was solidly majority Jewish. It's difficult to fight a people's war against a majority population. If Israel had been like Algeria or South Africa where the native majority outnumbers the colonizers, it might have been different. So, the PLO was in a useless struggle even if some peoples around the world recognized their cause as righteous. It'd be like American Indians fighting to take back Wisconsin. Not gonna happen. Just take the Reservations and casinos. PLO wasted so much energy and time because it relied on the Third World Liberation Struggle template(which ONLY WORKED in non-white nations where the natives outnumbered whites by a huge margin; after all, the natives failed to regain any Latin American nation because of substantial white and mestizo populations there).
    The most that the Palestinian Struggle could have hoped for was ending the Occupation in Gaza and West Bank. But that was regarded as defeatism to the PLO and Said. PLO held onto the struggle for the fantastical destruction of Israel for too long. And Said could never let it go since his pride had been invested in the struggle for too long. But it was a fool's game.

    Now, suppose Palestinians had gotten smart and focused on at least saving West Bank and Gaza(when they had far fewer settlers than they do today and when there were almost no walls). The best strategy would have been to play like Gandhi and MLK or Felipe of Tres compañía. But Arab hotheadedness and Muslim Machismo, or Muslimismo, just couldn't handle this sort of thing. A Muslim would rather blow himself up with the enemy than stand around and get smacked around by the infidel before a camera. Even when Palestinians feature themselves as victims of Zionist oppression and terror, it is in the form of the FIGHT. Palestinian kids gunned down by IDF after throwing rocks at them.
    Muslims don't like the idea of non-violence. Actually, some Muslims did join Gandhi, but those were Asian-Indians who are not a very warrior-like people. Arabs are less likely to stand around and get twacked on the head like this. Arabs are willing to die in the fight but not without a fight.

    https://youtu.be/y1DHNoHxB_c?t=2m6s

    Anyway, Said's bluntness(despite his intellectual dishonest) meant he was less likely to bullshi* us with highfalutin values. Gandhi was really a BS artist. So was MLK. So was Mandela at the end. I don't mind their struggle for freedom and power, but they were NOT high-minded idealists like they pretended. Maybe Gandhi did have some genuine idealism; after all, he did weave his own underwear, but his main motivation was still nationalism, not some universalist principles(which was really for the suckers like Richard Attenborough who later fell for a fat Jew to guard the T-rex). Said was for Palestinian nationalism and, in this, had much in common with Arafat. Later, it was easy for Said to denounce Arafat since Said spent most of his time in the West. Whereas Arafat had to deal with worsening situation on the ground, Said preached resoluteness from a safe distance.
    In the end, he failed as both theorist and fighter because he was too rigid in strategy and too distant from the actual struggle. He was too much of a purist-idealist to come up with a pragmatic strategy for long-term success, and he was too compromised as an apologist of PLO fighters and terrorists(who were sometimes just a few notches above gangsterism) to maintain intellectual integrity. Imagine John Reed and Zinoviev rolled into one, and you get Said. Too corrupt/compromised and innocent/naive at the same time.

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

    So, in the end, he was one big failure...

    But paradoxically, possibly a greater success due to the failure. A kind of triumph after all. Even though Said lost the Battle of Palestine, he did plant the seeds for the Battle of the West. And the moral logic of this larger battle has roots in the earlier battle: Even though Palestinians did NOTHING to white people and the West, the West supported the Zionists in the destruction of Palestinians. And when people like Said tried to bring attention to this injustice, most of the Western world ignored him; worse, so many white people heaped abuse on Palestinians as 'terrorists'. (Many Americans found it convenient to project the 'antisemitism' of their forefathers on the no-good Arabs. Almost overnight, white Christians made themselves into the noblest defenders of Jews from Arab/Muslim Nazis hellbent on destruction of Israel. It was a disingenuous way to overlook the fact that the Holocaust happened in the heart of the West.) Ironically, the people who paid Said much mind were some Jews in academia. But Said must have felt like a bird that picks the teeth of crocodile. To be a Palestinian advocate in a Jewish and pro-Zionist university like Columbia would have been uneasy. After all, even those Jews who did sympathize did, in the end, support Zionism. The Nation magazine(when I used to read it) could be harshly critical of Israel, BUT it still defended 'its right to exist', which means the Nakba was worth it. So, Jews could be critical of Israel but not condemn the historical premise of its existence. But Said wasn't just about criticism of Israeli abuse of power. He was opposed to the very founding myth of Israel. So, even with sympathetic Jews, he had to deal with the fact that they were, when push came to shove, for the necessity of Nakba.

    Anyway, since Palestine is lost forever, what could someone like Said hope for? This is where vengeance comes into play. Since the West helped the Zionists destroy a people who did no harm to the West, the least Said could do is plant the seeds that could 'Palestinian-ize' the West itself. I'm not saying Said had this is in mind when he wrote ORIENTALISM, but his ideas have mutated and taken on new agendas. All intellectual ideas turn crude in the struggles in the streets. Darwinism unwittingly bred Nazism. Socialism led to Marxism that led to Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. And all the fancy theories of the French Enlightenment turned into KILL THE ENEMY during the Revolution. Today, there is the call to 'punch nazis'.
    It's like all the fancy theory about the 'sweet science' turns into a bloodfest inside the boxing ring.

    Said tried to win back Palestine. His struggle was mostly in exile. Since most Westerners didn't care much about Palestine, he tried to tie the struggle of Palestinians with the whole of European/Western imperialist history. Just like Jewish historiography of the Holocaust would have us believe that there was a sickness in the soul of white folks and Christianity that finally and inevitably led to antisemitism and the Holocaust --- therefore ALL white gentiles, not just Germans of WWII era, are to blame and must atone before Jews --- , Said's contention was what happened in Palestine wasn't just some isolated incident but the culmination of all of Western history's imperialist fantasies of dominating the Other.
    Nevertheless, despite the book's success in academia, it simply could not compete with Jewish firepower in media, entertainment, politics, courts, finance, and etc.

    Still, seeds of certain ideas sprout and grow bigger and bigger and take on a life of their own. And what failed for Palestine might succeed for the Third World as a whole.
    During the Roman Occupation, many Jews sought to resist and regain control of the homeland from Romans and collaborator Jews. Some like the Zealots fought. Some came up with new prophecies and interpretations of the faith. Some sought to convert the Jews to the new prophecy, the new revelation. The most notable were, of course, Jesus and Disciples. Historians say Jesus and inner circle were really about influencing fellow Jews than the gentiles. But they failed in that endeavor, and then St. Paul came along and dramatically altered it for worldwide movement. In time, Jews would lose Jerusalem and all of Holy Land to the Romans. And Jews would reject the teachings of Jesus and ideas of Paul. But St. Paul did get his 'vengeance' -- if it may be characterized as such -- by spreading the seeds among the gentiles who would in time be profoundly affected by them.

    Is Said like a modern-day prophet, a kind of Palestinian Paul? He failed with the Palestinians. Israel grows more nationalist by the day. Jews now have high birthrates. And Jews keep taking more and more of what remains of West Bank. So, everything Said tried to do for Palestine came to nothing.
    But the idea of 'Palestinian' might be taking on a larger meaning. All the refugees of the world can be seen as 'Palestinians' uprooted by wars, strife, chaos, and famine(which can always be blamed on global warming due to first world emissions). So, just as Palestinians expelled from Palestine/Israel ended up in Jordan and elsewhere, some might argue that all the Third Worlders uprooted by Western Imperialism(especially US foreign policy of INVADE) have a 'right' to seek refuge in the West.
    But then, it may soon dawn on white native folks of Europe that they too are being 'Palestinianized' because massive exodus of third worlders into white homelands will turn white people into something like Palestinians who were displaced from their own homelands. Under this globalist new order, every people can claim to be a 'Palestinian', both the victims of the 'Invade' and the 'Invite'.

    Said's dream was not about the Refugee but the Returnee. He wished that Palestinians could RETURN to their ancient homeland. But if you cannot return, you must accept refugee/exile status. You must find a homeland SOMEWHERE.. and why not in the West since the West was most instrumental in turning the Middle East and North Africa into a hellhole? Thus, the meaning of 'Palestinian' becomes fluid, a status and condition than a mere nationality. It's like how the term 'Syrian' also became fluid, invoked to designate any 'refugee' in Europe as a 'Syrian' seeking safety.
    Said lost Palestine, but his ideas may prove useful in turning the West into one big 'Palestine'. It's like Paul couldn't convert the Jews, so he set about turning gentiles into 'new Jews'. Anyway, if 'Palestine' becomes synonymous with the 'refugee' and 'exile', whereas Jewishness becomes synonymous with homeland with the most 'extreme' nationalism in the world, then a kind of role reversal has been enacted. Jews, who had for so long been associated with nomadism and homelessness, are now associated with homeland and rootedness, whereas Palestinians have become like the 'new Jews' who are like the classic old Jews of rootlessness.

    Still, even if there is an element of vengeance in Said's posthumous influence, it is nevertheless controlled by Jews. After all, Jews have lifted certain ideas from ORIENTALISM to shame the Christian-Gentile West into taking more 'refugees'. It is a twist of the original meaning that was premised on dream of Return. Said's hope wasn't for Palestinians to seek refuge in the West. His hope was for them to return. But no chance of that since Jews monopolized the 'return' narrative in regards to the Holy Land.
    But the idea of Western culpability in the suffering of Arabs and Muslims is something that is useful to Jewish globalists. Of course, Jews leave out the fact that most of the horrors in the Muslim world since the end of the Cold War are the result of Zionist/Globalist control of US government and NATO. But then, those who control the Narrative get to cherrypick the ideas that are useful in the Current Year. And what is useful to Jewish globalists from ORIENTALISM is "Muslims and Arabs are victims of Western aggression, Western imperialism, and Western racism." Therefore, if white people in the US and EU object to Muslim/Arab migration, then they are nasty 'orientalists'.

    This intellectual sleight-of-hand trick by the Jews --- what might be called Disorientalism --- is the real reason why there are so many troubles between the Middle East and the West. Those who use the West to foment wars and strife in the Middle East today are mostly associated with Jewish power. Refugees aren't spontaneously generated out of nowhere. They are people who've been forced into homelessness by wars, invasions, bombings, and their after-effects.
    By combining Lazarus-ism and Said-ism, we are hoodwinked into forgetting all about the horrific effects of the Disorientalist invade-and-invite syndrome. Instead, just look at those poor huddled refugees!! Invoke Colossusism to feel such pity for those poor poor helpless 'refugees' and would-be-immigrants. And then invoke Orientalism to condemn any 'nativist' who opposes mass migration as a 'racist' whose mind has been poisoned by Orientalist stereotyping of the Other as the enemy. This way, what Said had intended as Dream of Return has been rewritten into a Hope of Refugee. The image of the Muslim woman with a American Flag Hijab is telling. It's as if Muslims, Palestinians included, must find their real homeland in the West.

    But then, how long can Jews play this game? If California college politics and the rise of Keith Ellison are any indication, there may come a time when Jews may have to answer for all the contradictory policies and narratives they've pushed on gentiles. Also, as non-whites gain greater foothold in America and compete for elite power and privileges, they may look for Jewish vulnerabilities to exploit for their own ends. Moral vulnerability can be fatal, as we've seen with whites who fell for the cult of 'white guilt' that paralyzed them against Jewish power, black thuggery, homo degeneracy, and mass demographic invasion. Place a people on a morally defensive position in an idealistic nation like the US, and they can easily slip from power. It is more difficult for them to say NO in apologetic mode.
    On the other hand, maybe white decline has more to do with being outgunned by Jews intellectually & financially and by blacks athletically & musically. After all, consider American Indians. One could argue that no people have more of a moral claim against whites than Indians do. After all, the current narrative says 'racist' and 'imperialist' whites stole the land from 'noble Indians'. Okay, but has this really made any real difference? Indians are not gaining on whites despite their great moral capital. So, moral capital alone without special powers and abilities gets you nowhere. If Jews had all the moral capital in the world due to the Holocaust but had an average IQ of 90, what would their power amount to in our world? As 2% of the US population, the would probably have 2% of wealth and media power. No one would pay them much attention.

    Anyway, as time passes, Said may indeed be seen as a prophetic figure, and ORIENTALISM may be regarded as something like Paul's epistles.
    Though Noam Chomsky is the more famous figure referenced more frequently by radicals, activists, dissidents, and 'progressives', his ideology is of ideas and theories. As such, they are rather dry and intellectual despite the sharp moralistic content. Chomsky was never much interested in cultures or even different languages. One gets the sense that he would be happy if there was just one language for all humanity. What matters to him is his idea of truth and justice, and these are universal values that can be demonstrated through logical use of language... or so Chomsky seems to indicate. But man doesn't live on ideas alone.

    In contrast, Said cannot be understood without consideration of(even obsession with) culture, identity, and particular histories. For Chomsky, history is a tragic series of annoyances that keep getting in the way of the One True Path for all mankind. In contrast, Said's worldview says different cultures exist, and no culture shouldn't seek dominance by treating another culture as its defective doppelganger. After all, the Other is both a contrast and a copy(or the dark side of the symmetry).
    Chomsky's politics can be seen as anti-white, but if we follows its full logic, it is anti-all-races. It is only for one truth and one vision of humanity.

    But identity politics takes revenge on Orientalism by making the West and white folks the dark Other of the Noble People of Color. So, if Orientalist outlook of the West saw the West as rational, progressive, civilized, orderly, enlightened, balanced, & free in contrast to the East that was irrational, backward, chaotic, servile, superstitious, & repressive, the new PC formula posits the POC as righteous, just, noble, oppressed, victimized, & courageous in contrast to the West that is privileged, spoiled, oppressive, exploitative, exclusionary, & craven.
    If Orientalism was intellectual, academic, and creative, the rallying cry of the POC --- Occidentalism? --- is emotional, enraged, contemptuous, and aggressive. Perhaps Orientalism was more gentlemanly since Western power over the East became more assured in the 19th century. It could maintain composure because the West was in the commanding position. In contrast, POC see themselves as being in an uphill fight --- event though those making the most noise in colleges are actually non-white members of the elites --- and therefore feel justified in being as combative and nasty as possible.

    This vile and vicious movie says that even white European children are guilty of 'genocide' by having made their white parents favor them over the Other. That the sick West has been infected with ideas like this will be its undoing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvT_9TqIEtM

    In the end, the success of Zionism had more to do with Jewish networks, Jewish wealth, Jewish clout, and Jewish influence in the USSR, the US, and especially the US.

    The US was NOT an early backer of Israel. US policy toward Israel was neutral to negative at least until Nixon and even after there was (still is) a large Arabist contingent in the Deep State who (besides liking Arab oil) admire the brave Arab on horseback and despise the spectacled Jewish accountant. Eisenhower pushed back against Israel (and UK and France) in the ’56 War. France was Israel’s major weapon supplier, not the US and was the one who gave them a nuclear reactor. Etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    The Truman administration was an early backer of Israel, although Ike's administration was [idiotically] Arabist. At any rate by the 60's the Israelis were clearly part of the Western and Egypt and Syria the Soviet bloc. I'd agree that Nixon was the one to elevate them to the status of a first-tier ally.
  169. Jack D says:
    @Gabriel M

    I’d be interested to see if you agree with me Israel’s biggest historical mistake was not coopting Christians as with the Druze.
     
    Better late than never.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Naddaf

    But it all seriousness, I don't think what you describe was really an option at the time. Christian Arabs were not just into Arab nationalism, they basically were Arab nationalism.

    I’m not sure if I’d go with “self-destructive.” Sure, the occupation is probably harsher than it’d otherwise be, but Palestinian nationalism has been a pretty successful strategy playing-for-keeps-wise. I’d say the long-term odds of a Palestinian state are higher today than they’ve been since 1948.
     
    But why is that a good thing for Palestinians (as opposed to the PLO)? Palestinian national identity is a made up thing to fight Zionism. The founders of the PLO say this explicitly. So the a Palestinian state, even if they do achieve such a thing, cannot be considered an end in itself, let alone one worth what they have had to go through to get it.

    Palestinian national identity is a made up thing to fight Zionism. The founders of the PLO say this explicitly. So the a Palestinian state, even if they do achieve such a thing, cannot be considered an end in itself, let alone one worth what they have had to go through to get it.

    I think you can already see in Gaza the gap between “what we were promised” and “what we actually got.” If Said had moved to Gaza, how long would it have taken before he was standing on the Israeli side of the border and throwing rocks in the direction of Hamas?

    The Palestinians didn’t even wait until they had their own state to engage in civil war. If they achieved statehood they would still have the Muslim Fundamentalist vs. Westernized Militarist battles you see in Egypt and Syria and Turkey today and democracy would not last past the 1st election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I think you can already see in Gaza the gap between “what we were promised” and “what we actually got.”
     
    The typical argument for secession/national independence is that the natives are being exploited by foreign interlopers. While the Belgian Congo was a shameful instance of vicious Western exploitation that rivaled the worst African and Oriental despotisms, it was the exception to the rule. In most cases, European rule was less oppressive than native rule. And that is exactly what most Third World former possessions of the West's empires discovered, once they attained independence. By and large, the West became relatively richer even as their ex-imperial holdings grew poorer.
  170. snorlax says:
    @Jack D

    In the end, the success of Zionism had more to do with Jewish networks, Jewish wealth, Jewish clout, and Jewish influence in the USSR, the US, and especially the US.
     
    The US was NOT an early backer of Israel. US policy toward Israel was neutral to negative at least until Nixon and even after there was (still is) a large Arabist contingent in the Deep State who (besides liking Arab oil) admire the brave Arab on horseback and despise the spectacled Jewish accountant. Eisenhower pushed back against Israel (and UK and France) in the '56 War. France was Israel's major weapon supplier, not the US and was the one who gave them a nuclear reactor. Etc.

    The Truman administration was an early backer of Israel, although Ike’s administration was [idiotically] Arabist. At any rate by the 60′s the Israelis were clearly part of the Western and Egypt and Syria the Soviet bloc. I’d agree that Nixon was the one to elevate them to the status of a first-tier ally.

    Read More
  171. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jimi
    Lebanese Christians are distancing themselves from their Arab identities.

    On twitter Nassim Nicholas Taleb posts a lot on how his Christian ancestors aren't really Arab.

    They’re actually inching closer to accepting one. For older generations, there was no question that they were different, but the younger ones feel their numbers shrinking and influence waning and are changing tack.

    Good luck to them, but I think they’re screwed either way. Their fate was sealed back when the borders were determined. Also, a lot of urban Leb Christian youth are pretty much SWPL morons these days, that certainly won’t help.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Bethlehem was 85% Christian in 1947, down to 15% today. They blame the Joos, of course:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/christian_exodus_from_bethlehem.html
  172. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    "The early Zionists were really into Arab culture "

    I've never been there, so I'm just guessing, but it seems like Israelis are turning into a Mediterranean culture, kind of like Greeks or Southern Italians, with a disco scene like Ibiza. Or maybe like Miami Beach.

    Israelis on the whole do have a pretty Mediterranean culture, but they also mostly don’t descend from those early Zionist settlers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC-RD5tGay4

    Read More
  173. bomag says:
    @JackOH
    Good essay, Steve. I only had time for a quick scan. I recall Wm. F. Buckley's TV interview with Said, who made a good impression, and that Said was a university intellectual and something of a standard-bearer for the Palestinian cause.

    My immediate, gut-level reaction, though, on finishing your essay was to ask myself: How many educated elites of other nations has America's grasping empire alienated, and for whom a position, no matter how comfy, in the academy, bureaucracy, or corporate America is no consolation for the loss of homeland, and, maybe, the loss of moral legitimacy/certitude that comes from having your homeland whacked? (There's a retired U. N. lawyer, Alfred de Zayas, who's come up with something like a legal theory for the right to a homeland.)

    How many educated elites of other nations has America’s grasping empire alienated

    “America’s grasping empire” consists of us buying friends. We’re not expanding our land base nor our population reach. To the contrary, other countries send their people here to colonize sections of our land.

    To that end, the “friends” are not much on our side (Saudi cough), and the people we alienate were likely never to be on our side; looking for friends on the world stage is a unicorn hunt.

    Read More
  174. peterike says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Americans are probably losing interest in the rest of the world. Mexico has receded from American interest over the course of my lifetime.

    Mexico has receded from American interest over the course of my lifetime.

    Well, you are less interested in a place when you see denizens of that place literally everywhere you go, in every state, in every town. And when my little town alone has what? four or five Mexican food places. The exoticism is pretty much dead and gone.

    Read More
  175. Simon says:

    Shortly after September 11, the hard-left London Review of Books invited various contributors to submit their reactions. The resulting symposium made for disturbing reading; there was, I recall, a lot of unseemly gloating going on. (According to Cambridge classics prof Mary Beard, “The United States had it coming.”)

    Here’s how Edward Said’s piece started off:

    “For the seven million Muslim Americans (only two million of them Arab) who have lived through the catastrophe and backlash of 11 September, it’s been an unpleasant time. Several victims of the atrocities were Arabs and Muslims, but there is an almost palpable air of hatred directed at the group as a whole.”

    Savor the callous narcissism and sheer dishonesty of that phrase “the catastrophe and backlash”! Not only does it equate the two, but it’s clear Said was far more concerned about the latter than about any terrorist attack. I wanted to ask then, and I still want to ask, even though Said has blessedly left the scene: “WHAT backlash, asshole?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Said was a loyalist to his race.
    , @PiltdownMan
    The "backlash" trope has been a popular construct in left academic circles since at least the 1980s.

    Always hyperbolic, almost never true, it also never challenged or examined. You just have to say "Backlash!" and everyone will nod sagely in agreement.

    It's intellectual lineage goes back all the way to Marxist/Leninist hypervigilance toward counter-revolution and revanchism, but I think there's also an intentional evocation of imagery from slavery in the use of that particular word.

    Not "pushback", not "revenge", nor "unfair scapegoating."

    Backlash.

  176. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @JackOH
    My first thought was of an interview I'd read with an Iraqi woman, a well-educated curator or art historian, who told her Western interviewer after Iraq II that Saddam Hussein was a son of a bitch, and that the Americans were sons of bitches, too. If my memory's okay, she cited bombing, the unleashing of fundamentalist schisms, and Iraqi refugees seeking to escape chaos. Does anyone seriously believe, I wondered, that offering her a good job in a Western gallery or museum is going to make up for that?

    I suppose that's why I find the dust-up between President Trump and Bill O'Reilly over "moral equivalence" obnoxious and beside the point. Most folks, I think, need to reach a modus vivendi with whatever crap government, dictator, or occupation regime they're living under. Having that applecart upset, whether by the United States or Country X, is wrenching stuff, and there's no guarantee that "compulsory Americanism" (my made-up phrase) is the price people want to pay for that intervention. "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss".

    I'm rambling. I'd be interested to know whether there've been any "intervention simulations" or "intervention gaming", in which actor-participants living under an explicitly described bad regime are asked whether they wish to be liberated, whether they wish to have an outside party intervene militarily or diplomatically in their behalf, and so on. Thanks for your reply, and I'll stop rambling now.

    With regard to your last paragraph, I’m not sure. There’s always a faction that wants foreign involvement, though when they get it they usually regret it. Take Count Julian and the Moors as the obvious example; staying in Spain we have the Spanish Civil War when both sides asked for help; the Reds lived to regret it but Franco managed to keep his “allies” at arms’ length, though even so they aroused quite a lot of spite. Then Spain had plenty of foreign involvement in its miserable 19th century, none of which endeared the Spaniards to the British or French.

    The U.S. involvement in Libya was at the behest of some of the parties, as would have been our planned attack on Syria. In neither case do the people who wanted our help like us very much.

    If the foreigners aren’t pushy and especially if they go native they can be liked; think of Lafayette, or Napoleon in Poland.

    Tarpeia’s case didn’t turn out so well for anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How about in the 1100s when one contender in Ireland, to help him fight the High King of Ireland, invited in some English Norman warlords. How'd that work out for the Irish?
  177. @Frau Katze
    I think you're right. Would Hispanics from the Americas be rioting like Muslims?

    I think they would not. They're culturally closer to us.

    Do you ever read about the Vietnamese in France in the news? No.

    Islam is at the opposite pole. In fact, if you read about ANY part of the world where Muslims coexist with others, those others typically have problems with them (including Hindus and Buddhists).

    One thing Muslims (not just Arab ones either) all have in common is that they go crazy with rage if they think someone is insulting Islam.

    No other religion is like that. And the US currently has a pretty small number compared to Europe or even Canada.

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump's temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I'm very discouraged. I don't think I'll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump’s temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I’m very discouraged. I don’t think I’ll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.

    Nothing is impossible.

    We closed the floodgates in 1924 and we could do it again in 2017, if we had the backbone.

    The struggles to come will make the travel-ban fracas look like a Sunday walk in the park.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    I hope you're right. In this matter I will be most happy if I'm wrong.
  178. Nick Diaz says:

    Steve Sailer:

    “But it’s worth attempting to think about Said instead as a conservative with natural, healthy concentric loyalties to his clan and race”

    Yes, Steve Sailer, those intincts are very healthy indeed, I mean, it’s not like nationalist wars killed 80 million young men in the 20th century alone. In fact, the expression:”nationalist wars” is an oxymoron, since pretty much every war is caused by nationalism, with the remainder being caused by religion. As Einstein once said:

    ‘Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind.’

    Yes, Steve Sailer, nationalism and racism are very ‘healthy’ instincts indeed. Very, *very* healthy…as a way of demographic control, due to the enormous amounts of people they kill.

    “And that’s the kind of energetic, intense immigrants our Ruling class most lusts after at the moment to stick it to the despised Ruled: Iron Age fanatics”

    Delusional. There was no meeting of the elite behind closed doors to decide that dangerous Muslims should be let into the country. Do you really think elites want Jihadists that can kill them into the country? The ruling of judge Robart and the ruling by the 9th circuit that followed blocking Trump’s travel ban was because Trump’s travel ban was deemed unconstitutional because it included a religious component. The judges were just doing the job of the judiciary.

    You guys are so dim that you don’t even understand how government in a democracy works. The President is not a king or dictator, but merely the head of the executive power. The power of the executive is limited by the legislative and judiciary branches. This is called the checks and balances, where the three powers can veto each other depending on the circumstance. This is the only way to avoid dictatorships. The ruling by the 9th circuit judges was simply them exercising the normal judiciary power in a tripartite government. Simple as that. Judge Robart is not even a liberal, but a life time Republican who was nominated by George W.Bush. But even a Republican judge can see that Trump’s executive order was loathsome.

    You guys thought that, once elected, Trump would get to do whatever he wants. I said when it became obvious that Trump was going to win – despite losing the popular vote – that he wouldn’t be able to uphold over 90% of his campaign promises because he was going to get blocked by the judiciary and even the mostly Republican Congress most of the time. What he wants is too radical and too to the right to pass.

    What the election of Trump proved is that the little people, namely, the lower middle-class and lower classes, are far more to the right than the upper middle-class and upper classes. To be more precise: the lower classes were far less affected by the Enlightnment than the upper classes. The lower classes simply don’t share the values of the Enlightnment. Values such as: tolerance for individual differences in lifestyles and religion, separation of church and state, equality before the law, etc. The upper classes tend to be center or center-left, while lower classes are far, far to the right.

    When you think about it, rightism is the “natural” state of humans. If you visit a primitive tribe of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, their customs and political structure is far right: they have strong social control of behavior, women are property, homosexuality is not tolerated and punished by death, all men bear arms, they are highly xenophobic and intolerant of foreginers and all those outside the tribe, etc. In other words, they are Steve Sailer’s kind of guys.

    As humans become more civilized and as cultures advance, they become less xenophobic, more tolerant of alternative lifestyles, less tolerant of the weak taking advantage of the strong, less religious, more inclusive and less hostile towards people from outside the tribe, prefering to see their humanity rather than their status as foreginers.

    A shift from the right to the center is a mark of civility and advancing culture. Steve Sailer and his minions want to live like a primitive tribe, except with higher levels of technology. In an age of thermonuclear weapons, clinging to the old rightist mentality of primitive humans represents a serious risk of global catastrophe.

    Rightism is a sign of mental atavism

    Read More
  179. gcochran says:
    @snorlax
    The Truman administration was an early backer of Israel, although Ike's administration was [idiotically] Arabist. At any rate by the 60's the Israelis were clearly part of the Western and Egypt and Syria the Soviet bloc. I'd agree that Nixon was the one to elevate them to the status of a first-tier ally.

    An ally is someone we give money to.

    Read More
  180. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I wonder how much of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has to do with nationalism or prime-real-estate-ism?

    After all, we are talking of the Holy Land here, perhaps the greatest piece of cultural prime real estate in the world, the birthplace of Judaism and by extension Christianity and Islam.

    If not for that cultural significance, would things have become so complicated? To an extent, I’m sure Said was pissed that the Zionists took over his aunt’s home. But was it really about the home or the fact that it was around Jerusalem? Suppose ‘Palestine’ was situated in some part of Yemen with no particular cultural or historical significance. Would a man like Said have been so pissed if it were lost to another people? Pissed and angry, yes, but as pissed as losing the holy land?

    The Crusades were, after all, about the battle for the Prime Real Estate. It was less about religion. After all, both Christianity and Islam are credo-religions. Ideas are what matter, not places and things. But from a historical viewpoint, the Holy Land did matter. It had great symbolic importance. Muslims wanted it, Christians wanted it, and Jews wanted it. (Jews eventually sneaked in between the cracks of the Muslim-Christian conflict.) For a man as cultured, historical, and sophisticated as Said, what must have been especially jarring about the loss of Palestine was it meant a lot more. To call it ‘Palestine’ would imply it was just one nation among many others. A normal nation. But in fact, ‘Palestinians’ — actually just a bunch of Arab tribes who only later took on the moniker — were squatting on the greatest and most valuable Prime Real Estate in the world. But since most ‘Palestinians’(even if ragtag, grubby, and low grade)were Muslim, the Muslim World could go on feeling that THEY owned the Holy Land. To Christians and Jews, it seemed so unfair that a bunch of mediocrities held that Prime Real Estate. It’d be like Guillermo having the most beautiful woman as wife. I mean other men are gonna make the move to take her away from him. It’s like the scene in WOLF OF WALL STREET. To Jordan Belfort, it isn’t right that the beautiful blonde belongs to some schmuck. HE must have her.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM04zoAmPTs

    So, in this case, we can see how the Orientalist sexual metaphor of West as ‘male’ and Orient as ‘female’ (though it’s been reversed in recent yrs as Negro as macho and Muslim as aggressive white male is cucked and pansy or even homo/tranny) was deeply upsetting to Said. If Palestine had no cultural or historical cachet, losing it to another people would have been just about nationalism. But, due to the historical significance of Palestine, the loss meant much more. Palestinians didn’t just lose a nation. The lost THE Prime Real Estate. They didn’t just lose a nice piece of rock. They lost the biggest piece of gold. They didn’t just lose a homely wife to another man. They lost the Helen of Troy. The most holy and precious place in the world. And this is why the Muslim World has been so upset. And this is why the Christian World has been so supportive of Zionism which served as proxy of Western Power.

    Now, imagine of Jews had built their own nation in a part of Yemen or part of Syria or part of Libya. Sure, Muslims would be upset but not that upset. Over time, they might just come to tolerate Jews as neighbors.
    Imagine a man with harem. Out of 20 women, 19 are okay but one is smashing gorgeous beautiful. Suppose someone comes along and takes one of the 19. The owner of the harem might be upset but not that upset. But imagine if the lover boy took THE ONE, the ultimate dream-babe goddess. Then, it’s Trojan War time. Now, the Holy Land isn’t much in terms of geography. But it was made most beautiful and magical due to history, culture, and religion. It is the historical center of the world, the birthplace of the axis of great spiritual neurosis around which all of the West and Orient came to revolve around. Roman Polanski sort of went nuts when Charles Manson’s Family killed his impossibly beautiful wife. A man steeped in culture, history, and ideas like Said was bound to take the loss of ‘Palestine’ that was more than Palestine very hard. Indeed, calling it ‘Palestine’ is like calling Helen of Troy ‘some gal’ or ‘Midge’. ‘Palestine’ is the holy land, the Prime Real State. It is to spirituality and history what Manhattan is to finance and media.

    Palestine is different from Puerto Rico, a ‘nation’ of such low cultural significance that even Puerto Ricans don’t want independence and just wanna go on as a commonwealth of America. It’s not a goddess; it is a whore.
    If Said had been Puerto Rican, he might be bitter with a kind of Latin inferiority complex, but he wouldn’t feel his people lost something special. He’d been like Al Pacino in CARLITO’S WAY. Just someone looking for a good time and some happiness in life. The story of his life might have been Eddie’s Way:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1WKEjSevBo

    But for a people to lose the greatest prime estate in the world. That must hurt.
    Also, the fate of Palestine goes to show that Will-to-Power rules the world.
    The relative lack of sympathy for Palestinians around the world — even sympathetic nations are 99% lip-service and 1% deed — indicates that most people believe that a land so meaningful, precious, and magical should NOT be held by a bunch of losers. It should be in the hands of a great people, and Jews have demonstrated greatness.
    Most people, even egalitarians and leftists, feel this way in their heart of hearts. Suppose some beautiful woman is with a mediocre guy and suppose a superior guy comes along… and he snatches the woman from the inferior guy. We may say it’s unfair and blah blah, but in there is something in us that sides with the superior guy. Take this scene in THE LONG RIDERS. The woman really wants to be with Keith Carradine but ended up with Dennis Quaid. So, when the opportunity arises, she breaks her bond with Quaid and goes with Carradine. Carradine’s little stunt is sort of lowlife, but we feel there’s more ‘justice’ in her going with Carradine. It may not be morally just but seems more naturally just. Nature favors the superior over the inferior. Nature make us feel that it is unjust for the inferior to possess the superior.

    https://youtu.be/MCfgf8DaNTo?t=34m5s

    And the fact that there was so little concern for Palestinians had to do with the discrepancy between their ability and their land. They were not a remarkable people. Just a bunch of Arabs who grew figs and olives. And yet they were in possession of the most valuable Prime Real Estate by history, culture, and religion. They were like Danny Devito with Patricia Neal in THE FOUNTAINHEAD.

    Indeed, if the Holy Land could think, it would rather be owned by a Winner People than a Loser People.
    Said’s neurosis was that he had superior talent, and if many Palestinians were of his caliber, maybe Palestinians could have amassed great political, economic, and cultural capital and maneuvered to keep the Holy Land as their nation.
    But he was a rarity among Arabs whereas people like him were all-too-common among Jews. He was an Arab with Jewish talents. By ability, he felt more at home among smart Jews. By identity, he felt as one with Palestinians. It was bound to lead to great neurosis.

    And he felt bitter about the world because, despite the lip-service around the world about the plight of Palestinians, in actual deed the world was fine with winner-Jews ruling over Palestine that became Israel. Even Arab nations, one after another, said one thing but really did another. People respect winners, and Saudis and Egyptians figured it’s better to deal with Israelis, a great people, than be stuck with Palestinian, the losers. Sure, they gave just enough aid and moral support to Palestinians to maintain the facade of Arab unity, but it was mostly a charade.

    Imagine a dorky guy married to a babe. But then a rich intelligent guy comes along and woos the woman, and she leaves the loser dork.
    Now, the friends of the loser dork may sympathize with him.. but if they were invited to a BBQ by the rich guy with the babe-wife, would they not go out of solidarity with the loser dork? Reality isn’t like that. Will-to-Power decides. So, to better understand what is going on, we need a fascistic theory of Power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Read Twain's Innocents Abroad and tell me again that Israel is the greatest real estate in the world. It was a forsaken desert before the Zionists. In the 19th century, Jerusalem had a population of well under 10,000.
  181. @Anon
    With regard to your last paragraph, I'm not sure. There's always a faction that wants foreign involvement, though when they get it they usually regret it. Take Count Julian and the Moors as the obvious example; staying in Spain we have the Spanish Civil War when both sides asked for help; the Reds lived to regret it but Franco managed to keep his "allies" at arms' length, though even so they aroused quite a lot of spite. Then Spain had plenty of foreign involvement in its miserable 19th century, none of which endeared the Spaniards to the British or French.

    The U.S. involvement in Libya was at the behest of some of the parties, as would have been our planned attack on Syria. In neither case do the people who wanted our help like us very much.

    If the foreigners aren't pushy and especially if they go native they can be liked; think of Lafayette, or Napoleon in Poland.

    Tarpeia's case didn't turn out so well for anyone.

    How about in the 1100s when one contender in Ireland, to help him fight the High King of Ireland, invited in some English Norman warlords. How’d that work out for the Irish?

    Read More
  182. @Simon
    Shortly after September 11, the hard-left London Review of Books invited various contributors to submit their reactions. The resulting symposium made for disturbing reading; there was, I recall, a lot of unseemly gloating going on. (According to Cambridge classics prof Mary Beard, "The United States had it coming.")

    Here's how Edward Said's piece started off:

    "For the seven million Muslim Americans (only two million of them Arab) who have lived through the catastrophe and backlash of 11 September, it’s been an unpleasant time. Several victims of the atrocities were Arabs and Muslims, but there is an almost palpable air of hatred directed at the group as a whole."

    Savor the callous narcissism and sheer dishonesty of that phrase "the catastrophe and backlash"! Not only does it equate the two, but it's clear Said was far more concerned about the latter than about any terrorist attack. I wanted to ask then, and I still want to ask, even though Said has blessedly left the scene: "WHAT backlash, asshole?"

    Said was a loyalist to his race.

    Read More
  183. @Nick Diaz
    Steve Sailer:

    "But it’s worth attempting to think about Said instead as a conservative with natural, healthy concentric loyalties to his clan and race"

    Yes, Steve Sailer, those intincts are very healthy indeed, I mean, it's not like nationalist wars killed 80 million young men in the 20th century alone. In fact, the expression:"nationalist wars" is an oxymoron, since pretty much every war is caused by nationalism, with the remainder being caused by religion. As Einstein once said:

    'Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind.'

    Yes, Steve Sailer, nationalism and racism are very 'healthy' instincts indeed. Very, *very* healthy...as a way of demographic control, due to the enormous amounts of people they kill.

    "And that’s the kind of energetic, intense immigrants our Ruling class most lusts after at the moment to stick it to the despised Ruled: Iron Age fanatics"

    Delusional. There was no meeting of the elite behind closed doors to decide that dangerous Muslims should be let into the country. Do you really think elites want Jihadists that can kill them into the country? The ruling of judge Robart and the ruling by the 9th circuit that followed blocking Trump's travel ban was because Trump's travel ban was deemed unconstitutional because it included a religious component. The judges were just doing the job of the judiciary.

    You guys are so dim that you don't even understand how government in a democracy works. The President is not a king or dictator, but merely the head of the executive power. The power of the executive is limited by the legislative and judiciary branches. This is called the checks and balances, where the three powers can veto each other depending on the circumstance. This is the only way to avoid dictatorships. The ruling by the 9th circuit judges was simply them exercising the normal judiciary power in a tripartite government. Simple as that. Judge Robart is not even a liberal, but a life time Republican who was nominated by George W.Bush. But even a Republican judge can see that Trump's executive order was loathsome.

    You guys thought that, once elected, Trump would get to do whatever he wants. I said when it became obvious that Trump was going to win - despite losing the popular vote - that he wouldn't be able to uphold over 90% of his campaign promises because he was going to get blocked by the judiciary and even the mostly Republican Congress most of the time. What he wants is too radical and too to the right to pass.

    What the election of Trump proved is that the little people, namely, the lower middle-class and lower classes, are far more to the right than the upper middle-class and upper classes. To be more precise: the lower classes were far less affected by the Enlightnment than the upper classes. The lower classes simply don't share the values of the Enlightnment. Values such as: tolerance for individual differences in lifestyles and religion, separation of church and state, equality before the law, etc. The upper classes tend to be center or center-left, while lower classes are far, far to the right.

    When you think about it, rightism is the "natural" state of humans. If you visit a primitive tribe of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, their customs and political structure is far right: they have strong social control of behavior, women are property, homosexuality is not tolerated and punished by death, all men bear arms, they are highly xenophobic and intolerant of foreginers and all those outside the tribe, etc. In other words, they are Steve Sailer's kind of guys.

    As humans become more civilized and as cultures advance, they become less xenophobic, more tolerant of alternative lifestyles, less tolerant of the weak taking advantage of the strong, less religious, more inclusive and less hostile towards people from outside the tribe, prefering to see their humanity rather than their status as foreginers.

    A shift from the right to the center is a mark of civility and advancing culture. Steve Sailer and his minions want to live like a primitive tribe, except with higher levels of technology. In an age of thermonuclear weapons, clinging to the old rightist mentality of primitive humans represents a serious risk of global catastrophe.

    Rightism is a sign of mental atavism

    Did you go off your meds again?

    Read More
  184. @Stan Adams

    Yet a huge huge furor erupted over Trump’s temporary travel ban. It would appear that it will be impossible to stop them coming for good. Given their high birth rate, we are all doomed. I’m very discouraged. I don’t think I’ll see the disaster in my lifetime, but my kids might.
     
    Nothing is impossible.

    We closed the floodgates in 1924 and we could do it again in 2017, if we had the backbone.

    The struggles to come will make the travel-ban fracas look like a Sunday walk in the park.

    I hope you’re right. In this matter I will be most happy if I’m wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    A repeat of 1924 is, indeed, highly improbable, but it is not impossible.

    In the short term, a repeat of the long, hot summer of 1967, when the cities of America were aflame, is highly probable. Expect to see large-scale civil unrest - full-blown riots, complete with buildings being burned and folks being shot - sooner rather than later.

    If there were, God forbid, a major terrorist attack, it is possible that public outrage would give Trump enough political capital to act to safeguard the nation. But the Democrats would be screaming "Reichstag Redux!" loud and often. Even if they didn't accuse him of direct complicity, they would blame it on his supposed incompetence and nail his administration to the wall.

    Over a decade ago, 9/11 led to Bush's re-election; today, such an attack would lead to Trump's impeachment.

    (Sooner or later, no matter what happens, there will be a serious push to impeach Trump. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. I wouldn't be surprised if he has detailed contingency plans on file.)

    I used to be a 9/11 skeptic myself. I still find it suspicious that it fit so nicely into the Invade the World scheme. But that's a discussion for another day.
  185. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "The early Zionists were really into Arab culture "

    I've never been there, so I'm just guessing, but it seems like Israelis are turning into a Mediterranean culture, kind of like Greeks or Southern Italians, with a disco scene like Ibiza. Or maybe like Miami Beach.

    Perhaps the reason you think that is that a lot of the Israelis who live in LA left in the ’70s or so and are frozen in time in the unbuttoned shirt and gold chain disco phase of their national development.

    Read More
  186. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous
    They're actually inching closer to accepting one. For older generations, there was no question that they were different, but the younger ones feel their numbers shrinking and influence waning and are changing tack.

    Good luck to them, but I think they're screwed either way. Their fate was sealed back when the borders were determined. Also, a lot of urban Leb Christian youth are pretty much SWPL morons these days, that certainly won't help.

    Bethlehem was 85% Christian in 1947, down to 15% today. They blame the Joos, of course:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/christian_exodus_from_bethlehem.html

    Read More
  187. @Jack D

    Palestinian national identity is a made up thing to fight Zionism. The founders of the PLO say this explicitly. So the a Palestinian state, even if they do achieve such a thing, cannot be considered an end in itself, let alone one worth what they have had to go through to get it.
     
    I think you can already see in Gaza the gap between "what we were promised" and "what we actually got." If Said had moved to Gaza, how long would it have taken before he was standing on the Israeli side of the border and throwing rocks in the direction of Hamas?

    The Palestinians didn't even wait until they had their own state to engage in civil war. If they achieved statehood they would still have the Muslim Fundamentalist vs. Westernized Militarist battles you see in Egypt and Syria and Turkey today and democracy would not last past the 1st election.

    I think you can already see in Gaza the gap between “what we were promised” and “what we actually got.”

    The typical argument for secession/national independence is that the natives are being exploited by foreign interlopers. While the Belgian Congo was a shameful instance of vicious Western exploitation that rivaled the worst African and Oriental despotisms, it was the exception to the rule. In most cases, European rule was less oppressive than native rule. And that is exactly what most Third World former possessions of the West’s empires discovered, once they attained independence. By and large, the West became relatively richer even as their ex-imperial holdings grew poorer.

    Read More
  188. @Autochthon
    "We have fought this fight as long, and as well as we know how. We have been defeated. For us as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation." — Robert Edward Lee

    Lee didn't surrender to any person or even government, as such. He surrendered to reality because he was not stupid; he'd lost a war of attrition.

    He faced an army twice the size of his own, with an overwhelming capacity for industrial and agricultural production and complete naval superiority precluding supply and trade. It's a testament to his genuius and their valor his men withstood four years. The war was effectively a historical experiment in how the American Revolutionary War would have ended but for the Atlantic Ocean and the intercession of third parties, so great were the disparities.

    The man would have surrendered to a monkey in a top hat if that was called for to end the inevitable massacre he could finally stave off more.

    Neither Grant nor any politician in Washington or elsewhere had much to do with it, so I don't understand that portion of the rant. Maybe the sense is list in another one Steve embargoed.

    It is believed that one (of many) thing that convinced Lee his surrender was inevitable was that he saw two of his soldiers eating rotting horseflesh on the outskirts of Richmond. He tried a few long-shots to continue the fight but he knew it was effectively over.

    Read More
  189. @Frau Katze
    I hope you're right. In this matter I will be most happy if I'm wrong.

    A repeat of 1924 is, indeed, highly improbable, but it is not impossible.

    In the short term, a repeat of the long, hot summer of 1967, when the cities of America were aflame, is highly probable. Expect to see large-scale civil unrest – full-blown riots, complete with buildings being burned and folks being shot – sooner rather than later.

    If there were, God forbid, a major terrorist attack, it is possible that public outrage would give Trump enough political capital to act to safeguard the nation. But the Democrats would be screaming “Reichstag Redux!” loud and often. Even if they didn’t accuse him of direct complicity, they would blame it on his supposed incompetence and nail his administration to the wall.

    Over a decade ago, 9/11 led to Bush’s re-election; today, such an attack would lead to Trump’s impeachment.

    (Sooner or later, no matter what happens, there will be a serious push to impeach Trump. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has detailed contingency plans on file.)

    I used to be a 9/11 skeptic myself. I still find it suspicious that it fit so nicely into the Invade the World scheme. But that’s a discussion for another day.

    Read More
  190. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    The ironic thing is Said among Jew elites is rather like how Jews used to feel among Wasp elites.

    Insider/outsider. Said was like a Jewish Palestinian. He tried to do to Jews what Jews did to Wasps. It just didn’t stick. He was too alone, too outgunned. And even his idea Orientalism was appropriated by others for their own purposes than to serve Palestine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ0M0azt7Sk

    Read More
  191. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    The relation between Palestinians and Jews is complicated.

    Both are robbers of each other’s land and heritage.

    With Zionism, Jews did take the land from the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims who regard it as holy.

    But the ONLY reason why the land is considered holy is due to Jewish spiritual historiography, without which it would have no special value.

    So, Said can legitimately accuse Jews of taken something precious and holy from Palestinians… but Jews can argue that the land is holy precisely because of the Jewish narrative and special presence there in ancient times. So, Palestinians had been squatting on or occupying on land that Jews made holy.

    Imagine a rock. Suppose Jews chisel it and leave a shining diamond. Jews claim it as their own since they worked on the rock and uncovered the diamond in it.
    But suppose this diamond is taken from Jews by Romans… and it then falls into the hands of Christian Arabs and then Muslim Arabs and then Ottoman Turks and then the British . Though owned and controlled by great powers, Palestinians are allowed to be its caretakers(without being its official owner). And then, Jews come along and claim it really belongs to them because they are the ones who carved the diamond in the first place.
    And the great powers decide to hand it to the Jew. But because the Palestinian was its caretaker for so long, he believes it should be his.
    It all gets complicated.
    Is it a blessing.. or like a curse like the ring in LOTR?

    This is why WWII politics of art gets complicated. Whom does the art really belong to if it was passed around and sold from one buyer to another. They all paid real money for it, but suppose some Jewish person says it was taken from him/her by the Nazis?

    Read More
  192. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dunnyveg
    While I'm certainly grateful that Sailer doesn't call these scoundrels socialists or communists, this "unextreme" Texan cringes when he calls these scoundrels "progressives".

    I'm currently reading about a real progressive liberal, Teddy Roosevelt. TR was an imperialist who was concerned about bringing Western civilization to the benighted races. It was all about our civilization for the progressives. They hated war between civilized powers because it was seen as setting our civilization back, but all favored wars with the Third Worlders if it would bring them civilization. Progressive liberals saw themselves on a crusade to bring the blessings of Western civilization to the benighted, dusky masses, and at gunpoint if necessary.

    Postmodern liberalism is almost the mirror opposite. Liberals now champion the Third Worlders and are at war with our civilization and peoples. In fact, postmodern liberalism sees non-elite whites as being the source of all evil in the world. All wisdom and moral authority come from "previously oppressed" groups, such as nonwhites, immigrants, sexual deviants, and wymyn. The only hope for whites is to renounce our civilization and instead embrace the One True Faith of Political Correctness.

    Ask yourself: Which type of liberalism describes our current situation the best?

    Liberals now champion the Third Worlders and are at war with our civilization and peoples.

    Actually modern globalist liberals are at war with all civilizations and peoples. They are just as busy undermining Third World societies as they are undermining western society. Their objective is to spread atheism, consumerism, hedonism and degeneracy to every corner of the globe. They are deadly enemies to Third World societies.

    Read More
  193. Hhsiii says:

    Here’s the greedy, barbarous and cruel line in an orientalist epic movie sctv mash-up, around 2:00:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qvnH8I-caDg

    Read More
  194. Jack D says:
    @Anon
    I wonder how much of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has to do with nationalism or prime-real-estate-ism?

    After all, we are talking of the Holy Land here, perhaps the greatest piece of cultural prime real estate in the world, the birthplace of Judaism and by extension Christianity and Islam.

    If not for that cultural significance, would things have become so complicated? To an extent, I'm sure Said was pissed that the Zionists took over his aunt's home. But was it really about the home or the fact that it was around Jerusalem? Suppose 'Palestine' was situated in some part of Yemen with no particular cultural or historical significance. Would a man like Said have been so pissed if it were lost to another people? Pissed and angry, yes, but as pissed as losing the holy land?

    The Crusades were, after all, about the battle for the Prime Real Estate. It was less about religion. After all, both Christianity and Islam are credo-religions. Ideas are what matter, not places and things. But from a historical viewpoint, the Holy Land did matter. It had great symbolic importance. Muslims wanted it, Christians wanted it, and Jews wanted it. (Jews eventually sneaked in between the cracks of the Muslim-Christian conflict.) For a man as cultured, historical, and sophisticated as Said, what must have been especially jarring about the loss of Palestine was it meant a lot more. To call it 'Palestine' would imply it was just one nation among many others. A normal nation. But in fact, 'Palestinians' --- actually just a bunch of Arab tribes who only later took on the moniker --- were squatting on the greatest and most valuable Prime Real Estate in the world. But since most 'Palestinians'(even if ragtag, grubby, and low grade)were Muslim, the Muslim World could go on feeling that THEY owned the Holy Land. To Christians and Jews, it seemed so unfair that a bunch of mediocrities held that Prime Real Estate. It'd be like Guillermo having the most beautiful woman as wife. I mean other men are gonna make the move to take her away from him. It's like the scene in WOLF OF WALL STREET. To Jordan Belfort, it isn't right that the beautiful blonde belongs to some schmuck. HE must have her.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM04zoAmPTs

    So, in this case, we can see how the Orientalist sexual metaphor of West as 'male' and Orient as 'female' (though it's been reversed in recent yrs as Negro as macho and Muslim as aggressive white male is cucked and pansy or even homo/tranny) was deeply upsetting to Said. If Palestine had no cultural or historical cachet, losing it to another people would have been just about nationalism. But, due to the historical significance of Palestine, the loss meant much more. Palestinians didn't just lose a nation. The lost THE Prime Real Estate. They didn't just lose a nice piece of rock. They lost the biggest piece of gold. They didn't just lose a homely wife to another man. They lost the Helen of Troy. The most holy and precious place in the world. And this is why the Muslim World has been so upset. And this is why the Christian World has been so supportive of Zionism which served as proxy of Western Power.

    Now, imagine of Jews had built their own nation in a part of Yemen or part of Syria or part of Libya. Sure, Muslims would be upset but not that upset. Over time, they might just come to tolerate Jews as neighbors.
    Imagine a man with harem. Out of 20 women, 19 are okay but one is smashing gorgeous beautiful. Suppose someone comes along and takes one of the 19. The owner of the harem might be upset but not that upset. But imagine if the lover boy took THE ONE, the ultimate dream-babe goddess. Then, it's Trojan War time. Now, the Holy Land isn't much in terms of geography. But it was made most beautiful and magical due to history, culture, and religion. It is the historical center of the world, the birthplace of the axis of great spiritual neurosis around which all of the West and Orient came to revolve around. Roman Polanski sort of went nuts when Charles Manson's Family killed his impossibly beautiful wife. A man steeped in culture, history, and ideas like Said was bound to take the loss of 'Palestine' that was more than Palestine very hard. Indeed, calling it 'Palestine' is like calling Helen of Troy 'some gal' or 'Midge'. 'Palestine' is the holy land, the Prime Real State. It is to spirituality and history what Manhattan is to finance and media.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RjApXTQ_Tks/Tk46Zwcf9JI/AAAAAAAAAgw/d_-hShOsXKg/s1600/Sharon-Tate-and-Roman-Polanski-.jpg

    Palestine is different from Puerto Rico, a 'nation' of such low cultural significance that even Puerto Ricans don't want independence and just wanna go on as a commonwealth of America. It's not a goddess; it is a whore.
    If Said had been Puerto Rican, he might be bitter with a kind of Latin inferiority complex, but he wouldn't feel his people lost something special. He'd been like Al Pacino in CARLITO'S WAY. Just someone looking for a good time and some happiness in life. The story of his life might have been Eddie's Way:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1WKEjSevBo

    But for a people to lose the greatest prime estate in the world. That must hurt.
    Also, the fate of Palestine goes to show that Will-to-Power rules the world.
    The relative lack of sympathy for Palestinians around the world --- even sympathetic nations are 99% lip-service and 1% deed --- indicates that most people believe that a land so meaningful, precious, and magical should NOT be held by a bunch of losers. It should be in the hands of a great people, and Jews have demonstrated greatness.
    Most people, even egalitarians and leftists, feel this way in their heart of hearts. Suppose some beautiful woman is with a mediocre guy and suppose a superior guy comes along... and he snatches the woman from the inferior guy. We may say it's unfair and blah blah, but in there is something in us that sides with the superior guy. Take this scene in THE LONG RIDERS. The woman really wants to be with Keith Carradine but ended up with Dennis Quaid. So, when the opportunity arises, she breaks her bond with Quaid and goes with Carradine. Carradine's little stunt is sort of lowlife, but we feel there's more 'justice' in her going with Carradine. It may not be morally just but seems more naturally just. Nature favors the superior over the inferior. Nature make us feel that it is unjust for the inferior to possess the superior.

    https://youtu.be/MCfgf8DaNTo?t=34m5s

    And the fact that there was so little concern for Palestinians had to do with the discrepancy between their ability and their land. They were not a remarkable people. Just a bunch of Arabs who grew figs and olives. And yet they were in possession of the most valuable Prime Real Estate by history, culture, and religion. They were like Danny Devito with Patricia Neal in THE FOUNTAINHEAD.

    Indeed, if the Holy Land could think, it would rather be owned by a Winner People than a Loser People.
    Said's neurosis was that he had superior talent, and if many Palestinians were of his caliber, maybe Palestinians could have amassed great political, economic, and cultural capital and maneuvered to keep the Holy Land as their nation.
    But he was a rarity among Arabs whereas people like him were all-too-common among Jews. He was an Arab with Jewish talents. By ability, he felt more at home among smart Jews. By identity, he felt as one with Palestinians. It was bound to lead to great neurosis.

    And he felt bitter about the world because, despite the lip-service around the world about the plight of Palestinians, in actual deed the world was fine with winner-Jews ruling over Palestine that became Israel. Even Arab nations, one after another, said one thing but really did another. People respect winners, and Saudis and Egyptians figured it's better to deal with Israelis, a great people, than be stuck with Palestinian, the losers. Sure, they gave just enough aid and moral support to Palestinians to maintain the facade of Arab unity, but it was mostly a charade.

    Imagine a dorky guy married to a babe. But then a rich intelligent guy comes along and woos the woman, and she leaves the loser dork.
    Now, the friends of the loser dork may sympathize with him.. but if they were invited to a BBQ by the rich guy with the babe-wife, would they not go out of solidarity with the loser dork? Reality isn't like that. Will-to-Power decides. So, to better understand what is going on, we need a fascistic theory of Power.

    Read Twain’s Innocents Abroad and tell me again that Israel is the greatest real estate in the world. It was a forsaken desert before the Zionists. In the 19th century, Jerusalem had a population of well under 10,000.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You are talking of economics.

    I'm talking of cultural capital.

    It's like Selma. The city is a dump, but it's a holy site of Civil Rights Movement and MLK cult. So, all the most powerful people around the world go on pilgrimage there.

    Or consider the Parthenon. There were long stretches when it was a pile of rubble when Athens was defeated and conquered.
    But its significance always remained.

    The Holy Land, like Greece, fell into disrepair and neglect for long stretches of history. But one cannot read or understand the Old Testament, New Testament, and Muslim texts without references to the Holy Land.

    Indeed, one reason why it came under so much abuse and destruction was because so many powers had fought over it.
  195. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    Read Twain's Innocents Abroad and tell me again that Israel is the greatest real estate in the world. It was a forsaken desert before the Zionists. In the 19th century, Jerusalem had a population of well under 10,000.

    You are talking of economics.

    I’m talking of cultural capital.

    It’s like Selma. The city is a dump, but it’s a holy site of Civil Rights Movement and MLK cult. So, all the most powerful people around the world go on pilgrimage there.

    Or consider the Parthenon. There were long stretches when it was a pile of rubble when Athens was defeated and conquered.
    But its significance always remained.

    The Holy Land, like Greece, fell into disrepair and neglect for long stretches of history. But one cannot read or understand the Old Testament, New Testament, and Muslim texts without references to the Holy Land.

    Indeed, one reason why it came under so much abuse and destruction was because so many powers had fought over it.

    Read More
  196. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    I wonder to what extent Said’s jihad for ignorance was related to Islam’s own enforced ignorance. Islam has long discouraged scholarship about pre-Islamic history. It’s been left to Europeans to decipher pre-Islamic texts.

     

    This is a very good question. Perhaps Said engaged in a kind of meta-'noticing', i.e. he noticed that while Arabs are pretty much interested in Arabs -- and that this is the norm for most human cultures, i.e. they're not really all that curious about The Other -- for some reason Europeans are different. They are interested in learning about The Other not just to win battles or gain levarage in trade negotiations. They want to know about The Other in a much deeper and broader way. Perhaps some of Said's polemic against western anthropological and philological scholarship was indeed fueled by his resentment of this grossly unbalanced equation.

    I also wonder to what extent both are related to enforced ignorance about HBD and sex differences. There’s actual scholarship today that purports to explain biological differences in strength between the sexes, for example, as a result of women conforming to stereotypes.

    Read More
  197. @Steve Sailer
    For example, my opthometrician (sp?) at Costco is a Pal.

    For example, my opthometrician (sp?) at Costco is a Pal.

    My daughter was checked out thoroughly by an optometrician when she experienced headaches as a grade-schooler. While he checked her eyes, we chatted and he explained that it was quite a demanding post-graduate certification to acquire-his was from the Pennsylvania College of Optometry, also known as Salus University.

    I had assumed that his was a medium-skill trade, measuring eyesight, that required an easy to get diploma.

    But to get his Doctor of Optometry diploma, he had to attend a four year graduate program with serious undergraduate course prerequisites. I looked it up.

    General Biology or Zoology (with labs) – one year
    General Chemistry (with labs) – one year
    Organic Chemistry (with labs) – one year or ½ year Organic Chemistry plus ½ year of either Biochemistry or Molecular Biology (lab highly recommended)
    English Composition or English Literature – one year
    Mathematics – one year ( ½ year Calculus fulfills math requirement; however, one year Calculus highly recommended)
    Microbiology or Bacteriology (with lab) – ½ year
    General Physics (with labs) – one year
    Psychology – ½ year
    Statistics (Math, Biology or Psychology) – ½ year

    Basically, it seems that optometricians/optometrists learn everything about the eye that M.D. opthalmologist doctors do. But they aren’t allowed to touch or treat the eye.

    Now I understand why my prescription glasses cost so much.

    Read More
  198. @Simon
    Shortly after September 11, the hard-left London Review of Books invited various contributors to submit their reactions. The resulting symposium made for disturbing reading; there was, I recall, a lot of unseemly gloating going on. (According to Cambridge classics prof Mary Beard, "The United States had it coming.")

    Here's how Edward Said's piece started off:

    "For the seven million Muslim Americans (only two million of them Arab) who have lived through the catastrophe and backlash of 11 September, it’s been an unpleasant time. Several victims of the atrocities were Arabs and Muslims, but there is an almost palpable air of hatred directed at the group as a whole."

    Savor the callous narcissism and sheer dishonesty of that phrase "the catastrophe and backlash"! Not only does it equate the two, but it's clear Said was far more concerned about the latter than about any terrorist attack. I wanted to ask then, and I still want to ask, even though Said has blessedly left the scene: "WHAT backlash, asshole?"

    The “backlash” trope has been a popular construct in left academic circles since at least the 1980s.

    Always hyperbolic, almost never true, it also never challenged or examined. You just have to say “Backlash!” and everyone will nod sagely in agreement.

    It’s intellectual lineage goes back all the way to Marxist/Leninist hypervigilance toward counter-revolution and revanchism, but I think there’s also an intentional evocation of imagery from slavery in the use of that particular word.

    Not “pushback”, not “revenge”, nor “unfair scapegoating.”

    Backlash.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    There is quite an overlap with TV tropes. Search that to see some humor and outrage.
  199. Esso says:

    The same tribal/nationalistic motivation that you attribute to Said and his works of obscurement is of course the major impetus for Islamic terrorism against the West. But it is seldom mentioned by experts on terrorism. It’s always “marginalization, poverty and the allure of simple answers”, or “a multi-faceted problem” (including climate change!).

    When you can’t think freely about your problems you can’t understand and empathize for others who have similar problems.

    Read More
  200. Ivy says:
    @PiltdownMan
    The "backlash" trope has been a popular construct in left academic circles since at least the 1980s.

    Always hyperbolic, almost never true, it also never challenged or examined. You just have to say "Backlash!" and everyone will nod sagely in agreement.

    It's intellectual lineage goes back all the way to Marxist/Leninist hypervigilance toward counter-revolution and revanchism, but I think there's also an intentional evocation of imagery from slavery in the use of that particular word.

    Not "pushback", not "revenge", nor "unfair scapegoating."

    Backlash.

    There is quite an overlap with TV tropes. Search that to see some humor and outrage.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored