The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Jewishness Will Become Problematic
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In a few generations, that is. The Orthodox don’t yet comprise one-in-ten American Jews, though they will soon and their representation will continue to increase from there. In many respects, non-Orthodox Jews view the Orthodox like liberal whites view white Trump supporters–as deplorables. Orthodox Jews voted for Trump by a 2-to-1 margin.

But while the fertility and outmarriage rates of liberal whites and white Trump supporters are roughly similar, these things are not comparable between non-Orthodox and Orthodox Jews.

Here are three graphs comprised of data taken from Pew’s extensive recent report on Jewishness in America illustrating as much:

Outmarriage is extremely rare among Orthodox Jews. Among married non-Orthodox Jews, though, fewer than half marry other Jews. And the trend towards outmarriage has accelerated rapidly over time. Among Jews married before 1980, 82% married someone who is Jewish. Among Jews who have married in the last ten years, however, only 39% married another Jew. The outmarriage rate is likely to keep increasing, as most non-Orthodox Jews have no problem with their descendants marrying non-Jews:

Not only are non-Orthodox Jews mostly marrying gentiles and are fine with their progeny doing the same, they aren’t making many progenies. Non-Orthodox fertility in the US is well below replacement (indicated by the horizontal green line):

It’s even lower than significantly below replacement white gentile fertility. Strange strategy for world domination, that!

 
Hide 240 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. All Jews are not the same? Who knew?

    • Agree: Realist
    • LOL: Tom Verso
  2. In a sense, Orthodox Jews are viewed more like Muslims, an “alien” group with outlandish habits that doesn’t really fit. I think even secular Jews see them like that, even in Israel.

    This is good.

    I am no great fan of the Orthodox Jews and their strange religion, but at least they are easily identifiable – in that sense, better than the subversive “fellow white guys” type of Jews who pretend to be something they are not.

    Howevet, it must be noted that secular Jews descend from Orthodox Jews (2 or three generations down the line), so secular Jews are not going to “disappear”. Unless there’s another Holocaust or something. But the last one failed, and now Jews are stronger than ever. “What doesn’t kill you make you stronger”?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Dumbo

    As I've said in the past, there are a fair number of parallels between Orthodox Judaism and Islam, which is a comparison that will never, ever be propagated by the Usual Suspects. As I've also said, Islam probably started out in the 7th Century as a monotheist community with heavy Jewish millenarian overtones. It's only when Persian culture and thought had a similar impact on Islam as Greco-Roman culture and thought did on Christianity that you begin to see distinctly Islamic stuff.

    It's not a perfect comparison: in fact, the former is considerably more strict. But it's good way of wrapping your head around how an Islamic society actually works if you are unfamiliar with it. They are both programmatic religions that prescribe detailed codes of behavior, from what you can eat to ritual ablutions after sex.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Dumbo

    What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger

    That's such a bad aphorism. There are plenty of things--like being maimed--that will not kill you but do not make you stronger, either.

  3. One part of a certain population wants the West to be a pro-Israel golem and throw its weight around the world. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that.

    Another part is feverishly trying to dismantle the West at the same time, in order to produce a world-wide utopia. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that as well.

    A sub-portion is content to simply prey on the host nation and extract resources. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that, because extracting foreign resources is also yummy.

    And a fourth, mostly silent part, is simply trying to lead a normal life in a normal society. There’s a closing window of opportunity for this fourth part to organize itself and begin publicly counteracting the other three.

    Because if they don’t, either a backlash happens against all Jews, or society collapses instead. Neither are good outcomes.

    • Replies: @Irish Savant
    @Rahan

    The good Jews need to reign in the bad ones or pogroms will reemerge at some stage in the future.

    , @UncommonGround
    @Rahan

    I don't believe that that your last category of Jews can exist, the silent one. The reason for that is that Judaism isn't a religion. It cannot exist without special rewards for Jews: advantages, money, prestige, high positions in society, power. When they become a normal part of society, they stop being a separated and special group.

    But there are different systems of rewards. The more open the group is and the more integrated they are in society (reform), the bigger the rewards for its members have to be in order to keep them in the group. When the group is tighter (orthodoxs), the rewards go to the top of the group while the rest of it has more symbolic forms of rewards.

    Replies: @Rahan

  4. Strange strategy for world domination, that!

    Actually, numbers are not a part of [[[their]]] plans.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @iffen

    Oy, what's with all this meshugganah jibber-jabber? When Jews marry non-Jews, they have Jewish children. Culturally, anyway--they are born into the club, which is all that matters. The only thing that will change is "Jews" will get better looking.

  5. The Jewish influence machine is more oriented toward a core of Jewish elites, rather than being a general tribal welfare tool, and has a replacement mechanism for Jews who drift away or rebel, which has been happening for millennia

    A Jewish writer whose name I forgot, pointed out that Jewish affiliation has not only always been ‘leaky’ on one side, with members being lost through inter-marriage or just being fed up, but also having more ‘acquisition’ via marriage than officially admitted … enabling elite Judaism to be a self-sustaining machine over the centuries

    This was particularly done in the UK. Leslie Gilbert Pine (1907-87), editor of Burke’s Peerage, in his 1950s book ‘Tales of the British Aristocracy’, devoted a chapter to ‘Anglo-Jewish Peerage’, where he famously wrote:

    So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.

    For Jewish elites, the average Jew or Israeli is simply another pawn, tho a pawn with special utilities … yet still ultimately disposable

    These pawns include not only the 20 million or so ‘full’ Jews, but also some of the 200 million or so ‘part Jews’, such as the USA politician John ‘Kohn’ Kerry, who ‘forgot’ his father was a Jew from Prague who strategically adopted an Irish name … it’s notable that with this larger group – recognised by Israel’s government as a strategic asset – ‘Jewry’ comprises nearly 3% of the world’s population

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @SFG
    @brabantian

    I think you mean 3% of the US population?

    I don't think there are 210 million Jews, though I guess if you just came back from NYC it might seem that way. ;)

    Replies: @Patricus

    , @anon
    @brabantian

    "So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also."-- In 1960s that was the situation in USA . Senator Fulbrights 's investigation into the Jewish stranglehold threatened the entrenched corrupt culture of the white privileged elite and was not pursued . Now the situation is worse by many folds . The Zionist's power's noxious effects on common people cant be undone and cant be corrected without bringing the fake edifice down . Trump tried and he found out that he was part of that same corrupt elite system .

    , @216
    @brabantian

    John Kerry is almost singulary identified with the Iran deal, which Israel has been complaining about since it started.

    Replies: @notanon

    , @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @brabantian

    The UK Labour Quisling Sabbat Goy in Chief, Starmer, has married a Jewish woman and they are raising their children as Jews. I believe such arrangements will soon be made mandatory for UK Labour members.

    , @Patrick McNally
    @brabantian

    These numbers are way off. Taking from the American Jewish Yearbook 2015:

    As an estimate of the "core Jewish population" worldwide we have 14,310,500. Then the "population with Jewish parents" comes as 17,411,450. Then the "enlarged Jewish population" is defined by adding on any non-Jewish household members who may be involved with members of the 2nd group to be 20,235,700. Finally the "Law or Return population is defined by including grandchildren of Jews as well as anyone of non-Jewish background with whom they may share a household and such to be 23,047,900.

    One thing which may be frustrating about the latter data is the way that they begin mixing in Gentiles with the 3rd group before they have started counting grandchildren. It might be interesting to know how many have at least 1 clearly Jewish grandparent, but that number is fudged inside of the combination with non-Jewish household members. They give a somewhat different formulation for the US specifically in another part of the text:

    "Jews by religion" are estimated at 5.1 million in the US. On top of that another 600g are counted as "Jews of no-religion" so that when combined together these give a "core Jewish population" in the US of 5.7 million. Then they list "no religion, partly Jewish" which adds on an extra million (hence 6.7 million in total). Then there is a category of those with "Jewish background (Non-Jews)" of people who presumably who could be counted as "partly Jewish" from genealogy alone but choose not to be and thereby add another 3.9 million to the total (giving 10.6 million as cumulative). Finally there is "Jewish affinity (Non-Jews)" which adds another 1.2 million giving 11.8 million as the overall grand total.

    This category "Jewish affinity (Non-Jews)" seems to account for the full Gentiles who have married into Jewish circles a la Ivanka Trump. It would be better if the world Jewish population estimates had been done in the same format with Gentiles saved for the very last category only. But in any case, that "200 million" is hopefully just a typo. Otherwise it's really off in space.

  6. It’s entirely possible for birthrates to be falling and for secular left-wing Jews to still be the reason for a lot of aspects of American leftism. From what I’ve seen (what do I know, I only lived in NYC for 22 years), they seem to actually believe all the B.S. they spout about alternative this and that. Homosexuality 40 years ago, trans 20 years ago, and the next big thing is nonmonogamy. Also, practically speaking, the bigger the city, the smaller the family, and that’s been seen around the world and throughout history. You don’t want to try to raise two kids in Manhattan.

    But yeah, between the IDW and the rise of the Orthodox I wouldn’t be surprised to see a new batch of neoconservatives. I just hope they don’t drag the USA into another war.

    • Replies: @A123
    @SFG


    secular left-wing Jews to still be the reason for a lot of aspects of American leftism. ... they seem to actually believe all the B.S. they spout about alternative this and that.
     
    Are "secular left-wing Jews" Anti-Jewish?

    I know that sounds like an odd question. However the left is going out of its way to antagonize other politically center & right Jews. (1)

    Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director Jonathan “Greenblatt has already…trashed ADL’s reputation,” wrote Jewish News Syndicate editor-in-chief Jonathan S. Tobin in July 2020. While the ADL previously had leftist biases, “Greenblatt has steadily pushed the group farther to the left
    ...
    Greenblatt’s post-Jewish ADL became clear in its opposition to President Donald Trump’s 2018 nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, a partisan issue unrelated to antisemitism. Greenblatt has also accused American Jews of manifesting the modern leftist sin of “white privilege.” As Center for Security Policy analyst Alex Van Ness wrote, “Greenblatt has shown himself unable to leave his old partisan circles behind.
     
    Practicing Jews support traditional Judeo-Christian values and view "secular left-wing Jews" as the opposition. The gap continues to widen. "Secular left-wing Jews" largely embrace the views of Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib.

    Are "secular left-wing Jews" Anti-Jewish? The answer has to be, Yes.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/jonathan-greenblatt-destroys-the-adl

    Replies: @anon, @Mulga Mumblebrain

    , @Dutch Boy
    @SFG

    Secular Jews drink from the same well they helped poison, featuring the normalization of non-procreative sex. The Orthodox are somewhat protected from that poison by their self-imposed ghettoization.

  7. Strange strategy for world domination, that!

    Smart people don’t engage in cartoon villainy.

    A self-serving elite that both fears and is contemptuous of the ordinary people can do a lot of damage to their society without seeking something as grandiosely outlandish as world domination.

    • Replies: @UNIT472
    @Twinkie

    A few thousand aggressive people, united in a common cause, can wield disproportionate influence. Look at the Italian mafia or Communist ideologues. Hell, Hitler and his gang came within an early cold spell in 1941 of conquering the world.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  8. “Jewishness will become problematic”. I’d say it already is, especially among the upper crust. It’s getting more obvious by the day.

  9. @brabantian
    The Jewish influence machine is more oriented toward a core of Jewish elites, rather than being a general tribal welfare tool, and has a replacement mechanism for Jews who drift away or rebel, which has been happening for millennia

    A Jewish writer whose name I forgot, pointed out that Jewish affiliation has not only always been 'leaky' on one side, with members being lost through inter-marriage or just being fed up, but also having more 'acquisition' via marriage than officially admitted ... enabling elite Judaism to be a self-sustaining machine over the centuries

    This was particularly done in the UK. Leslie Gilbert Pine (1907-87), editor of Burke's Peerage, in his 1950s book 'Tales of the British Aristocracy', devoted a chapter to 'Anglo-Jewish Peerage', where he famously wrote:

    So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.
     
    For Jewish elites, the average Jew or Israeli is simply another pawn, tho a pawn with special utilities ... yet still ultimately disposable

    These pawns include not only the 20 million or so 'full' Jews, but also some of the 200 million or so 'part Jews', such as the USA politician John 'Kohn' Kerry, who 'forgot' his father was a Jew from Prague who strategically adopted an Irish name ... it's notable that with this larger group - recognised by Israel's government as a strategic asset - 'Jewry' comprises nearly 3% of the world's population

    Replies: @SFG, @anon, @216, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Patrick McNally

    I think you mean 3% of the US population?

    I don’t think there are 210 million Jews, though I guess if you just came back from NYC it might seem that way. 😉

    • LOL: Irish Savant
    • Replies: @Patricus
    @SFG

    Last I read Jews are 1.71% of the US population. That percentage was nearly twice as high in 1950. They are about 8% of the New York City population. The world’s total is 14 or 15 million. It was 16 million after WW II. They are not a growing group.

    It all depends on how a Jew is defined. The people have been around thousands of years. All of us might have some small fraction of Jewish blood.

  10. I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian’s comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?

    [MORE]

    Take Rahan’s comment. It seems that no contemporary phenomena can be explained, in his head, by reference to anything but Jews. To him, Jews may as well be the fulcrum on which divine agency changes the world. It would make no difference to their awesome power.

    This is very strange. He must feel like a plastic bag in the wind. He has no substance, no real existence, he is just a meaningless piece of plastic; bewildered and buffeted, by the Jewish gusts.

    Can Rahan understand why he makes the choices that he does? Or is his unconscious, for a lack of introspection, in hidden control.

    Perhaps he has a hint of this and has even come to hate his unconscious as a tool manipulated by Jews, through media and advertising and propaganda? Rather than as an aspect of his greater self.

    The Jews, in this model of Rahan, are a synonym for his unconscious; so, because they control him, unseen, sinister, all-powerful, he needs to inflate his fragile ego, and pretend that this same force controls the world.

    He has his own journey, but pity he who feels like a speck of jetsam on a hostile sea.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian’s comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?
     
    I think that believing in, or having believed in, a supernatural will (would) facilitate your understanding.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Robert Dolan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Your comments are idiotic and they fly in the face of objective reality.

    It's easy to track jewish influence as much as you try to provide some kind of stupid pseudo-intellectual diversion.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @fredtard
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I concur with your frequent refrain about the value of thoughtful introspection, but your hypothesizing about the thought processes and/or motives of Rahan comes off as flat arrogant. Even if psychoanalysis is useful, and I have doubts, employing its techniques to strangers in threads doesn't exactly showcase your objectivity.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @rebel yell
    @Triteleia Laxa

    There is nothing wrong with critiquing Jewish politics.
    We talk openly about blacks in politics. We have the congressional black caucus, black churches as a focal point for political organizing, black political organizations such as the NAACP and BLM, the black civil rights movement, the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party, black issues such as affirmative action, courting the black vote, etc. We rightly talk about blacks as a political actor with an agenda and with influence.
    Same goes for feminists, gun owners, greens, gays, rural whites, Evangelicals, the Catholic church on abortion, etc.
    Pre-civil war there was much talk about "the slave power". What was the slave power? It was wealthy plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and in national politics. These plantation owners had common interests and organized themselves to get what they wanted in politics.
    Is there some reason we can't talk just as normally about Jewish politics and Jewish influence in politics? Some reason we can't critique it just as we would political influence by any other identifiable group?
    This doesn't assume there is a single Jewish agenda or that all Jews agree. We also don't assume that about blacks or slave owners.
    But why this hyper-sensitivity to any discussion of Jewish political influence? Why is it scary to say "Jewish political influence" but not scary to say "black political influence"?

    Replies: @Charlotte, @Triteleia Laxa, @anarchyst

    , @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    First, let me say that the poll results that AE presents are certainly food for thought for the anti-Semites of UR (yours truly included.) But, whatever their actual meaning, they have to be squared with observable reality.

    The problem that I have with this and other JQ-related comments of yours is that they regularly engage in gaslighting, pathologizing, or diagnosing (the standard elements of pilpul) those who question Jewish Power in the West. In your comments, you don’t present counter data, but simply say that those reading the data in a way unfriendly to Jews are afflicted with some kind of syndrome. In short, you do the equivalent of the feminists’ “you just have a small dick.”

    A couple examples from recent past posts come to mind.

    1) At Mr. Guyenot’s article, a commenter said something to the effect, “how do you explain what Jews/Israel have accomplished, if you deny that they are powerful?” (paraphrasing.) Your response was, “if they were as powerful as you say, they would have accomplished things they have not.” (paraphrasing.) Of course, your interlocutor had not said they were powerful enough to do things they have not, but powerful enough to do what they have actually done. Sly straw man building on your part.

    2) In response to your stating that you would vote for Bibi (in America), I replied that he pretty much already has your vote. In response, I got a “Troll.” The irony is that your comment was in response to a posting of excerpts from Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to congress, showing unanimous applause after unanimous applause for a foreign leader undermining a US President’s negotiations with another country. The video you “liked” made my point!

    The simple fact is that Jewish Power is obvious to anyone who isn’t blind or in denial. There are simply too many “data” points to argue against this observation. That is why you have to gaslight the people who see, because you are in denial.

    Now, perhaps we can meet half way. It is true that Marty Goldblattermanfeld next door has more in common with Mario, than he does with Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Ben Bernanke, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jeffrey Epstein, Les Wexner, George Soros, Jonathan Greenblatt, Jared Kushner, Alan Greenspan, Janet Yellen, Chuck Schumer, JB Pritzker, Phillip Zelikow, Dov Zakheim, Haim Saban, Paul Woflowitz, Richard Pearl, Larry Silverstein…(okay I’ll get to my point). Really I don’t want to have anything against him (Marty actually lives next door).

    But then how do we reconcile this with reality? Perhaps the answer is that not all Sicilians are Cosa Nostra, but all Cosa Nostra are Sicilians. Can we call it the Kosher Nostra and agree?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @sarz

    , @Bill
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  11. @Triteleia Laxa
    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian's comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?



    Take Rahan's comment. It seems that no contemporary phenomena can be explained, in his head, by reference to anything but Jews. To him, Jews may as well be the fulcrum on which divine agency changes the world. It would make no difference to their awesome power.

    This is very strange. He must feel like a plastic bag in the wind. He has no substance, no real existence, he is just a meaningless piece of plastic; bewildered and buffeted, by the Jewish gusts.

    Can Rahan understand why he makes the choices that he does? Or is his unconscious, for a lack of introspection, in hidden control.

    Perhaps he has a hint of this and has even come to hate his unconscious as a tool manipulated by Jews, through media and advertising and propaganda? Rather than as an aspect of his greater self.

    The Jews, in this model of Rahan, are a synonym for his unconscious; so, because they control him, unseen, sinister, all-powerful, he needs to inflate his fragile ego, and pretend that this same force controls the world.

    He has his own journey, but pity he who feels like a speck of jetsam on a hostile sea.

    Replies: @iffen, @Robert Dolan, @fredtard, @rebel yell, @Mario Partisan, @Bill

    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian’s comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?

    I think that believing in, or having believed in, a supernatural will (would) facilitate your understanding.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @iffen

    Go on, if you would? I am familiar with supernatural explanations.

    Replies: @iffen

  12. @iffen
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian’s comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?
     
    I think that believing in, or having believed in, a supernatural will (would) facilitate your understanding.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Go on, if you would? I am familiar with supernatural explanations.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Go on, if you would? I am familiar with supernatural explanations.

    Being familiar with supernatural explanations is not the same as believing (or having believed) in "the" supernatural.

    I think that we have a limited number of modes or modules with which to understand our "reality" and we shoehorn everything into one or more of those modules. Belief in the supernatural is a big one and many "world-views" derive from its application to the current environment and array of "facts" manipulated by an individual.

    Note the abundance of references to Damascene moments among anti-Semites, professional and amateur.

  13. @iffen
    Strange strategy for world domination, that!

    Actually, numbers are not a part of [[[their]]] plans.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    Oy, what’s with all this meshugganah jibber-jabber? When Jews marry non-Jews, they have Jewish children. Culturally, anyway–they are born into the club, which is all that matters. The only thing that will change is “Jews” will get better looking.

    • Agree: West reanimator
  14. That Jews still even exist I suppose is because of the Orthodox extremists. Jeffrey Epstein left no heirs and Harvey Weinstein’s kids are the children of Georgina Chapman. How many big shot Jews marry outside the faith or go queer. Yet over time, holocausts and geography this odd tribe persists. I mean how many Iroqouis Indians do you see today save for those who have casino licenses even though a mere ten generations ago they were more numerous in the Eastern US than negroes.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @UNIT472

    Jews used to have a lot of kids and mostly marry other Jews. A generation ago, 90% of American Jews were married to other Jews. Now fewer than half are. This is a big change in a relatively short period of time.

  15. @Twinkie

    Strange strategy for world domination, that!
     
    Smart people don’t engage in cartoon villainy.

    A self-serving elite that both fears and is contemptuous of the ordinary people can do a lot of damage to their society without seeking something as grandiosely outlandish as world domination.

    Replies: @UNIT472

    A few thousand aggressive people, united in a common cause, can wield disproportionate influence. Look at the Italian mafia or Communist ideologues. Hell, Hitler and his gang came within an early cold spell in 1941 of conquering the world.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @UNIT472

    You make it sound so easy. I imagine you must have achieved many great things.

    Replies: @UNIT472

  16. @UNIT472
    @Twinkie

    A few thousand aggressive people, united in a common cause, can wield disproportionate influence. Look at the Italian mafia or Communist ideologues. Hell, Hitler and his gang came within an early cold spell in 1941 of conquering the world.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    You make it sound so easy. I imagine you must have achieved many great things.

    • Replies: @UNIT472
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Its not easy. Got to be committed. I retired at 58 because I wasn't committed to having the biggest house on the biggest hill on the biggest side of town.... Rik Flair said that about having the biggest everything but I liked it so I appropriated it.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  17. Strange strategy for world domination, that!

    It might make more sense if you wore the magic beanie while contemplating it. I have heard that this is the entire secret to their success.

  18. @Triteleia Laxa
    @UNIT472

    You make it sound so easy. I imagine you must have achieved many great things.

    Replies: @UNIT472

    Its not easy. Got to be committed. I retired at 58 because I wasn’t committed to having the biggest house on the biggest hill on the biggest side of town…. Rik Flair said that about having the biggest everything but I liked it so I appropriated it.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @UNIT472

    I get it. You would have taken over the world, but you couldn't be bothered. Makes sense.

    Replies: @rebel yell

  19. @UNIT472
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Its not easy. Got to be committed. I retired at 58 because I wasn't committed to having the biggest house on the biggest hill on the biggest side of town.... Rik Flair said that about having the biggest everything but I liked it so I appropriated it.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I get it. You would have taken over the world, but you couldn’t be bothered. Makes sense.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Unit472 didn't say that he personally could easily take over the world if he wanted to. He said:


    A few thousand aggressive people, united in a common cause, can wield disproportionate influence.
     
    That statement is basically true, given the power of propaganda, money, and professional political activism in politics.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  20. @Triteleia Laxa
    @iffen

    Go on, if you would? I am familiar with supernatural explanations.

    Replies: @iffen

    Go on, if you would? I am familiar with supernatural explanations.

    Being familiar with supernatural explanations is not the same as believing (or having believed) in “the” supernatural.

    I think that we have a limited number of modes or modules with which to understand our “reality” and we shoehorn everything into one or more of those modules. Belief in the supernatural is a big one and many “world-views” derive from its application to the current environment and array of “facts” manipulated by an individual.

    Note the abundance of references to Damascene moments among anti-Semites, professional and amateur.

  21. I think that we have a limited number of modes or modules with which to understand our “reality” and we shoehorn everything into one or more of those modules

    The less you need to shoehorn, the clearer your sight.

    Rahan’s approach to politics is one of extreme and confused shoehorning.

    I am interested in why he needs to do this.

  22. Strange strategy for world domination, that!

    i think it’s worth separating out the central banking mafia from the ethnic group

    organized crime generally has an ethnic/familial component for trust reasons (and the central banking mafia are an organized crime syndicate)

    i doubt there’s more than 200 families who between them run the global network of central banks and they are well on their way to world domination.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    What happens when an heir in one of these families dislikes their parents? Or are these 200 families made up of exceptionally nurturing and kind people?

    Replies: @notanon, @UNIT472

  23. “Strange strategy for world domination?”

    STFU.

    Are we going to pretend that organized jewry ISN’T seeking world domination?

    The Orthodox are the breeders….they don’t marry out and they aren’t going anywhere.

    The jewish elite has enormous wealth and power….this isn’t likely to change.

    We’ve been hearing about how those poor jews are just going to disappear for…..I’ve lost track of how long this bullshit claim has been going on.

    They are running the show and their power and control seems to increase on a daily basis. Every word that comes out of the mouth of the idiot President comes straight from the Sanhedrin…..and it’s a daily screed of anti-white BULLSHIT.

    Oh yeah…..the jews are going to disappear and go poof.

    C’mon.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Robert Dolan

    Are "they seeking world domination" or are they "running the show"?

    Replies: @Robert Dolan

  24. @notanon

    Strange strategy for world domination, that!
     
    i think it's worth separating out the central banking mafia from the ethnic group

    organized crime generally has an ethnic/familial component for trust reasons (and the central banking mafia are an organized crime syndicate)

    i doubt there's more than 200 families who between them run the global network of central banks and they are well on their way to world domination.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    What happens when an heir in one of these families dislikes their parents? Or are these 200 families made up of exceptionally nurturing and kind people?

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    how does it work in other ethnic mafia e.g. Sicilian?

    , @UNIT472
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well there is this: Years ago, a friend of mine was contracted to build some tennis courts on the property of Robert Mondavi, of the eponymous vintner company. My friend was astonished to find that while Mondavi had a large and beautiful home he only had one bedroom in it. OK. Then above Mondavi's living room fireplace there was an inscription laid in stone. My friend didn't understand Latin so he asked what it meant. Mondavi replied, it says the good thing about having money is that it keeps the children close.

    That seems to be true. Other than Patty Hearst, who was kidnapped, you don't see many wayward offspring of the megarich going south on their parents no matter how despicable they maybe.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  25. @Robert Dolan
    "Strange strategy for world domination?"

    STFU.

    Are we going to pretend that organized jewry ISN'T seeking world domination?

    The Orthodox are the breeders....they don't marry out and they aren't going anywhere.

    The jewish elite has enormous wealth and power....this isn't likely to change.

    We've been hearing about how those poor jews are just going to disappear for.....I've lost track of how long this bullshit claim has been going on.

    They are running the show and their power and control seems to increase on a daily basis. Every word that comes out of the mouth of the idiot President comes straight from the Sanhedrin.....and it's a daily screed of anti-white BULLSHIT.

    Oh yeah.....the jews are going to disappear and go poof.

    C'mon.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Are “they seeking world domination” or are they “running the show”?

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    They're running the show in the western world, goofball.

    Is this article some kind of a joke?

    WTF?

    Listen goy.....jews are nothing to worry about! In fact, the jews are disappearing!

    And all that money they use to buy off Congress?

    It's all going to go away!

    No worries goy!

    This is some very silly shit.

  26. @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    What happens when an heir in one of these families dislikes their parents? Or are these 200 families made up of exceptionally nurturing and kind people?

    Replies: @notanon, @UNIT472

    how does it work in other ethnic mafia e.g. Sicilian?

  27. TG says:

    Interesting points. As other have pointed out: the Jews are not a monolith: who knew?

    One is reminded that although Hitler killed a bunch of working class jews, to my knowledge the elite bankers escaped his wrath unscathed. The real problem is that when jews rise to the level of elites, they strongly tend to be especially rapacious and amoral and lacking in concern for their host nation (although increasingly even gentile elites are following this model). But are the jewish elites concerned with jews in general, or are the jewish elites using the greater mass of working class jews as a sort of shield? Does it even matter? Could the jewish elite exist without the masses of more ordinary jews? Is hatred of jews in general misplaced, as the real issue is now as always class war, or does the old and ugly phrase “nits make lice” have any bearing here? I have no idea.

    • Replies: @notanon
    @TG

    there's probably more to it

    but i think those problems would be lessened if we didn't have legalized counterfeiters screwing things up.

  28. anon[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @brabantian
    The Jewish influence machine is more oriented toward a core of Jewish elites, rather than being a general tribal welfare tool, and has a replacement mechanism for Jews who drift away or rebel, which has been happening for millennia

    A Jewish writer whose name I forgot, pointed out that Jewish affiliation has not only always been 'leaky' on one side, with members being lost through inter-marriage or just being fed up, but also having more 'acquisition' via marriage than officially admitted ... enabling elite Judaism to be a self-sustaining machine over the centuries

    This was particularly done in the UK. Leslie Gilbert Pine (1907-87), editor of Burke's Peerage, in his 1950s book 'Tales of the British Aristocracy', devoted a chapter to 'Anglo-Jewish Peerage', where he famously wrote:

    So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.
     
    For Jewish elites, the average Jew or Israeli is simply another pawn, tho a pawn with special utilities ... yet still ultimately disposable

    These pawns include not only the 20 million or so 'full' Jews, but also some of the 200 million or so 'part Jews', such as the USA politician John 'Kohn' Kerry, who 'forgot' his father was a Jew from Prague who strategically adopted an Irish name ... it's notable that with this larger group - recognised by Israel's government as a strategic asset - 'Jewry' comprises nearly 3% of the world's population

    Replies: @SFG, @anon, @216, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Patrick McNally

    “So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.”– In 1960s that was the situation in USA . Senator Fulbrights ‘s investigation into the Jewish stranglehold threatened the entrenched corrupt culture of the white privileged elite and was not pursued . Now the situation is worse by many folds . The Zionist’s power’s noxious effects on common people cant be undone and cant be corrected without bringing the fake edifice down . Trump tried and he found out that he was part of that same corrupt elite system .

  29. @TG
    Interesting points. As other have pointed out: the Jews are not a monolith: who knew?

    One is reminded that although Hitler killed a bunch of working class jews, to my knowledge the elite bankers escaped his wrath unscathed. The real problem is that when jews rise to the level of elites, they strongly tend to be especially rapacious and amoral and lacking in concern for their host nation (although increasingly even gentile elites are following this model). But are the jewish elites concerned with jews in general, or are the jewish elites using the greater mass of working class jews as a sort of shield? Does it even matter? Could the jewish elite exist without the masses of more ordinary jews? Is hatred of jews in general misplaced, as the real issue is now as always class war, or does the old and ugly phrase "nits make lice" have any bearing here? I have no idea.

    Replies: @notanon

    there’s probably more to it

    but i think those problems would be lessened if we didn’t have legalized counterfeiters screwing things up.

  30. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Robert Dolan

    Are "they seeking world domination" or are they "running the show"?

    Replies: @Robert Dolan

    They’re running the show in the western world, goofball.

    Is this article some kind of a joke?

    WTF?

    Listen goy…..jews are nothing to worry about! In fact, the jews are disappearing!

    And all that money they use to buy off Congress?

    It’s all going to go away!

    No worries goy!

    This is some very silly shit.

  31. “But while the fertility and outmarriage rates of liberal whites and white Trump supporters are roughly similar…”

    You sure about that, chief?

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage

    • Replies: @Alden
    @eaweblog

    Conservatives do have more children. But at age 5 the children enter the liberal brain washing machine known as the school system. Private and religious schools are just as liberal. It’s the same books by the same publishers and the same basic school curriculum.

    As far as mawkish destructive charity is destructive to conservative values. The religious schools are worse than the public schools. SW states like California Texas have sister parishes across the border. Parishioners and kids in the school are constantly sending clothes toys furniture across the border to help the Mexicans. And they also preach welcome the stranger.As in, open the borders and let the world invade.

    In the SE states, the Protestant churches sponsor adoption of Haitian babies and Haitian immigrants. And the men spend their vacation time on missions to Haiti building homes.

    The catholic; and the Protestant schools that call themselves “Christian” rather that Protestant do teach that abortion is the sin of homicide. And are not pro homosexual trans etc. but that’s about it. Otherwise they are ultra liberal. Christian charity and forgiveness you know.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  32. @Triteleia Laxa
    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian's comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?



    Take Rahan's comment. It seems that no contemporary phenomena can be explained, in his head, by reference to anything but Jews. To him, Jews may as well be the fulcrum on which divine agency changes the world. It would make no difference to their awesome power.

    This is very strange. He must feel like a plastic bag in the wind. He has no substance, no real existence, he is just a meaningless piece of plastic; bewildered and buffeted, by the Jewish gusts.

    Can Rahan understand why he makes the choices that he does? Or is his unconscious, for a lack of introspection, in hidden control.

    Perhaps he has a hint of this and has even come to hate his unconscious as a tool manipulated by Jews, through media and advertising and propaganda? Rather than as an aspect of his greater self.

    The Jews, in this model of Rahan, are a synonym for his unconscious; so, because they control him, unseen, sinister, all-powerful, he needs to inflate his fragile ego, and pretend that this same force controls the world.

    He has his own journey, but pity he who feels like a speck of jetsam on a hostile sea.

    Replies: @iffen, @Robert Dolan, @fredtard, @rebel yell, @Mario Partisan, @Bill

    Your comments are idiotic and they fly in the face of objective reality.

    It’s easy to track jewish influence as much as you try to provide some kind of stupid pseudo-intellectual diversion.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Robert Dolan


    Your comments are idiotic and they fly in the face of objective reality.

    It’s easy to track jewish influence as much as you try to provide some kind of stupid pseudo-intellectual diversion.
     
    If it is so easy, then why is it only the activity of a handful of erratic internet oddballs?

    Replies: @Bill

  33. A123 says: • Website
    @SFG
    It's entirely possible for birthrates to be falling and for secular left-wing Jews to still be the reason for a lot of aspects of American leftism. From what I've seen (what do I know, I only lived in NYC for 22 years), they seem to actually believe all the B.S. they spout about alternative this and that. Homosexuality 40 years ago, trans 20 years ago, and the next big thing is nonmonogamy. Also, practically speaking, the bigger the city, the smaller the family, and that's been seen around the world and throughout history. You don't want to try to raise two kids in Manhattan.

    But yeah, between the IDW and the rise of the Orthodox I wouldn't be surprised to see a new batch of neoconservatives. I just hope they don't drag the USA into another war.

    Replies: @A123, @Dutch Boy

    secular left-wing Jews to still be the reason for a lot of aspects of American leftism. … they seem to actually believe all the B.S. they spout about alternative this and that.

    Are “secular left-wing Jews” Anti-Jewish?

    I know that sounds like an odd question. However the left is going out of its way to antagonize other politically center & right Jews. (1)

    Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director Jonathan “Greenblatt has already…trashed ADL’s reputation,” wrote Jewish News Syndicate editor-in-chief Jonathan S. Tobin in July 2020. While the ADL previously had leftist biases, “Greenblatt has steadily pushed the group farther to the left

    Greenblatt’s post-Jewish ADL became clear in its opposition to President Donald Trump’s 2018 nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, a partisan issue unrelated to antisemitism. Greenblatt has also accused American Jews of manifesting the modern leftist sin of “white privilege.” As Center for Security Policy analyst Alex Van Ness wrote, “Greenblatt has shown himself unable to leave his old partisan circles behind.

    Practicing Jews support traditional Judeo-Christian values and view “secular left-wing Jews” as the opposition. The gap continues to widen. “Secular left-wing Jews” largely embrace the views of Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib.

    Are “secular left-wing Jews” Anti-Jewish? The answer has to be, Yes.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/jonathan-greenblatt-destroys-the-adl

    • Replies: @anon
    @A123

    Practicing Jews support traditional Judeo-Christian values

    Precisely what are these "Judeo-Christian" values? Why can you not define them?

    , @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @A123

    Traditional Judeo-Christian values like aggressive war, extra0judicial killings, mass murder, genocide, land theft, moving alien populations into occupied land, mass torture, child murder, etc. And then there are the private 'values' seen in sex trafficking, human organ trafficking, various economic crimes like binary options, blood diamond trafficking, drug trafficking especially ecstasy, cyber-crime, surveillance expertise, private investigations and blackmail etc. Some values!

  34. @Robert Dolan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Your comments are idiotic and they fly in the face of objective reality.

    It's easy to track jewish influence as much as you try to provide some kind of stupid pseudo-intellectual diversion.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Your comments are idiotic and they fly in the face of objective reality.

    It’s easy to track jewish influence as much as you try to provide some kind of stupid pseudo-intellectual diversion.

    If it is so easy, then why is it only the activity of a handful of erratic internet oddballs?

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Ask Rick Sanchez. He won't explain it to you, and that's your answer.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  35. They’re certainly deplorable to Jew supremacist Zionazis:

    Interestingly, though, US Jews often blame Zionist sociopathy on the Orthodox.

  36. Don’t get fooled. The outmarried couple is a a rule Zionist and their offspring “ethnically” identifies themselves as “Jewish” and Zionist, i.e. Jewish supremacist. Far more dangerous than Orthodox.

  37. @Triteleia Laxa
    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian's comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?



    Take Rahan's comment. It seems that no contemporary phenomena can be explained, in his head, by reference to anything but Jews. To him, Jews may as well be the fulcrum on which divine agency changes the world. It would make no difference to their awesome power.

    This is very strange. He must feel like a plastic bag in the wind. He has no substance, no real existence, he is just a meaningless piece of plastic; bewildered and buffeted, by the Jewish gusts.

    Can Rahan understand why he makes the choices that he does? Or is his unconscious, for a lack of introspection, in hidden control.

    Perhaps he has a hint of this and has even come to hate his unconscious as a tool manipulated by Jews, through media and advertising and propaganda? Rather than as an aspect of his greater self.

    The Jews, in this model of Rahan, are a synonym for his unconscious; so, because they control him, unseen, sinister, all-powerful, he needs to inflate his fragile ego, and pretend that this same force controls the world.

    He has his own journey, but pity he who feels like a speck of jetsam on a hostile sea.

    Replies: @iffen, @Robert Dolan, @fredtard, @rebel yell, @Mario Partisan, @Bill

    I concur with your frequent refrain about the value of thoughtful introspection, but your hypothesizing about the thought processes and/or motives of Rahan comes off as flat arrogant. Even if psychoanalysis is useful, and I have doubts, employing its techniques to strangers in threads doesn’t exactly showcase your objectivity.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @fredtard

    Me giving my impressions of a commenter, from his comments, is "flat out arrogant", but him explaining all political power and what is in the hearts of millions of people, completely unknown to him, is unremarkable?

  38. @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    What happens when an heir in one of these families dislikes their parents? Or are these 200 families made up of exceptionally nurturing and kind people?

    Replies: @notanon, @UNIT472

    Well there is this: Years ago, a friend of mine was contracted to build some tennis courts on the property of Robert Mondavi, of the eponymous vintner company. My friend was astonished to find that while Mondavi had a large and beautiful home he only had one bedroom in it. OK. Then above Mondavi’s living room fireplace there was an inscription laid in stone. My friend didn’t understand Latin so he asked what it meant. Mondavi replied, it says the good thing about having money is that it keeps the children close.

    That seems to be true. Other than Patty Hearst, who was kidnapped, you don’t see many wayward offspring of the megarich going south on their parents no matter how despicable they maybe.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @UNIT472

    All sorts of children of the rich are estranged from their parents; especially from their parents' politics

  39. @A123
    @SFG


    secular left-wing Jews to still be the reason for a lot of aspects of American leftism. ... they seem to actually believe all the B.S. they spout about alternative this and that.
     
    Are "secular left-wing Jews" Anti-Jewish?

    I know that sounds like an odd question. However the left is going out of its way to antagonize other politically center & right Jews. (1)

    Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director Jonathan “Greenblatt has already…trashed ADL’s reputation,” wrote Jewish News Syndicate editor-in-chief Jonathan S. Tobin in July 2020. While the ADL previously had leftist biases, “Greenblatt has steadily pushed the group farther to the left
    ...
    Greenblatt’s post-Jewish ADL became clear in its opposition to President Donald Trump’s 2018 nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, a partisan issue unrelated to antisemitism. Greenblatt has also accused American Jews of manifesting the modern leftist sin of “white privilege.” As Center for Security Policy analyst Alex Van Ness wrote, “Greenblatt has shown himself unable to leave his old partisan circles behind.
     
    Practicing Jews support traditional Judeo-Christian values and view "secular left-wing Jews" as the opposition. The gap continues to widen. "Secular left-wing Jews" largely embrace the views of Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib.

    Are "secular left-wing Jews" Anti-Jewish? The answer has to be, Yes.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/jonathan-greenblatt-destroys-the-adl

    Replies: @anon, @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Practicing Jews support traditional Judeo-Christian values

    Precisely what are these “Judeo-Christian” values? Why can you not define them?

  40. @UNIT472
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well there is this: Years ago, a friend of mine was contracted to build some tennis courts on the property of Robert Mondavi, of the eponymous vintner company. My friend was astonished to find that while Mondavi had a large and beautiful home he only had one bedroom in it. OK. Then above Mondavi's living room fireplace there was an inscription laid in stone. My friend didn't understand Latin so he asked what it meant. Mondavi replied, it says the good thing about having money is that it keeps the children close.

    That seems to be true. Other than Patty Hearst, who was kidnapped, you don't see many wayward offspring of the megarich going south on their parents no matter how despicable they maybe.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    All sorts of children of the rich are estranged from their parents; especially from their parents’ politics

  41. @Triteleia Laxa
    @UNIT472

    I get it. You would have taken over the world, but you couldn't be bothered. Makes sense.

    Replies: @rebel yell

    Unit472 didn’t say that he personally could easily take over the world if he wanted to. He said:

    A few thousand aggressive people, united in a common cause, can wield disproportionate influence.

    That statement is basically true, given the power of propaganda, money, and professional political activism in politics.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @rebel yell

    Couldn't be too hard for him to meet a few thousand like-minded people in a world of 7 billion.

  42. She can yammer all she wants. It won’t make a difference. Indeed, NOTHING will make a difference unless people begin to Name the Jew.

    Just think. If Billy is causing all the trouble — spraying graffiti, throwing trash all over the place, making loud noises through the night, setting things on fire, kicking dogs, stealing things, smashing car windows, and etc — , he will not stop unless HE is named and blamed. If people get angry and mention all the bad deeds without naming WHO did it, why would Billy stop? What he does is condemned but HE himself never is. If anything, suppose all the neighbors praise and honor Billy even as they denounce all the bad things he does. If someone kicks you and if you denounce the kick but don’t name and blame the kicker, what good will it do?

    For example, globo-homo and tranny-tyranny are proxies of Jewish power. Jews fund it. Jews control academia and publishing. Jews control whore politicians, most of whom dare not oppose anything pushed by Jews. (At most, some conzos will pretend to oppose it while playing ‘beautiful losers’.) So, unless Jews are named as the pushers of globo-homo and tranny craziness, they will just continue.

    Indeed, think of how much thing could change if people named the Jew.
    Take the media. So full of fake news and BS all around. But people call it ‘mainstream news’ or ‘leftist news’ or ‘liberal corporate news’ or whatever. No mention of Jewish control. Why would Jews stop with their bad behavior when they are not named and blamed for fake news and anti-white vitriol?
    Instead, the fictional ‘left’ gets the blame from idiot conzos. Attach the accurate label of ‘Jewish’ to the industries and institutions of power, and people will start to wake up. They may then name the real power, and Jews will take notice and then and only then will they think twice about being so vile. Big Tech? No, Jewish Big Tech? Finance Sector? No, Jewish-controlled Finance Sector. Deep State? No, Jewish-controlled Deep State.

    While the Deep State has immense power, most people in it just go with the flow and do as told. Every nation has its own deep state. Deep State on its own has no agenda but is just a bundle of power/control. Its direction is decided by which group controls the ‘science’ and the ‘gods’. If Muslims controlled the US deep state, it would function differently. Jews control it, and we have the mess today. They must be named.

    In the current US, even those who denounce Jewish policies must praise Jewish identity. It’s like you must praise the murderer of your family even as you lament the murders. The relation between Jews and whites is more akin to one between god and man than man and man. Even if mankind loathes what god or gods do, they must revere and honor god or gods. Even when white goyim detest what Jews do, they must praise Jews and Israel. Not a winning formula for white goyim… and Jews know it. Will whites ever?

    • Thanks: Etruscan Film Star
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Priss Factor


    Indeed, think of how much thing could change if people named the Jew.
     
    Unfortunately, it took me literally decades to figure this out.

    Perplexingly, I rather like the Jews I know on an individual basis—nor is this a mere sign of tolerance on my part, for several Jews I know have treated me with significant individual kindness—so for the first 50 years of my life I'd accept any rationalization to afford Jewry the benefit of the doubt. I finally ran out of excuses, though. You are exactly and precisely right.

    (A123 wants me to say, “élite Jews.” I am not really sure how that helps, but I'll say it if he likes.)

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

  43. Outmarriage isn’t a sign that Jewish numbers are declining. I’ve had experience of 4 Jews who married non-Jews; one of the four converted to Catholicism. Of the four couple, three raised the children Jewish. The only “true” Jew in the bunch (born of a Jewish mother) is added to 6 children born of Christian mothers, only two of whom were raised nonJewish.

    So non-Orthodox Jews aren’t threatened if they can have children with non Jewish parents, even at a low fertility rate.

  44. @rebel yell
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Unit472 didn't say that he personally could easily take over the world if he wanted to. He said:


    A few thousand aggressive people, united in a common cause, can wield disproportionate influence.
     
    That statement is basically true, given the power of propaganda, money, and professional political activism in politics.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Couldn’t be too hard for him to meet a few thousand like-minded people in a world of 7 billion.

  45. @Rahan
    One part of a certain population wants the West to be a pro-Israel golem and throw its weight around the world. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that.

    Another part is feverishly trying to dismantle the West at the same time, in order to produce a world-wide utopia. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that as well.

    A sub-portion is content to simply prey on the host nation and extract resources. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that, because extracting foreign resources is also yummy.

    And a fourth, mostly silent part, is simply trying to lead a normal life in a normal society. There's a closing window of opportunity for this fourth part to organize itself and begin publicly counteracting the other three.

    Because if they don't, either a backlash happens against all Jews, or society collapses instead. Neither are good outcomes.

    Replies: @Irish Savant, @UncommonGround

    The good Jews need to reign in the bad ones or pogroms will reemerge at some stage in the future.

  46. @Triteleia Laxa
    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian's comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?



    Take Rahan's comment. It seems that no contemporary phenomena can be explained, in his head, by reference to anything but Jews. To him, Jews may as well be the fulcrum on which divine agency changes the world. It would make no difference to their awesome power.

    This is very strange. He must feel like a plastic bag in the wind. He has no substance, no real existence, he is just a meaningless piece of plastic; bewildered and buffeted, by the Jewish gusts.

    Can Rahan understand why he makes the choices that he does? Or is his unconscious, for a lack of introspection, in hidden control.

    Perhaps he has a hint of this and has even come to hate his unconscious as a tool manipulated by Jews, through media and advertising and propaganda? Rather than as an aspect of his greater self.

    The Jews, in this model of Rahan, are a synonym for his unconscious; so, because they control him, unseen, sinister, all-powerful, he needs to inflate his fragile ego, and pretend that this same force controls the world.

    He has his own journey, but pity he who feels like a speck of jetsam on a hostile sea.

    Replies: @iffen, @Robert Dolan, @fredtard, @rebel yell, @Mario Partisan, @Bill

    There is nothing wrong with critiquing Jewish politics.
    We talk openly about blacks in politics. We have the congressional black caucus, black churches as a focal point for political organizing, black political organizations such as the NAACP and BLM, the black civil rights movement, the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party, black issues such as affirmative action, courting the black vote, etc. We rightly talk about blacks as a political actor with an agenda and with influence.
    Same goes for feminists, gun owners, greens, gays, rural whites, Evangelicals, the Catholic church on abortion, etc.
    Pre-civil war there was much talk about “the slave power”. What was the slave power? It was wealthy plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and in national politics. These plantation owners had common interests and organized themselves to get what they wanted in politics.
    Is there some reason we can’t talk just as normally about Jewish politics and Jewish influence in politics? Some reason we can’t critique it just as we would political influence by any other identifiable group?
    This doesn’t assume there is a single Jewish agenda or that all Jews agree. We also don’t assume that about blacks or slave owners.
    But why this hyper-sensitivity to any discussion of Jewish political influence? Why is it scary to say “Jewish political influence” but not scary to say “black political influence”?

    • Replies: @Charlotte
    @rebel yell

    I would guess that blacks don’t have a problem with whites talking about “black political influence” because they like the idea that they have power and whites know it. American Jews are allergic to non-Jews discussing Jews as a group. Jewish organizations tend to come down hard on anyone who wishes to contemplate “the Jews” as something other than a victim group. You think the Jews sure do well in banking? Why, you might be an anti-semite, or a Nazi. In a nutshell, they seem to reason, “We must squelch all references to ourselves as a block or a lobby, lest the gentiles get ideas; therefore, the Jewish lobby must be as formidable as possible in order to squelch the aforementioned references.”

    Why the difference? Blacks couldn’t blend in to a majority white society very easily, and many of them don’t want to. Jews have a much better chance of blending in, yet they also have a sense that they need to band together for protection. If you can’t or won’t blend in, you might as well try to exercise power openly, but if you can, there are benefits to making yourself tough to identify.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @rebel yell

    Jews get criticised in the media all of the time. What are you talking about?

    Oh, you want to say that Jews are conspiring against you?

    No, "it is just critiquing the Jewish agenda". Who do you think you are kidding with that pretend difference?

    , @anarchyst
    @rebel yell

    Your comment:
    /"Pre-civil war there was much talk about “the slave power”. What was the slave power? It was wealthy plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and in national politics. These plantation owners had common interests and organized themselves to get what they wanted in politics."/
    ...leaves out one important, perhaps the most important point.
    Chattel slavery in the western hemisphere was run lock, stock, and barrel by JEWS.
    Jews owned the slave ships, insured the ships and human cargo, and paid crews to sail them from the African continent. Jews owned the "slave auction houses" and owned the majority of slaves on the American continent. It was wealthy JEWISH plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and national politics...
    You see, the jewish talmud not only condones slavery, but encourages it among jews.
    Christianity was bastardized by Protestantism when the jews were "rehabilitated" and looked upon as Christianity's "elder brothers rather than the enemies of Christianity. Of course shyster Schofield and Calvinism had a lot to do with "rehabilitating" jewish behavior regarding the institution of chattel slavery..
    Protestant approval of slavery was based on the excuse that "converting slaves to Christianity" was a noble cause, despite the whole aspect of slavery being an abomination on its face.
    We are paying for the "sin" of slavery to this very day...

  47. @SFG
    @brabantian

    I think you mean 3% of the US population?

    I don't think there are 210 million Jews, though I guess if you just came back from NYC it might seem that way. ;)

    Replies: @Patricus

    Last I read Jews are 1.71% of the US population. That percentage was nearly twice as high in 1950. They are about 8% of the New York City population. The world’s total is 14 or 15 million. It was 16 million after WW II. They are not a growing group.

    It all depends on how a Jew is defined. The people have been around thousands of years. All of us might have some small fraction of Jewish blood.

  48. Kids of Jew and goy are raised as Jews.

    Look at kids of Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump.

    Jewish Power isn’t about numbers but numeracy.

  49. @Triteleia Laxa
    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian's comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?



    Take Rahan's comment. It seems that no contemporary phenomena can be explained, in his head, by reference to anything but Jews. To him, Jews may as well be the fulcrum on which divine agency changes the world. It would make no difference to their awesome power.

    This is very strange. He must feel like a plastic bag in the wind. He has no substance, no real existence, he is just a meaningless piece of plastic; bewildered and buffeted, by the Jewish gusts.

    Can Rahan understand why he makes the choices that he does? Or is his unconscious, for a lack of introspection, in hidden control.

    Perhaps he has a hint of this and has even come to hate his unconscious as a tool manipulated by Jews, through media and advertising and propaganda? Rather than as an aspect of his greater self.

    The Jews, in this model of Rahan, are a synonym for his unconscious; so, because they control him, unseen, sinister, all-powerful, he needs to inflate his fragile ego, and pretend that this same force controls the world.

    He has his own journey, but pity he who feels like a speck of jetsam on a hostile sea.

    Replies: @iffen, @Robert Dolan, @fredtard, @rebel yell, @Mario Partisan, @Bill

    First, let me say that the poll results that AE presents are certainly food for thought for the anti-Semites of UR (yours truly included.) But, whatever their actual meaning, they have to be squared with observable reality.

    The problem that I have with this and other JQ-related comments of yours is that they regularly engage in gaslighting, pathologizing, or diagnosing (the standard elements of pilpul) those who question Jewish Power in the West. In your comments, you don’t present counter data, but simply say that those reading the data in a way unfriendly to Jews are afflicted with some kind of syndrome. In short, you do the equivalent of the feminists’ “you just have a small dick.”

    A couple examples from recent past posts come to mind.

    1) At Mr. Guyenot’s article, a commenter said something to the effect, “how do you explain what Jews/Israel have accomplished, if you deny that they are powerful?” (paraphrasing.) Your response was, “if they were as powerful as you say, they would have accomplished things they have not.” (paraphrasing.) Of course, your interlocutor had not said they were powerful enough to do things they have not, but powerful enough to do what they have actually done. Sly straw man building on your part.

    2) In response to your stating that you would vote for Bibi (in America), I replied that he pretty much already has your vote. In response, I got a “Troll.” The irony is that your comment was in response to a posting of excerpts from Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to congress, showing unanimous applause after unanimous applause for a foreign leader undermining a US President’s negotiations with another country. The video you “liked” made my point!

    The simple fact is that Jewish Power is obvious to anyone who isn’t blind or in denial. There are simply too many “data” points to argue against this observation. That is why you have to gaslight the people who see, because you are in denial.

    Now, perhaps we can meet half way. It is true that Marty Goldblattermanfeld next door has more in common with Mario, than he does with Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Ben Bernanke, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jeffrey Epstein, Les Wexner, George Soros, Jonathan Greenblatt, Jared Kushner, Alan Greenspan, Janet Yellen, Chuck Schumer, JB Pritzker, Phillip Zelikow, Dov Zakheim, Haim Saban, Paul Woflowitz, Richard Pearl, Larry Silverstein…(okay I’ll get to my point). Really I don’t want to have anything against him (Marty actually lives next door).

    But then how do we reconcile this with reality? Perhaps the answer is that not all Sicilians are Cosa Nostra, but all Cosa Nostra are Sicilians. Can we call it the Kosher Nostra and agree?

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund, Twinkie
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan

    You can't see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can't even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world's superpower can't even do that?

    And if "Jewish power", of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can "see" it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You're welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren't Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mario Partisan, @rebel yell, @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    , @sarz
    @Mario Partisan


    Can we call it the Kosher Nostra and agree?
     
    "Kosher Nostra" and "Jewish Mafia" is like hiding a crocodile behind a rat. Call them by the name they call themselves.

    Mishpucha

    When Hillary wants to show her identification she remembers her Jewish grandfather and the Mishpucha.

    Compare the results for "Hillary Mishpucha" on Google and Duckduckgo.
  50. @brabantian
    The Jewish influence machine is more oriented toward a core of Jewish elites, rather than being a general tribal welfare tool, and has a replacement mechanism for Jews who drift away or rebel, which has been happening for millennia

    A Jewish writer whose name I forgot, pointed out that Jewish affiliation has not only always been 'leaky' on one side, with members being lost through inter-marriage or just being fed up, but also having more 'acquisition' via marriage than officially admitted ... enabling elite Judaism to be a self-sustaining machine over the centuries

    This was particularly done in the UK. Leslie Gilbert Pine (1907-87), editor of Burke's Peerage, in his 1950s book 'Tales of the British Aristocracy', devoted a chapter to 'Anglo-Jewish Peerage', where he famously wrote:

    So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.
     
    For Jewish elites, the average Jew or Israeli is simply another pawn, tho a pawn with special utilities ... yet still ultimately disposable

    These pawns include not only the 20 million or so 'full' Jews, but also some of the 200 million or so 'part Jews', such as the USA politician John 'Kohn' Kerry, who 'forgot' his father was a Jew from Prague who strategically adopted an Irish name ... it's notable that with this larger group - recognised by Israel's government as a strategic asset - 'Jewry' comprises nearly 3% of the world's population

    Replies: @SFG, @anon, @216, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Patrick McNally

    John Kerry is almost singulary identified with the Iran deal, which Israel has been complaining about since it started.

    • Replies: @notanon
    @216


    Iran deal
     
    two factions imo

    Wall St makes a lot of money from the factories they shipped to China which made China dependent on middle-east oil which means neither Wall St or China want a war with Iran messing up the oil supply

    so neocon faction vs Wall St / China faction.
  51. @Priss Factor
    She can yammer all she wants. It won't make a difference. Indeed, NOTHING will make a difference unless people begin to Name the Jew.

    https://twitter.com/ChiefTrumpster/status/1403887004623032324

    Just think. If Billy is causing all the trouble -- spraying graffiti, throwing trash all over the place, making loud noises through the night, setting things on fire, kicking dogs, stealing things, smashing car windows, and etc -- , he will not stop unless HE is named and blamed. If people get angry and mention all the bad deeds without naming WHO did it, why would Billy stop? What he does is condemned but HE himself never is. If anything, suppose all the neighbors praise and honor Billy even as they denounce all the bad things he does. If someone kicks you and if you denounce the kick but don't name and blame the kicker, what good will it do?

    For example, globo-homo and tranny-tyranny are proxies of Jewish power. Jews fund it. Jews control academia and publishing. Jews control whore politicians, most of whom dare not oppose anything pushed by Jews. (At most, some conzos will pretend to oppose it while playing 'beautiful losers'.) So, unless Jews are named as the pushers of globo-homo and tranny craziness, they will just continue.

    Indeed, think of how much thing could change if people named the Jew.
    Take the media. So full of fake news and BS all around. But people call it 'mainstream news' or 'leftist news' or 'liberal corporate news' or whatever. No mention of Jewish control. Why would Jews stop with their bad behavior when they are not named and blamed for fake news and anti-white vitriol?
    Instead, the fictional 'left' gets the blame from idiot conzos. Attach the accurate label of 'Jewish' to the industries and institutions of power, and people will start to wake up. They may then name the real power, and Jews will take notice and then and only then will they think twice about being so vile. Big Tech? No, Jewish Big Tech? Finance Sector? No, Jewish-controlled Finance Sector. Deep State? No, Jewish-controlled Deep State.

    While the Deep State has immense power, most people in it just go with the flow and do as told. Every nation has its own deep state. Deep State on its own has no agenda but is just a bundle of power/control. Its direction is decided by which group controls the 'science' and the 'gods'. If Muslims controlled the US deep state, it would function differently. Jews control it, and we have the mess today. They must be named.

    In the current US, even those who denounce Jewish policies must praise Jewish identity. It's like you must praise the murderer of your family even as you lament the murders. The relation between Jews and whites is more akin to one between god and man than man and man. Even if mankind loathes what god or gods do, they must revere and honor god or gods. Even when white goyim detest what Jews do, they must praise Jews and Israel. Not a winning formula for white goyim... and Jews know it. Will whites ever?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Indeed, think of how much thing could change if people named the Jew.

    Unfortunately, it took me literally decades to figure this out.

    Perplexingly, I rather like the Jews I know on an individual basis—nor is this a mere sign of tolerance on my part, for several Jews I know have treated me with significant individual kindness—so for the first 50 years of my life I’d accept any rationalization to afford Jewry the benefit of the doubt. I finally ran out of excuses, though. You are exactly and precisely right.

    (A123 wants me to say, “élite Jews.” I am not really sure how that helps, but I’ll say it if he likes.)

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "so for the first 50 years of my life I’d accept any rationalization to afford Jewry the benefit of the doubt."

    I find this perspective fascinating, in light of American teens and those in their 20's who do not harbor the same wariness and animosity toward Jews (and even Boomers, for that matter). It's really more a Generation X or Silent Generation propensity to have those attitudes.

    But I suppose we can always hope that young people will "grow up", realize they were being propagandized by Jewish elites, and become as disillusioned and angry as some of the posters here on this fine opinion webzine.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    How about saying "elites"? An earnest request: Name an elite or three who are on your side. It's easy to name a Jew or three who are, but it's exceedingly difficult to name an elite who is, Jewish or otherwise.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  52. @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    First, let me say that the poll results that AE presents are certainly food for thought for the anti-Semites of UR (yours truly included.) But, whatever their actual meaning, they have to be squared with observable reality.

    The problem that I have with this and other JQ-related comments of yours is that they regularly engage in gaslighting, pathologizing, or diagnosing (the standard elements of pilpul) those who question Jewish Power in the West. In your comments, you don’t present counter data, but simply say that those reading the data in a way unfriendly to Jews are afflicted with some kind of syndrome. In short, you do the equivalent of the feminists’ “you just have a small dick.”

    A couple examples from recent past posts come to mind.

    1) At Mr. Guyenot’s article, a commenter said something to the effect, “how do you explain what Jews/Israel have accomplished, if you deny that they are powerful?” (paraphrasing.) Your response was, “if they were as powerful as you say, they would have accomplished things they have not.” (paraphrasing.) Of course, your interlocutor had not said they were powerful enough to do things they have not, but powerful enough to do what they have actually done. Sly straw man building on your part.

    2) In response to your stating that you would vote for Bibi (in America), I replied that he pretty much already has your vote. In response, I got a “Troll.” The irony is that your comment was in response to a posting of excerpts from Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to congress, showing unanimous applause after unanimous applause for a foreign leader undermining a US President’s negotiations with another country. The video you “liked” made my point!

    The simple fact is that Jewish Power is obvious to anyone who isn’t blind or in denial. There are simply too many “data” points to argue against this observation. That is why you have to gaslight the people who see, because you are in denial.

    Now, perhaps we can meet half way. It is true that Marty Goldblattermanfeld next door has more in common with Mario, than he does with Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Ben Bernanke, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jeffrey Epstein, Les Wexner, George Soros, Jonathan Greenblatt, Jared Kushner, Alan Greenspan, Janet Yellen, Chuck Schumer, JB Pritzker, Phillip Zelikow, Dov Zakheim, Haim Saban, Paul Woflowitz, Richard Pearl, Larry Silverstein…(okay I’ll get to my point). Really I don’t want to have anything against him (Marty actually lives next door).

    But then how do we reconcile this with reality? Perhaps the answer is that not all Sicilians are Cosa Nostra, but all Cosa Nostra are Sicilians. Can we call it the Kosher Nostra and agree?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @sarz

    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world’s superpower can’t even do that?

    And if “Jewish power”, of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can “see” it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You’re welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren’t Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, ...
     
    No, they hate him. There is a difference.

    Mario and I are unlikely to persuade you, of course, but it is unnecessary that we persuade you. Because you are an honest, observant person, Jewish actions will eventually persuade you.


    ... no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.
     
    That is not an argument. Anyway, as far as I am aware, Mario was not trawling for sympathy.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Look, I offered you a compromise, but even so, you come back with ad hominem, gas lighting and condescension. How typical.


    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?
     
    So, this seems logical on the surface, but only on the surface. It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof. I guess the question is: what is stopping Israel from doing that? (Your question assumes they would like to and I agree.)

    Well, there are 3 million Palestinians living under occupation there; if Israel formally annexes the land into the Jewish State, it brings 3 million non-Jews into Israel. That doesn’t seem desirable for Israel. So, if it takes more than incremental moves to fully annex the WB, it would have to ethnically cleanse the area of Arabs, thus triggering a large scale fight, likely involving regional heavy weights like Iran. So, why hasn’t Israel done it yet? For the same reason the Neocons haven’t started the Iran war yet – it would be a disaster far more costly than anything to be gained. So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t. It says more about limitations on American power than on Jewish power in America.

    The other limitation at work is that such a bold and bloody move would significantly hurt Jewish Moral Power in America – which is the lynch pin of their legitimacy. Imagine telling generations of Americans about your eternal sufferink only to send them to slaughter people with hardly any weapons because you want their land. Hard sell and doing so risks losing more soft power than it is worth.

    I don’t think the rest of your post merits a response beyond what V.K. has already said.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    , @rebel yell
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You’re welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.
     
    The ADL and AIPAC are explicitly Jewish political organizations and are fair game for criticism.
    Other prominent political organizations such as the ACLU and SPLC are Jewish in practice if not in name, and a critique of the sub-culture that produced these organizations is also fair game. It's no different than discussing evangelical Christians and their role in abortion politics. I'm sure you'll agree it is okay to discuss evangelical Christians and their role in politics.
    Why are you having difficulty conceding these points?
    , @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa


    and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.
     
    The far right has a problem. It's been very unsuccessful politically. The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn't have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism. But many on the far right just can't accept this. They invent sinister conspiracies to explain their failure, and they look for scapegoats. They decide it's all the fault of immigrants or blacks or Jews or Bolsheviks.

    A moderate right-wing alternative to the corrupt Republican establishment and to neoliberalism and neocon foreign policy might have had a chance. The election of Trump in 2016 suggests that such a movement could have been viable. But the far right attracted too many extreme anti-semites, too many extreme racists, too many misogynists and too many people who were hopelessly detached from reality. Ideas such as deporting all immigrants, hoping for a new Civil War, returning to the sexual and social mores of the 1950s, creating a white ethnostate, combined with hysterical anti-semitism and crazy conspiracy theories hopelessly discredited the far right. Ordinary people just don't want to know about such extreme ideas.

    There were sensible sane moderates in movements like the alt-right but they didn't get listened to because the extremists scared people off.

    As it became increasingly obvious that the far right wasn't making any headway the desire to invent sinister conspiracy theories to explain that failure became stronger and the desire to find a scapegoat became stronger. And the far right started drifting off into fantasy worlds.

    There are real problems to be dealt with and in many cases the dissident right/far right has been correct in identifying those problems, but real people in the real world don't want extreme solutions. They want moderate solutions. Calling for an American Franco is not a moderate solution.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren’t Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.
     
    A major weakness of the far right is its inability to accept that sometimes its enemies are not evil. Sometimes its enemies are motivated by, as you say, a desire to make the world a fairer and more moral place. People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are often unrealistic and sometimes deluded but they're not evil. And sometimes they're right.

    People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are not necessarily plotting white genocide.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Just as an aside: the problem of a moralising attitude, that makes those who disagree with your morals evil, is that it precludes you from learning and changing. Learning and changing is ordinarily hard, but it is impossible when the risk is "evil".

    A secondary problem is that, if moral disagreement makes the other person evil, then you have to constantly distract yourself from the inference that everyone else, because they all disagree with you, think you are evil. This takes a psychological toll.

    Obviously another problem is that it is all just not true, as you have made up your moral judgements and those are not yours to make, so you pay the price, as per the other two problems.

  53. All international jew types ultimately come from the orthodox ones, as long as the orthodox continue to breed so much more leftist jews will be produced.

  54. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan

    You can't see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can't even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world's superpower can't even do that?

    And if "Jewish power", of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can "see" it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You're welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren't Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mario Partisan, @rebel yell, @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, …

    No, they hate him. There is a difference.

    Mario and I are unlikely to persuade you, of course, but it is unnecessary that we persuade you. Because you are an honest, observant person, Jewish actions will eventually persuade you.

    … no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    That is not an argument. Anyway, as far as I am aware, Mario was not trawling for sympathy.

    • Thanks: Mario Partisan
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Because you are an honest, observant person, Jewish actions will eventually persuade you.
     
    You are assuming a lot here. The premise does not hold.* And you are assuming that he/she is not Jewish or a fellow-traveler who benefits from the said Jewish actions.

    *Anyone who makes the following kind of a statement is not honest:

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors
     
    Did you get that? Just "a bit."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  55. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan

    You can't see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can't even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world's superpower can't even do that?

    And if "Jewish power", of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can "see" it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You're welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren't Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mario Partisan, @rebel yell, @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    Look, I offered you a compromise, but even so, you come back with ad hominem, gas lighting and condescension. How typical.

    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    So, this seems logical on the surface, but only on the surface. It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof. I guess the question is: what is stopping Israel from doing that? (Your question assumes they would like to and I agree.)

    Well, there are 3 million Palestinians living under occupation there; if Israel formally annexes the land into the Jewish State, it brings 3 million non-Jews into Israel. That doesn’t seem desirable for Israel. So, if it takes more than incremental moves to fully annex the WB, it would have to ethnically cleanse the area of Arabs, thus triggering a large scale fight, likely involving regional heavy weights like Iran. So, why hasn’t Israel done it yet? For the same reason the Neocons haven’t started the Iran war yet – it would be a disaster far more costly than anything to be gained. So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t. It says more about limitations on American power than on Jewish power in America.

    The other limitation at work is that such a bold and bloody move would significantly hurt Jewish Moral Power in America – which is the lynch pin of their legitimacy. Imagine telling generations of Americans about your eternal sufferink only to send them to slaughter people with hardly any weapons because you want their land. Hard sell and doing so risks losing more soft power than it is worth.

    I don’t think the rest of your post merits a response beyond what V.K. has already said.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan


    Look, I offered you a compromise
     
    Are you a child?

    This isn't a personal disagreement on the playground, about who gets to play in the sandpit. There's no point about compromising because there's no cost to this.

    Is this really your mindset!


    So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t
     
    But Eritrea is, with Tigray? And China is, with Tibet?

    And America hasn't been in the last 80 years?

    Even though countless numbers of people have been cleared all over the world, even by America?


    The other limitation at work is that such a bold and bloody move would significantly hurt Jewish Moral Power
     
    You seem to make out Jews to be totally immoral in their actions. Yet now you say a common action from the last 80 years would reduce some stupid concept you think has validity because you've capitalised it?

    If immoral actions delete their moral power, and they have moral power, you must think they don't do many immoral actions.

    So self-contradictory. Your catchphrases only delude yourself.

    Replies: @Mario Partisan

    , @Twinkie
    @Mario Partisan


    It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof.
     
    This is exactly right. I have been to the West Bank. I have Israeli friends who protected me while I was in Israel. I’m generally fond of Israel and Israelis (well, Sabras, anyway).

    But the statements that “Israel has a hugely powerful lobby in the U.S.” and “Israel’s power has limits” are not mutually contradictory.

    Even Israel has learned that colonialism is like riding the back of a tiger, sooner or later - you can’t stay on and you can’t get off. The only way Israel could have made the conquest of West Bank (Judea and Samaria) work would have been to repeat what they did in 1948 - by expelling the non-Jews. But 1967 wasn’t 1948 - Israel couldn’t just create an obvious mass suffering in full view of everyone. So now it’s stuck - it can’t just absorb the millions of Arabs and it can’t just withdraw either. It can try to increase the Jewish settler population while encouraging outmigration by the non-Jews, but that’s a very difficult proposition, to say the least.

    Let that be a lesson to all - intelligence, power, and wisdom are not the same things.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @nebulafox

  56. @216
    @brabantian

    John Kerry is almost singulary identified with the Iran deal, which Israel has been complaining about since it started.

    Replies: @notanon

    Iran deal

    two factions imo

    Wall St makes a lot of money from the factories they shipped to China which made China dependent on middle-east oil which means neither Wall St or China want a war with Iran messing up the oil supply

    so neocon faction vs Wall St / China faction.

  57. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan

    You can't see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can't even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world's superpower can't even do that?

    And if "Jewish power", of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can "see" it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You're welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren't Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mario Partisan, @rebel yell, @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You’re welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    The ADL and AIPAC are explicitly Jewish political organizations and are fair game for criticism.
    Other prominent political organizations such as the ACLU and SPLC are Jewish in practice if not in name, and a critique of the sub-culture that produced these organizations is also fair game. It’s no different than discussing evangelical Christians and their role in abortion politics. I’m sure you’ll agree it is okay to discuss evangelical Christians and their role in politics.
    Why are you having difficulty conceding these points?

  58. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan

    You can't see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can't even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world's superpower can't even do that?

    And if "Jewish power", of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can "see" it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You're welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren't Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mario Partisan, @rebel yell, @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    The far right has a problem. It’s been very unsuccessful politically. The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism. But many on the far right just can’t accept this. They invent sinister conspiracies to explain their failure, and they look for scapegoats. They decide it’s all the fault of immigrants or blacks or Jews or Bolsheviks.

    A moderate right-wing alternative to the corrupt Republican establishment and to neoliberalism and neocon foreign policy might have had a chance. The election of Trump in 2016 suggests that such a movement could have been viable. But the far right attracted too many extreme anti-semites, too many extreme racists, too many misogynists and too many people who were hopelessly detached from reality. Ideas such as deporting all immigrants, hoping for a new Civil War, returning to the sexual and social mores of the 1950s, creating a white ethnostate, combined with hysterical anti-semitism and crazy conspiracy theories hopelessly discredited the far right. Ordinary people just don’t want to know about such extreme ideas.

    There were sensible sane moderates in movements like the alt-right but they didn’t get listened to because the extremists scared people off.

    As it became increasingly obvious that the far right wasn’t making any headway the desire to invent sinister conspiracy theories to explain that failure became stronger and the desire to find a scapegoat became stronger. And the far right started drifting off into fantasy worlds.

    There are real problems to be dealt with and in many cases the dissident right/far right has been correct in identifying those problems, but real people in the real world don’t want extreme solutions. They want moderate solutions. Calling for an American Franco is not a moderate solution.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.
     
    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?

    Do you need a reminder on how acceptable homosexuality was to the mainstream society, forget about homosexual marriage and transsexual "rights"?

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/yziksheysuwaorme0ejxbw.png

    http://bostonreview.net/sites/default/files/fischer-homosexuality-web.jpg

    Replies: @dfordoom

  59. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan

    You can't see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can't even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world's superpower can't even do that?

    And if "Jewish power", of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can "see" it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You're welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren't Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mario Partisan, @rebel yell, @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren’t Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    A major weakness of the far right is its inability to accept that sometimes its enemies are not evil. Sometimes its enemies are motivated by, as you say, a desire to make the world a fairer and more moral place. People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are often unrealistic and sometimes deluded but they’re not evil. And sometimes they’re right.

    People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are not necessarily plotting white genocide.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    A major weakness of the far right is its inability to accept that sometimes its enemies are not evil. Sometimes its enemies are motivated by, as you say, a desire to make the world a fairer and more moral place.
     
    Your formulation is a classic false dichotomy.

    Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with "their hearts in the right place." They are simply self-serving and corrupt. It's just that they cloak their selfishness in the language of idealism ("meritocracy," "social justice," "affirmative action," etc.).

    People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are not necessarily plotting white genocide.
     
    This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like "white genocide," because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.

    You think Nancy Pelosi wants to murder her own grandchildren? Our elites are not plotting a white genocide - they are plotting to congeal the status quo and monopolize political and economic power in perpetuity. To the extent that they care about nonwhites, they are simply using the latter as emblems and auxiliaries to smite their rivals (or "BadWhites"). This is to a great extent a White People Civil War.

    It's the same with the issue of Jews. People who paint Jews a la Protocols of the Elders of Zion are actually helping elite Jews in power by conflating any criticism of their corruption and misuse of power with unhinged conspiracy theory and mindless hatred. Jews are not a monolithic group and not all Jews are given magic decoder rings upon a Bar Mitzvah. But it's clear that they are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large. We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.

    Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain, @dfordoom

  60. @rebel yell
    @Triteleia Laxa

    There is nothing wrong with critiquing Jewish politics.
    We talk openly about blacks in politics. We have the congressional black caucus, black churches as a focal point for political organizing, black political organizations such as the NAACP and BLM, the black civil rights movement, the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party, black issues such as affirmative action, courting the black vote, etc. We rightly talk about blacks as a political actor with an agenda and with influence.
    Same goes for feminists, gun owners, greens, gays, rural whites, Evangelicals, the Catholic church on abortion, etc.
    Pre-civil war there was much talk about "the slave power". What was the slave power? It was wealthy plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and in national politics. These plantation owners had common interests and organized themselves to get what they wanted in politics.
    Is there some reason we can't talk just as normally about Jewish politics and Jewish influence in politics? Some reason we can't critique it just as we would political influence by any other identifiable group?
    This doesn't assume there is a single Jewish agenda or that all Jews agree. We also don't assume that about blacks or slave owners.
    But why this hyper-sensitivity to any discussion of Jewish political influence? Why is it scary to say "Jewish political influence" but not scary to say "black political influence"?

    Replies: @Charlotte, @Triteleia Laxa, @anarchyst

    I would guess that blacks don’t have a problem with whites talking about “black political influence” because they like the idea that they have power and whites know it. American Jews are allergic to non-Jews discussing Jews as a group. Jewish organizations tend to come down hard on anyone who wishes to contemplate “the Jews” as something other than a victim group. You think the Jews sure do well in banking? Why, you might be an anti-semite, or a Nazi. In a nutshell, they seem to reason, “We must squelch all references to ourselves as a block or a lobby, lest the gentiles get ideas; therefore, the Jewish lobby must be as formidable as possible in order to squelch the aforementioned references.”

    Why the difference? Blacks couldn’t blend in to a majority white society very easily, and many of them don’t want to. Jews have a much better chance of blending in, yet they also have a sense that they need to band together for protection. If you can’t or won’t blend in, you might as well try to exercise power openly, but if you can, there are benefits to making yourself tough to identify.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Charlotte


    American Jews are allergic to non-Jews discussing Jews as a group. Jewish organizations tend to come down hard on anyone who wishes to contemplate “the Jews” as something other than a victim group. You think the Jews sure do well in banking? Why, you might be an anti-semite, or a Nazi. In a nutshell, they seem to reason, “We must squelch all references to ourselves as a block or a lobby, lest the gentiles get ideas; therefore, the Jewish lobby must be as formidable as possible in order to squelch the aforementioned references.”
     
    I can speak only for myself, but it would never have occurred to me to be anti-Semitic if Jews did not overreact to the possibility that I might become anti-Semitic.
  61. @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren’t Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.
     
    A major weakness of the far right is its inability to accept that sometimes its enemies are not evil. Sometimes its enemies are motivated by, as you say, a desire to make the world a fairer and more moral place. People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are often unrealistic and sometimes deluded but they're not evil. And sometimes they're right.

    People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are not necessarily plotting white genocide.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    A major weakness of the far right is its inability to accept that sometimes its enemies are not evil. Sometimes its enemies are motivated by, as you say, a desire to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    Your formulation is a classic false dichotomy.

    Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with “their hearts in the right place.” They are simply self-serving and corrupt. It’s just that they cloak their selfishness in the language of idealism (“meritocracy,” “social justice,” “affirmative action,” etc.).

    People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are not necessarily plotting white genocide.

    This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like “white genocide,” because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.

    You think Nancy Pelosi wants to murder her own grandchildren? Our elites are not plotting a white genocide – they are plotting to congeal the status quo and monopolize political and economic power in perpetuity. To the extent that they care about nonwhites, they are simply using the latter as emblems and auxiliaries to smite their rivals (or “BadWhites”). This is to a great extent a White People Civil War.

    It’s the same with the issue of Jews. People who paint Jews a la Protocols of the Elders of Zion are actually helping elite Jews in power by conflating any criticism of their corruption and misuse of power with unhinged conspiracy theory and mindless hatred. Jews are not a monolithic group and not all Jews are given magic decoder rings upon a Bar Mitzvah. But it’s clear that they are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large. We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @Twinkie

    Which is why, I believe, that Jewish elites concocted the 'Protocols', to tar all critics of any behaviour by any Jew as unhinged bigots. There is currently no way to criticise the actions of any Jew, no matter how odious one might feel them to be. One cannot even criticise and actions that arise from error or mistake or accident. ALL are 'antisemitism'. That is where the dam will break. The repression of BDS and the nullification of the First Amendment may be a demand too far-or not.

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with “their hearts in the right place.” They are simply self-serving and corrupt.
     
    I think they vary a lot. Many are indeed self-serving and corrupt. Some have ideals. Some started out with ideals but gradually compromised them. Some are ideologues. Some are crazy. Many are stupid. Most are cowardly.

    If you're talking about politicians rather than elites in general I'd say that almost all are cowardly and stupid. The level of stupidity among politicians is frightening.

    But some members of the elites do hold genuine beliefs. Some really do believe they're making the world a better place. Of course some of those who believe they're making the world a better place are also crazy or stupid.

    This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like “white genocide,” because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.
     
    I agree.

    But it’s clear that [Jews] are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large.
     
    But they don't necessarily see their ideology/political-orientation as inimical to the interests of the society at large. You see it that way, but they don't necessarily see it that way.

    We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.
     
    And every time the issue comes up on UR you get numerous commenters who immediately start painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke. You don't do that, but many commenters here do. The reason there's a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites. The far right can't blame the media for all of its image problem.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  62. @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa


    and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.
     
    The far right has a problem. It's been very unsuccessful politically. The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn't have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism. But many on the far right just can't accept this. They invent sinister conspiracies to explain their failure, and they look for scapegoats. They decide it's all the fault of immigrants or blacks or Jews or Bolsheviks.

    A moderate right-wing alternative to the corrupt Republican establishment and to neoliberalism and neocon foreign policy might have had a chance. The election of Trump in 2016 suggests that such a movement could have been viable. But the far right attracted too many extreme anti-semites, too many extreme racists, too many misogynists and too many people who were hopelessly detached from reality. Ideas such as deporting all immigrants, hoping for a new Civil War, returning to the sexual and social mores of the 1950s, creating a white ethnostate, combined with hysterical anti-semitism and crazy conspiracy theories hopelessly discredited the far right. Ordinary people just don't want to know about such extreme ideas.

    There were sensible sane moderates in movements like the alt-right but they didn't get listened to because the extremists scared people off.

    As it became increasingly obvious that the far right wasn't making any headway the desire to invent sinister conspiracy theories to explain that failure became stronger and the desire to find a scapegoat became stronger. And the far right started drifting off into fantasy worlds.

    There are real problems to be dealt with and in many cases the dissident right/far right has been correct in identifying those problems, but real people in the real world don't want extreme solutions. They want moderate solutions. Calling for an American Franco is not a moderate solution.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.

    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?

    Do you need a reminder on how acceptable homosexuality was to the mainstream society, forget about homosexual marriage and transsexual “rights”?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.
     
    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?
     
    The problem is that most people don't see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don't.

    It's true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn't very successful.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @notanon

  63. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, ...
     
    No, they hate him. There is a difference.

    Mario and I are unlikely to persuade you, of course, but it is unnecessary that we persuade you. Because you are an honest, observant person, Jewish actions will eventually persuade you.


    ... no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.
     
    That is not an argument. Anyway, as far as I am aware, Mario was not trawling for sympathy.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Because you are an honest, observant person, Jewish actions will eventually persuade you.

    You are assuming a lot here. The premise does not hold.* And you are assuming that he/she is not Jewish or a fellow-traveler who benefits from the said Jewish actions.

    *Anyone who makes the following kind of a statement is not honest:

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors

    Did you get that? Just “a bit.”

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    You are assuming a lot here. The premise does not hold.* And you are assuming that he/she is not Jewish or a fellow-traveler who benefits from the said Jewish actions.
     
    The thought had occurred to me, but I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives. One intelligent, reasonable, uncommonly decent gentile in my own extended family has told me almost exactly the same as Triteleia Laxa has told Mario, so I am inclined to take such tellings seriously.

    Even if Triteleia were Jewish, he doesn't seem a bad sort, at least within the narrow frame of our quite limited acquaintance. He does not remind me of Dissident, for example. Ultimately, since the Jews are not going to go away, one has got to get along with them, and I can get along with Jews who think like Triteleia. What I am not willing to do however is to play the rôle of the Jews' eternal gentile chump.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Dissident

  64. @brabantian
    The Jewish influence machine is more oriented toward a core of Jewish elites, rather than being a general tribal welfare tool, and has a replacement mechanism for Jews who drift away or rebel, which has been happening for millennia

    A Jewish writer whose name I forgot, pointed out that Jewish affiliation has not only always been 'leaky' on one side, with members being lost through inter-marriage or just being fed up, but also having more 'acquisition' via marriage than officially admitted ... enabling elite Judaism to be a self-sustaining machine over the centuries

    This was particularly done in the UK. Leslie Gilbert Pine (1907-87), editor of Burke's Peerage, in his 1950s book 'Tales of the British Aristocracy', devoted a chapter to 'Anglo-Jewish Peerage', where he famously wrote:

    So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.
     
    For Jewish elites, the average Jew or Israeli is simply another pawn, tho a pawn with special utilities ... yet still ultimately disposable

    These pawns include not only the 20 million or so 'full' Jews, but also some of the 200 million or so 'part Jews', such as the USA politician John 'Kohn' Kerry, who 'forgot' his father was a Jew from Prague who strategically adopted an Irish name ... it's notable that with this larger group - recognised by Israel's government as a strategic asset - 'Jewry' comprises nearly 3% of the world's population

    Replies: @SFG, @anon, @216, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Patrick McNally

    The UK Labour Quisling Sabbat Goy in Chief, Starmer, has married a Jewish woman and they are raising their children as Jews. I believe such arrangements will soon be made mandatory for UK Labour members.

  65. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    A major weakness of the far right is its inability to accept that sometimes its enemies are not evil. Sometimes its enemies are motivated by, as you say, a desire to make the world a fairer and more moral place.
     
    Your formulation is a classic false dichotomy.

    Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with "their hearts in the right place." They are simply self-serving and corrupt. It's just that they cloak their selfishness in the language of idealism ("meritocracy," "social justice," "affirmative action," etc.).

    People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are not necessarily plotting white genocide.
     
    This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like "white genocide," because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.

    You think Nancy Pelosi wants to murder her own grandchildren? Our elites are not plotting a white genocide - they are plotting to congeal the status quo and monopolize political and economic power in perpetuity. To the extent that they care about nonwhites, they are simply using the latter as emblems and auxiliaries to smite their rivals (or "BadWhites"). This is to a great extent a White People Civil War.

    It's the same with the issue of Jews. People who paint Jews a la Protocols of the Elders of Zion are actually helping elite Jews in power by conflating any criticism of their corruption and misuse of power with unhinged conspiracy theory and mindless hatred. Jews are not a monolithic group and not all Jews are given magic decoder rings upon a Bar Mitzvah. But it's clear that they are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large. We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.

    Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain, @dfordoom

    Which is why, I believe, that Jewish elites concocted the ‘Protocols’, to tar all critics of any behaviour by any Jew as unhinged bigots. There is currently no way to criticise the actions of any Jew, no matter how odious one might feel them to be. One cannot even criticise and actions that arise from error or mistake or accident. ALL are ‘antisemitism’. That is where the dam will break. The repression of BDS and the nullification of the First Amendment may be a demand too far-or not.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Disagree: Corvinus
  66. @A123
    @SFG


    secular left-wing Jews to still be the reason for a lot of aspects of American leftism. ... they seem to actually believe all the B.S. they spout about alternative this and that.
     
    Are "secular left-wing Jews" Anti-Jewish?

    I know that sounds like an odd question. However the left is going out of its way to antagonize other politically center & right Jews. (1)

    Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director Jonathan “Greenblatt has already…trashed ADL’s reputation,” wrote Jewish News Syndicate editor-in-chief Jonathan S. Tobin in July 2020. While the ADL previously had leftist biases, “Greenblatt has steadily pushed the group farther to the left
    ...
    Greenblatt’s post-Jewish ADL became clear in its opposition to President Donald Trump’s 2018 nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, a partisan issue unrelated to antisemitism. Greenblatt has also accused American Jews of manifesting the modern leftist sin of “white privilege.” As Center for Security Policy analyst Alex Van Ness wrote, “Greenblatt has shown himself unable to leave his old partisan circles behind.
     
    Practicing Jews support traditional Judeo-Christian values and view "secular left-wing Jews" as the opposition. The gap continues to widen. "Secular left-wing Jews" largely embrace the views of Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib.

    Are "secular left-wing Jews" Anti-Jewish? The answer has to be, Yes.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/jonathan-greenblatt-destroys-the-adl

    Replies: @anon, @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Traditional Judeo-Christian values like aggressive war, extra0judicial killings, mass murder, genocide, land theft, moving alien populations into occupied land, mass torture, child murder, etc. And then there are the private ‘values’ seen in sex trafficking, human organ trafficking, various economic crimes like binary options, blood diamond trafficking, drug trafficking especially ecstasy, cyber-crime, surveillance expertise, private investigations and blackmail etc. Some values!

  67. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    A major weakness of the far right is its inability to accept that sometimes its enemies are not evil. Sometimes its enemies are motivated by, as you say, a desire to make the world a fairer and more moral place.
     
    Your formulation is a classic false dichotomy.

    Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with "their hearts in the right place." They are simply self-serving and corrupt. It's just that they cloak their selfishness in the language of idealism ("meritocracy," "social justice," "affirmative action," etc.).

    People who want to make the world a fairer and more moral place are not necessarily plotting white genocide.
     
    This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like "white genocide," because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.

    You think Nancy Pelosi wants to murder her own grandchildren? Our elites are not plotting a white genocide - they are plotting to congeal the status quo and monopolize political and economic power in perpetuity. To the extent that they care about nonwhites, they are simply using the latter as emblems and auxiliaries to smite their rivals (or "BadWhites"). This is to a great extent a White People Civil War.

    It's the same with the issue of Jews. People who paint Jews a la Protocols of the Elders of Zion are actually helping elite Jews in power by conflating any criticism of their corruption and misuse of power with unhinged conspiracy theory and mindless hatred. Jews are not a monolithic group and not all Jews are given magic decoder rings upon a Bar Mitzvah. But it's clear that they are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large. We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.

    Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain, @dfordoom

    Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with “their hearts in the right place.” They are simply self-serving and corrupt.

    I think they vary a lot. Many are indeed self-serving and corrupt. Some have ideals. Some started out with ideals but gradually compromised them. Some are ideologues. Some are crazy. Many are stupid. Most are cowardly.

    If you’re talking about politicians rather than elites in general I’d say that almost all are cowardly and stupid. The level of stupidity among politicians is frightening.

    But some members of the elites do hold genuine beliefs. Some really do believe they’re making the world a better place. Of course some of those who believe they’re making the world a better place are also crazy or stupid.

    This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like “white genocide,” because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.

    I agree.

    But it’s clear that [Jews] are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large.

    But they don’t necessarily see their ideology/political-orientation as inimical to the interests of the society at large. You see it that way, but they don’t necessarily see it that way.

    We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.

    And every time the issue comes up on UR you get numerous commenters who immediately start painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke. You don’t do that, but many commenters here do. The reason there’s a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites. The far right can’t blame the media for all of its image problem.

    • Agree: Dissident, iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    But some members of the elites do hold genuine beliefs. Some really do believe they’re making the world a better place.
     
    How many elites have you met, spoken to in detail and/or spent time at length?

    I have elite educational and professional credentials and have worked in economic, political, and economic centers of power. I have met and spoken to real elites, not merely the affluent. Most such elites are not misguided idealists - they are ruthless sharks who care about their status, dick-size contests with other elites, and pure power, being gods amongst mere mortals.

    The reason there’s a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites.
     
    Anti-Semitism isn't created by people spontaneously being insane or unhinged. It's largely a product of actual Jewish misbehaviors (though, to be clear, such malfeasance is the domain of only a small number of Jews, even if their actions and ideologies are supported or condoned by many ordinary Jews). Not everyone can express their reactions to such actions articulately or carefully - many vent crudely. But that doesn't mean the source of these reaction is fantasy.
  68. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.
     
    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?

    Do you need a reminder on how acceptable homosexuality was to the mainstream society, forget about homosexual marriage and transsexual "rights"?

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/yziksheysuwaorme0ejxbw.png

    http://bostonreview.net/sites/default/files/fischer-homosexuality-web.jpg

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.

    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?

    The problem is that most people don’t see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don’t.

    It’s true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn’t very successful.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that most people don’t see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don’t.

    It’s true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn’t very successful.
     

    Reverse cause and effect in the last sentence, and this comment is perfect.

    The reason there’s a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites. The far right can’t blame the media for all of its image problem.
     
    Anti-semitism is the lynchpin of the far right. There is little point to the far right if it cannot be anti-semitic.

    Also, as I have noted before (though I do not police speech), there is nothing particularly far about the far right.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that most people don’t see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don’t.
     
    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. The new position only became mainstream opinion after consensus was manufactured by a relentless media campaign and court-manipulation (even then it'd have failed, had it not been for one SCOTUS justice).

    you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.
     
    "The traditionalist position" (e.g. marriage being between man and woman) that has held for thousands of years of human history and only changed in the last decade is probably not due to propaganda.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @notanon
    @dfordoom


    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn’t very successful.
     
    normal views are seen as extreme because we are ruled by a banking mafia who have controlled the media for 100+ years to ensure it couldn't be used against them

    the power that comes from media control is overwhelming but also fragile i.e. all it takes for it to crumble to dust is for people to stop trusting the media.
  69. Y’all need to take it easy on T. L., he might need that paycheck.

  70. @rebel yell
    @Triteleia Laxa

    There is nothing wrong with critiquing Jewish politics.
    We talk openly about blacks in politics. We have the congressional black caucus, black churches as a focal point for political organizing, black political organizations such as the NAACP and BLM, the black civil rights movement, the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party, black issues such as affirmative action, courting the black vote, etc. We rightly talk about blacks as a political actor with an agenda and with influence.
    Same goes for feminists, gun owners, greens, gays, rural whites, Evangelicals, the Catholic church on abortion, etc.
    Pre-civil war there was much talk about "the slave power". What was the slave power? It was wealthy plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and in national politics. These plantation owners had common interests and organized themselves to get what they wanted in politics.
    Is there some reason we can't talk just as normally about Jewish politics and Jewish influence in politics? Some reason we can't critique it just as we would political influence by any other identifiable group?
    This doesn't assume there is a single Jewish agenda or that all Jews agree. We also don't assume that about blacks or slave owners.
    But why this hyper-sensitivity to any discussion of Jewish political influence? Why is it scary to say "Jewish political influence" but not scary to say "black political influence"?

    Replies: @Charlotte, @Triteleia Laxa, @anarchyst

    Jews get criticised in the media all of the time. What are you talking about?

    Oh, you want to say that Jews are conspiring against you?

    No, “it is just critiquing the Jewish agenda”. Who do you think you are kidding with that pretend difference?

  71. @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Look, I offered you a compromise, but even so, you come back with ad hominem, gas lighting and condescension. How typical.


    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?
     
    So, this seems logical on the surface, but only on the surface. It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof. I guess the question is: what is stopping Israel from doing that? (Your question assumes they would like to and I agree.)

    Well, there are 3 million Palestinians living under occupation there; if Israel formally annexes the land into the Jewish State, it brings 3 million non-Jews into Israel. That doesn’t seem desirable for Israel. So, if it takes more than incremental moves to fully annex the WB, it would have to ethnically cleanse the area of Arabs, thus triggering a large scale fight, likely involving regional heavy weights like Iran. So, why hasn’t Israel done it yet? For the same reason the Neocons haven’t started the Iran war yet – it would be a disaster far more costly than anything to be gained. So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t. It says more about limitations on American power than on Jewish power in America.

    The other limitation at work is that such a bold and bloody move would significantly hurt Jewish Moral Power in America – which is the lynch pin of their legitimacy. Imagine telling generations of Americans about your eternal sufferink only to send them to slaughter people with hardly any weapons because you want their land. Hard sell and doing so risks losing more soft power than it is worth.

    I don’t think the rest of your post merits a response beyond what V.K. has already said.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    Look, I offered you a compromise

    Are you a child?

    This isn’t a personal disagreement on the playground, about who gets to play in the sandpit. There’s no point about compromising because there’s no cost to this.

    Is this really your mindset!

    So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t

    But Eritrea is, with Tigray? And China is, with Tibet?

    And America hasn’t been in the last 80 years?

    Even though countless numbers of people have been cleared all over the world, even by America?

    The other limitation at work is that such a bold and bloody move would significantly hurt Jewish Moral Power

    You seem to make out Jews to be totally immoral in their actions. Yet now you say a common action from the last 80 years would reduce some stupid concept you think has validity because you’ve capitalised it?

    If immoral actions delete their moral power, and they have moral power, you must think they don’t do many immoral actions.

    So self-contradictory. Your catchphrases only delude yourself.

    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa


    There’s no point about compromising because there’s no cost to this.
     
    As I suspected, you only compromise when there is a cost, never out of basic decency. Your toxic Jewishness is showing.

    I should have written Jewish Moral Power ™. It was written ironically, but also to indicate that elite Jews now constitute a kind of priest class in the West, where they can define the boundaries of legitimate discourse. I did not mean to indicate that the Kosher Nostra has any actual moral power. They have the same Moral Power as the Pharisees – they have it, but it is illegitimate and unearned. However, for policy purposes, perceptions matter, and the drooling goyim of America still see Jews as having Moral Power by virtue of being the “Ultimate Eternal Victims ™”. Keeping this fraud intact requires some tact. You should acquire some.

    So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t

    But Eritrea is, with Tigray? And China is, with Tibet?

    And America hasn’t been in the last 80 years?

     

    You really refuse to get the point. I almost started to go through a longer history, but figured against it. As I said, yes America could send troops to Israel, invade the West Bank and start ethnic cleansing on behalf of Israel. But what would be the consequences? Well, during much of the last 80 years, the US had a competing rival on the planet that was arming and allied with the Arab nationalist states – namely the Soviet Union. Making moves that were too bold against the Arabs was very risky and thus some kind of tact was involved. Also, the Arabs have oil, so not completely alienating them is of practical interest and once again, American Moral Power ™ was important against the USSR and such an action would have compromised it. I don’t think it is a coincidence that American foreign policy went full Neocon/Likud after the fall of the USSR, but the military actions were aimed at less sympathetic states like Iraq, partially in order to deprive the Palestinians of state backers in preparation for a more decisive move. Fortunately, these moves have met road blocks throughout the region and now Iran is at Israel’s doorstep in Syria.

    Look, “that guy has committed murder so I get to commit murder and you have to shut your mouth and pay up” is not a good message to lead with. At root, you are confessing your guilt.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  72. @fredtard
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I concur with your frequent refrain about the value of thoughtful introspection, but your hypothesizing about the thought processes and/or motives of Rahan comes off as flat arrogant. Even if psychoanalysis is useful, and I have doubts, employing its techniques to strangers in threads doesn't exactly showcase your objectivity.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Me giving my impressions of a commenter, from his comments, is “flat out arrogant”, but him explaining all political power and what is in the hearts of millions of people, completely unknown to him, is unremarkable?

  73. @Charlotte
    @rebel yell

    I would guess that blacks don’t have a problem with whites talking about “black political influence” because they like the idea that they have power and whites know it. American Jews are allergic to non-Jews discussing Jews as a group. Jewish organizations tend to come down hard on anyone who wishes to contemplate “the Jews” as something other than a victim group. You think the Jews sure do well in banking? Why, you might be an anti-semite, or a Nazi. In a nutshell, they seem to reason, “We must squelch all references to ourselves as a block or a lobby, lest the gentiles get ideas; therefore, the Jewish lobby must be as formidable as possible in order to squelch the aforementioned references.”

    Why the difference? Blacks couldn’t blend in to a majority white society very easily, and many of them don’t want to. Jews have a much better chance of blending in, yet they also have a sense that they need to band together for protection. If you can’t or won’t blend in, you might as well try to exercise power openly, but if you can, there are benefits to making yourself tough to identify.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    American Jews are allergic to non-Jews discussing Jews as a group. Jewish organizations tend to come down hard on anyone who wishes to contemplate “the Jews” as something other than a victim group. You think the Jews sure do well in banking? Why, you might be an anti-semite, or a Nazi. In a nutshell, they seem to reason, “We must squelch all references to ourselves as a block or a lobby, lest the gentiles get ideas; therefore, the Jewish lobby must be as formidable as possible in order to squelch the aforementioned references.”

    I can speak only for myself, but it would never have occurred to me to be anti-Semitic if Jews did not overreact to the possibility that I might become anti-Semitic.

  74. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan

    You can't see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can't even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    During that time, innumerable peoples have been cleared from their land all around the world and nobody has cared. Yet you think the people controlling the world's superpower can't even do that?

    And if "Jewish power", of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can "see" it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    You have your obsessively collected list of cherrypicked facts, that you think makes an argument, but it really just shows the power of obsession.

    There are a disproportionate number of smart and influential Jews in the world. Just as white people generally are disproportionately smart and influential.

    Jews tend not to be sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you, but you hate them, allege they are at the root of all evil, and no one is sympathetic to the politics associated with people like you.

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors, ok! You're welcome to network with fellow Internet eccentrics, but it is not a magic lamp.

    I know the type of people who grow up to be and are in the natural elites of the Western world. The vast majority aren't Jewish and the vast majority have exactly the beliefs which you think are a conspiracy by the Jews against you. They are not. They are sincere beliefs about trying to make the world a fairer and more moral place.

    I think fair and moral are specious words which allow people to disguise their own pettiness from themselves. You think you have a monopoly on them and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. My theory explains you just fine. Your theory explains you too. Reflect on that.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mario Partisan, @rebel yell, @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    Just as an aside: the problem of a moralising attitude, that makes those who disagree with your morals evil, is that it precludes you from learning and changing. Learning and changing is ordinarily hard, but it is impossible when the risk is “evil”.

    A secondary problem is that, if moral disagreement makes the other person evil, then you have to constantly distract yourself from the inference that everyone else, because they all disagree with you, think you are evil. This takes a psychological toll.

    Obviously another problem is that it is all just not true, as you have made up your moral judgements and those are not yours to make, so you pay the price, as per the other two problems.

  75. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.
     
    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?
     
    The problem is that most people don't see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don't.

    It's true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn't very successful.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @notanon

    The problem is that most people don’t see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don’t.

    It’s true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn’t very successful.

    Reverse cause and effect in the last sentence, and this comment is perfect.

    The reason there’s a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites. The far right can’t blame the media for all of its image problem.

    Anti-semitism is the lynchpin of the far right. There is little point to the far right if it cannot be anti-semitic.

    Also, as I have noted before (though I do not police speech), there is nothing particularly far about the far right.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Anti-semitism is the lynchpin of the far right. There is little point to the far right if it cannot be anti-semitic.
     
    The tragedy of building your own prison is implicit. The silver lining is that you know how to escape.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  76. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Because you are an honest, observant person, Jewish actions will eventually persuade you.
     
    You are assuming a lot here. The premise does not hold.* And you are assuming that he/she is not Jewish or a fellow-traveler who benefits from the said Jewish actions.

    *Anyone who makes the following kind of a statement is not honest:

    Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors
     
    Did you get that? Just "a bit."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    You are assuming a lot here. The premise does not hold.* And you are assuming that he/she is not Jewish or a fellow-traveler who benefits from the said Jewish actions.

    The thought had occurred to me, but I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives. One intelligent, reasonable, uncommonly decent gentile in my own extended family has told me almost exactly the same as Triteleia Laxa has told Mario, so I am inclined to take such tellings seriously.

    Even if Triteleia were Jewish, he doesn’t seem a bad sort, at least within the narrow frame of our quite limited acquaintance. He does not remind me of Dissident, for example. Ultimately, since the Jews are not going to go away, one has got to get along with them, and I can get along with Jews who think like Triteleia. What I am not willing to do however is to play the rôle of the Jews’ eternal gentile chump.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives.
     
    This is generally the case with many commenters here, but not with a few.

    After my last extended interactions with the commenter in question, I tend to think that she argues in bad faith (and resorts to ad hominem rather than data to rebut others): https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-short-mans-burden/#comment-4687533

    Ultimately, since the Jews are not going to go away, one has got to get along with them, and I can get along with Jews who think like Triteleia. What I am not willing to do however is to play the rôle of the Jews’ eternal gentile chump.
     
    As you well know, I am not with the "It's always the Jews" brigade here. I'd like all of us to be treated as individuals for our own words and actions - Jews included. I welcome patriotic Jews into my company and those of my loved ones, as I do with all patriotic Americans.

    That said, we should be able to discuss larger demographic issues without censorship and repression be it black crime, Jewish domination of major economic, political, educational, and media institutions, Hispanic/Asian immigration, and what have you.

    So I salute your high-mindedness and wish to join in it. But anyone who says, "Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors" and wants us to believe that ARE telling us to "play the role of the Jews' eternal gentile chump."

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Dissident
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives.
     
    ROTFLMAO!

    If that's* your idea of assuming honest motives, I suppose I should be grateful for not having encountered you back in your dark days of assuming dishonest motives...

    (*The incredibly rich examples in the linked comment.)

    You just keep outdoing yourself. Thanks for the continued comic relief.

    Replies: @iffen

  77. @Rahan
    One part of a certain population wants the West to be a pro-Israel golem and throw its weight around the world. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that.

    Another part is feverishly trying to dismantle the West at the same time, in order to produce a world-wide utopia. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that as well.

    A sub-portion is content to simply prey on the host nation and extract resources. A warmongering foreign policy is part of that, because extracting foreign resources is also yummy.

    And a fourth, mostly silent part, is simply trying to lead a normal life in a normal society. There's a closing window of opportunity for this fourth part to organize itself and begin publicly counteracting the other three.

    Because if they don't, either a backlash happens against all Jews, or society collapses instead. Neither are good outcomes.

    Replies: @Irish Savant, @UncommonGround

    I don’t believe that that your last category of Jews can exist, the silent one. The reason for that is that Judaism isn’t a religion. It cannot exist without special rewards for Jews: advantages, money, prestige, high positions in society, power. When they become a normal part of society, they stop being a separated and special group.

    But there are different systems of rewards. The more open the group is and the more integrated they are in society (reform), the bigger the rewards for its members have to be in order to keep them in the group. When the group is tighter (orthodoxs), the rewards go to the top of the group while the rest of it has more symbolic forms of rewards.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Rahan
    @UncommonGround

    Yeah, and sometimes the rewards for the periphery are based even not on "you having it better", but rather "you having the ability to make it worse for others".

    A slightly older post on how recent historical events filtered out mostly the "subversive" and "predatory" Jews out of Russia, and how this would be much more difficult for the west.
    https://www.unz.com/aanglin/as-jews-call-for-increased-competition-with-china-they-continue-to-shut-down-racist-ap-courses/#comment-4715912

  78. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that most people don’t see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don’t.

    It’s true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn’t very successful.
     

    Reverse cause and effect in the last sentence, and this comment is perfect.

    The reason there’s a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites. The far right can’t blame the media for all of its image problem.
     
    Anti-semitism is the lynchpin of the far right. There is little point to the far right if it cannot be anti-semitic.

    Also, as I have noted before (though I do not police speech), there is nothing particularly far about the far right.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Anti-semitism is the lynchpin of the far right. There is little point to the far right if it cannot be anti-semitic.

    The tragedy of building your own prison is implicit. The silver lining is that you know how to escape.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    The tragedy of building your own prison is implicit. The silver lining is that you know how to escape.
     
    Flowery nonsense. Backward, too. It's Jews who are entrapping themselves. You will see.

    Some here have suggested that you yourself were Jewish. That's a guessing game I do not wish to play today, but matters probably look a little different in Britain than in the United States. I know practically nothing about Jeremy Corbyn and lack an opinion regarding the last British general election, but the frenetic, hamfisted panic over Corbyn's anti-Semitism at The Daily Mail was pure hilarity; so I looked it up and what do you know? The Mail's new editor-in-chief was Jewish.

    Funny how that happens.

    The comment you are reading has wandered into non sequitur, but in the interest of brevity I shall not tie the comment together today. Mario and Twinkie have already tied it, anyway; but let me close by observing that, if Jewry have succeeded in converting me into an anti-Semite, then they are doing something wrong.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  79. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    You are assuming a lot here. The premise does not hold.* And you are assuming that he/she is not Jewish or a fellow-traveler who benefits from the said Jewish actions.
     
    The thought had occurred to me, but I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives. One intelligent, reasonable, uncommonly decent gentile in my own extended family has told me almost exactly the same as Triteleia Laxa has told Mario, so I am inclined to take such tellings seriously.

    Even if Triteleia were Jewish, he doesn't seem a bad sort, at least within the narrow frame of our quite limited acquaintance. He does not remind me of Dissident, for example. Ultimately, since the Jews are not going to go away, one has got to get along with them, and I can get along with Jews who think like Triteleia. What I am not willing to do however is to play the rôle of the Jews' eternal gentile chump.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Dissident

    I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives.

    This is generally the case with many commenters here, but not with a few.

    After my last extended interactions with the commenter in question, I tend to think that she argues in bad faith (and resorts to ad hominem rather than data to rebut others): https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-short-mans-burden/#comment-4687533

    Ultimately, since the Jews are not going to go away, one has got to get along with them, and I can get along with Jews who think like Triteleia. What I am not willing to do however is to play the rôle of the Jews’ eternal gentile chump.

    As you well know, I am not with the “It’s always the Jews” brigade here. I’d like all of us to be treated as individuals for our own words and actions – Jews included. I welcome patriotic Jews into my company and those of my loved ones, as I do with all patriotic Americans.

    That said, we should be able to discuss larger demographic issues without censorship and repression be it black crime, Jewish domination of major economic, political, educational, and media institutions, Hispanic/Asian immigration, and what have you.

    So I salute your high-mindedness and wish to join in it. But anyone who says, “Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors” and wants us to believe that ARE telling us to “play the role of the Jews’ eternal gentile chump.”

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Twinkie

    Twinkie K Shrute, the man who thinks saying Jews network like people from the same College, is an automatic expression of bad faith; thereby rendering the vast majority of people in the world, who think it is less than that, also in bad faith.

    I guess I shouldn't have laughed at your sense of masculinity.

  80. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with “their hearts in the right place.” They are simply self-serving and corrupt.
     
    I think they vary a lot. Many are indeed self-serving and corrupt. Some have ideals. Some started out with ideals but gradually compromised them. Some are ideologues. Some are crazy. Many are stupid. Most are cowardly.

    If you're talking about politicians rather than elites in general I'd say that almost all are cowardly and stupid. The level of stupidity among politicians is frightening.

    But some members of the elites do hold genuine beliefs. Some really do believe they're making the world a better place. Of course some of those who believe they're making the world a better place are also crazy or stupid.

    This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like “white genocide,” because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.
     
    I agree.

    But it’s clear that [Jews] are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large.
     
    But they don't necessarily see their ideology/political-orientation as inimical to the interests of the society at large. You see it that way, but they don't necessarily see it that way.

    We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.
     
    And every time the issue comes up on UR you get numerous commenters who immediately start painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke. You don't do that, but many commenters here do. The reason there's a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites. The far right can't blame the media for all of its image problem.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    But some members of the elites do hold genuine beliefs. Some really do believe they’re making the world a better place.

    How many elites have you met, spoken to in detail and/or spent time at length?

    I have elite educational and professional credentials and have worked in economic, political, and economic centers of power. I have met and spoken to real elites, not merely the affluent. Most such elites are not misguided idealists – they are ruthless sharks who care about their status, dick-size contests with other elites, and pure power, being gods amongst mere mortals.

    The reason there’s a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites.

    Anti-Semitism isn’t created by people spontaneously being insane or unhinged. It’s largely a product of actual Jewish misbehaviors (though, to be clear, such malfeasance is the domain of only a small number of Jews, even if their actions and ideologies are supported or condoned by many ordinary Jews). Not everyone can express their reactions to such actions articulately or carefully – many vent crudely. But that doesn’t mean the source of these reaction is fantasy.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  81. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.
     
    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?
     
    The problem is that most people don't see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don't.

    It's true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn't very successful.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @notanon

    The problem is that most people don’t see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don’t.

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. The new position only became mainstream opinion after consensus was manufactured by a relentless media campaign and court-manipulation (even then it’d have failed, had it not been for one SCOTUS justice).

    you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    “The traditionalist position” (e.g. marriage being between man and woman) that has held for thousands of years of human history and only changed in the last decade is probably not due to propaganda.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.
     
    But we don't live in the world of 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. I don't like it either but that's the way it is.

    Really all I'm saying is that a political movement that takes positions that appear extreme will have an uphill battle trying to gain any kind of worthwhile support base. It might be possible to get away with extreme positions if you have rich powerful interest groups behind you and/or you can rely on some degree of media support. If those conditions apply then you can conduct your own propaganda campaigns.

    But if you look at far right groups, they don't have rich powerful interest groups behind them and they cannot rely on any degree of media support. So it's not clear to me how they're going to make progress while they include so many people whose positions really are very extreme.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?

    I don't see the far right as serious political players because I honestly don't see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed. But if you think they do have such a strategy for success then I'm happy to listen while you explain it to me.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @V. K. Ovelund

  82. @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Anti-semitism is the lynchpin of the far right. There is little point to the far right if it cannot be anti-semitic.
     
    The tragedy of building your own prison is implicit. The silver lining is that you know how to escape.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The tragedy of building your own prison is implicit. The silver lining is that you know how to escape.

    Flowery nonsense. Backward, too. It’s Jews who are entrapping themselves. You will see.

    Some here have suggested that you yourself were Jewish. That’s a guessing game I do not wish to play today, but matters probably look a little different in Britain than in the United States. I know practically nothing about Jeremy Corbyn and lack an opinion regarding the last British general election, but the frenetic, hamfisted panic over Corbyn’s anti-Semitism at The Daily Mail was pure hilarity; so I looked it up and what do you know? The Mail’s new editor-in-chief was Jewish.

    Funny how that happens.

    The comment you are reading has wandered into non sequitur, but in the interest of brevity I shall not tie the comment together today. Mario and Twinkie have already tied it, anyway; but let me close by observing that, if Jewry have succeeded in converting me into an anti-Semite, then they are doing something wrong.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I know practically nothing about Jeremy Corbyn and lack an opinion regarding the last British general election, but the frenetic, hamfisted panic over Corbyn’s anti-Semitism at The Daily Mail was pure hilarity; so I looked it up and what do you know? The Mail’s new editor-in-chief was Jewish
     
    Born 16 December 1960 in Lambeth, London, Greig is the son of Sir Carron Greig and Monica Stourton, granddaughter of the 24th Lord Mowbray, Segrave and Stourton. Members of his father's family have been royal courtiers for three generations — including his twin sister Laura, who was a lady-in-waiting to Diana, Princess of Wales. He attended Eton College and St Peter's College, Oxford.

    This guy is not Jewish, but you might notice that he went to Eton, like most British prime-ministers. Eton is about 1% Jewish.

    The Editor is also less important than the owner, who is the son or grandson of the owner who published plaudits for the blackshirts in the 1930s. He is, unsurprisingly, not Jewish either.

    Nor was the use of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn a "ham-fisted panic". Some of it may have been cynical, given that Corbyn was a traitor in his own party for decades and was loathed by the establishment for his 80s identity socialism politics.

    The accusations of racism were useful. They usually are.

    On the subject of Jews in the UK, more generally. There are plenty of highly influential Jews, though the most influential are also often the most conservative. Nigel Lawson, Jimmy Goldsmith, Richard Desmond and Benjamin Disraeli are fascinating figures. There are data points on the other side, of course, in what represents an interesting diversity of opinion.

    What I do notice though, is that Israel received broadly negative media coverage in the last little conflict. There were some positive areas, like the Spectator blogging section, which has an actual overlap with Unz.com, but the big picture was still negative. Commenters here may claim that it should have been much more negative, but it hardly shows some sort of Jewish control. Libya and Mali are much bigger and closer conflicts, yet they get the neutrality of no mention.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  83. jacobs-adder [AKA "jacob-the -adder"] says:

    This site is full of ignorant anti-semites.

    Surely you can see the role of organisations such as the ADL and CST in the Uk, that collude directly with Big Tech to censor our social -media, internet search results, and media in order to ‘cancel’ dangerous right wing nutters who stand in the way of total wokeness promoting…

    -Anal sex preferably with multiple partners
    -Evil traditional family units.
    -The inherent evil in every white person
    -The plight of innocent and oppressed African Americans

    We needed to be made aware of the ‘White Domestic Terror Threat’ and rampant ‘Anti-Semitism’ to ensure more special rights and privileges / money for Jews. Simply liking or forwarding a story about Palestine counts as a ‘Hate Crime’ and is recorded by idiots like the SPLC as anti semitism. See their latest ‘Domestic Terror Map’ to see how ridiculous this White Supremacy ploy is.

    However the Jewish owned media namely the New York Times is pumping this theory whilst re-writing history and in the process, whipping ignorant blacks into a violent frenzy. Not enough Blacks were committing/dying of violent crime, so this is the best thing for society?

    Obviously Jewish oligarchs are so concerned with the plight of poor black people and raging young Antifa drug addicts, they are just compelled out of pure kindness to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to help them. There is absolutely no political angle involved whatsoever, Jewish Oligarchs are the just the kindest people on earth and know what is best for the rest of us.

    They care so much about men who like to dress as a the most vile distorted monstrous versions of females – families like the The Pritzker family, (heirs to the Hyatt Hotel) and The Zellerbachs known for owning a huge paper and paper pulp conglomerate and enormous timber and land holdings in the Pacific Northwest have donated hundreds of millions into the Trans movement. This includes important lobbying such as the right of Trans people in the military.

    Wow, I would have just built a hospital or funded a trade school, but clearly this is the best use of half a billion dollars.

    They have poured 430 million into a lovely charity (tax deductable) that produces such gems as ‘Drag Time Story Hour’, also funded by the Strauss family of Levi Strauss fame. Who wouldn’t want their 5 year old child being read to and cuddled by a man dressed as a women (allegedly), whose sole purpose is to chant the virtues of anal sex and deviancy. Obviously these wealthy Jews know this is the best thing for our children and society as a whole and we should thank them.

    BLM, look at the great work they have done in defunding the police and getting even more poor dumb black people killed whilst making cities even more dangerous. I wonder how it is, that Antifa show up the second these events kick off? Its almost as if someone like George Soros pays to fly them around the country causing absolute carnage.

    Again , thanks George for all you have done, you really are a friend to the average American. Putting ‘soft on crime D.A’s’ who won’t prosecute ‘minor felonies’ like prostitution, drug possession (in the middle of an opioid epidemic) whilst lobbying to open up the very border the drugs flow in from (in the middle of an opioid epidemic) is going to rapidly improve the lives of the last tax paying citizens stuck in these nightmare urban dystopias.

    Mass immigration is clearly the best option. Again, thanks for thinking of us. Jews are our friends and shame on you for even daring to question their motives. They are Gods Chosen people after all.

  84. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that most people don’t see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don’t.
     
    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. The new position only became mainstream opinion after consensus was manufactured by a relentless media campaign and court-manipulation (even then it'd have failed, had it not been for one SCOTUS justice).

    you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.
     
    "The traditionalist position" (e.g. marriage being between man and woman) that has held for thousands of years of human history and only changed in the last decade is probably not due to propaganda.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.

    But we don’t live in the world of 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. I don’t like it either but that’s the way it is.

    Really all I’m saying is that a political movement that takes positions that appear extreme will have an uphill battle trying to gain any kind of worthwhile support base. It might be possible to get away with extreme positions if you have rich powerful interest groups behind you and/or you can rely on some degree of media support. If those conditions apply then you can conduct your own propaganda campaigns.

    But if you look at far right groups, they don’t have rich powerful interest groups behind them and they cannot rely on any degree of media support. So it’s not clear to me how they’re going to make progress while they include so many people whose positions really are very extreme.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?

    I don’t see the far right as serious political players because I honestly don’t see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed. But if you think they do have such a strategy for success then I’m happy to listen while you explain it to me.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?
     
    Yes, and there are probably far rightists who think child molestation is a-ok. None of this has anything to do with “far rightism” as defined by the mainstream media today, which includes opposition to homosexual “marriage,” trans “rights,” over-the-top race preference for blacks, and so on. Hitler-fanboys and the like may get attention, but most far rightists, I suspect, are much like I am, i.e. people who used to be merely rightists who have been termed “far…” practically overnight by the powers that be.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    I honestly don’t see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed

    Can we have Trumpism without Trump?

    Can there be a right without anti-Semites, obnoxious racists and xenophobes, Pollyanna libertarians, tinkle-on-down economic aficionados, small government enthusiasts, assorted reactionaries, etc.?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote.
     
    Wise women themselves would deprive women of the vote. When men vote, it's bad enough already. The women's vote is inherently too mischievous, and runs too contrary to the nature of the proper object of the franchise.

    However, that's all theoretical. Observably, most women want the vote. I think that that's probably unwise, but there is little present prospect of changing minds. One must await a turn of events.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw [an east Asian] out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme?
     
    Richard B. Spencer is at his best when discussing precisely this topic. Are you familiar?

    The early 20th century exchanged populations in a few parts of Europe. Not everyone was sorry. In some instances, even those forced to move were not sorry. Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he's not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench. The Great Replacement is real. The Great Replacement will in one way or another be resisted by the replaced.

    Spencer presents the ethnostate as an aspiration. Aspirations seldom come to pass, of course, but they matter because—having been prepared in advance—they illuminate decisions forced upon unexpected heroes during an unforeseen crisis. Such decisions will in any case bring effects on the margin, so it matters whether those effects promote or retard the Great Replacement.

    My comment is too short for satisfaction but the topic is just too long for a blog comment.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

  85. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    The tragedy of building your own prison is implicit. The silver lining is that you know how to escape.
     
    Flowery nonsense. Backward, too. It's Jews who are entrapping themselves. You will see.

    Some here have suggested that you yourself were Jewish. That's a guessing game I do not wish to play today, but matters probably look a little different in Britain than in the United States. I know practically nothing about Jeremy Corbyn and lack an opinion regarding the last British general election, but the frenetic, hamfisted panic over Corbyn's anti-Semitism at The Daily Mail was pure hilarity; so I looked it up and what do you know? The Mail's new editor-in-chief was Jewish.

    Funny how that happens.

    The comment you are reading has wandered into non sequitur, but in the interest of brevity I shall not tie the comment together today. Mario and Twinkie have already tied it, anyway; but let me close by observing that, if Jewry have succeeded in converting me into an anti-Semite, then they are doing something wrong.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I know practically nothing about Jeremy Corbyn and lack an opinion regarding the last British general election, but the frenetic, hamfisted panic over Corbyn’s anti-Semitism at The Daily Mail was pure hilarity; so I looked it up and what do you know? The Mail’s new editor-in-chief was Jewish

    Born 16 December 1960 in Lambeth, London, Greig is the son of Sir Carron Greig and Monica Stourton, granddaughter of the 24th Lord Mowbray, Segrave and Stourton. Members of his father’s family have been royal courtiers for three generations — including his twin sister Laura, who was a lady-in-waiting to Diana, Princess of Wales. He attended Eton College and St Peter’s College, Oxford.

    This guy is not Jewish, but you might notice that he went to Eton, like most British prime-ministers. Eton is about 1% Jewish.

    The Editor is also less important than the owner, who is the son or grandson of the owner who published plaudits for the blackshirts in the 1930s. He is, unsurprisingly, not Jewish either.

    Nor was the use of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn a “ham-fisted panic”. Some of it may have been cynical, given that Corbyn was a traitor in his own party for decades and was loathed by the establishment for his 80s identity socialism politics.

    The accusations of racism were useful. They usually are.

    On the subject of Jews in the UK, more generally. There are plenty of highly influential Jews, though the most influential are also often the most conservative. Nigel Lawson, Jimmy Goldsmith, Richard Desmond and Benjamin Disraeli are fascinating figures. There are data points on the other side, of course, in what represents an interesting diversity of opinion.

    What I do notice though, is that Israel received broadly negative media coverage in the last little conflict. There were some positive areas, like the Spectator blogging section, which has an actual overlap with Unz.com, but the big picture was still negative. Commenters here may claim that it should have been much more negative, but it hardly shows some sort of Jewish control. Libya and Mali are much bigger and closer conflicts, yet they get the neutrality of no mention.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    This guy is not Jewish, ...
     
    That's twice in one week I've made that error. It must be the approach of old age.

    Thank you for the correction. It seems that you are right, and not only slightly: that's not a very Jewish-looking crew.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  86. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.
     
    But we don't live in the world of 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. I don't like it either but that's the way it is.

    Really all I'm saying is that a political movement that takes positions that appear extreme will have an uphill battle trying to gain any kind of worthwhile support base. It might be possible to get away with extreme positions if you have rich powerful interest groups behind you and/or you can rely on some degree of media support. If those conditions apply then you can conduct your own propaganda campaigns.

    But if you look at far right groups, they don't have rich powerful interest groups behind them and they cannot rely on any degree of media support. So it's not clear to me how they're going to make progress while they include so many people whose positions really are very extreme.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?

    I don't see the far right as serious political players because I honestly don't see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed. But if you think they do have such a strategy for success then I'm happy to listen while you explain it to me.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @V. K. Ovelund

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?

    Yes, and there are probably far rightists who think child molestation is a-ok. None of this has anything to do with “far rightism” as defined by the mainstream media today, which includes opposition to homosexual “marriage,” trans “rights,” over-the-top race preference for blacks, and so on. Hitler-fanboys and the like may get attention, but most far rightists, I suspect, are much like I am, i.e. people who used to be merely rightists who have been termed “far…” practically overnight by the powers that be.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    most far rightists, I suspect, are much like I am, i.e. people who used to be merely rightists who have been termed “far…” practically overnight by the powers that be.
     
    How do you think I feel? There was I, thinking of myself as a run-of-the-mill moderate leftist, and then I wake up one morning and discover that because I'm opposed to immigration and homosexual marriage and political correctness I'm now a member of the far right.

    And strangely enough that happened in Australia, where the powers that be, the elites, are overwhelmingly non-Jewish. So I can't even blame the Jews.

    I admit that I don't really see a way forward at this point.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

  87. @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Look, I offered you a compromise, but even so, you come back with ad hominem, gas lighting and condescension. How typical.


    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?
     
    So, this seems logical on the surface, but only on the surface. It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof. I guess the question is: what is stopping Israel from doing that? (Your question assumes they would like to and I agree.)

    Well, there are 3 million Palestinians living under occupation there; if Israel formally annexes the land into the Jewish State, it brings 3 million non-Jews into Israel. That doesn’t seem desirable for Israel. So, if it takes more than incremental moves to fully annex the WB, it would have to ethnically cleanse the area of Arabs, thus triggering a large scale fight, likely involving regional heavy weights like Iran. So, why hasn’t Israel done it yet? For the same reason the Neocons haven’t started the Iran war yet – it would be a disaster far more costly than anything to be gained. So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t. It says more about limitations on American power than on Jewish power in America.

    The other limitation at work is that such a bold and bloody move would significantly hurt Jewish Moral Power in America – which is the lynch pin of their legitimacy. Imagine telling generations of Americans about your eternal sufferink only to send them to slaughter people with hardly any weapons because you want their land. Hard sell and doing so risks losing more soft power than it is worth.

    I don’t think the rest of your post merits a response beyond what V.K. has already said.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof.

    This is exactly right. I have been to the West Bank. I have Israeli friends who protected me while I was in Israel. I’m generally fond of Israel and Israelis (well, Sabras, anyway).

    But the statements that “Israel has a hugely powerful lobby in the U.S.” and “Israel’s power has limits” are not mutually contradictory.

    Even Israel has learned that colonialism is like riding the back of a tiger, sooner or later – you can’t stay on and you can’t get off. The only way Israel could have made the conquest of West Bank (Judea and Samaria) work would have been to repeat what they did in 1948 – by expelling the non-Jews. But 1967 wasn’t 1948 – Israel couldn’t just create an obvious mass suffering in full view of everyone. So now it’s stuck – it can’t just absorb the millions of Arabs and it can’t just withdraw either. It can try to increase the Jewish settler population while encouraging outmigration by the non-Jews, but that’s a very difficult proposition, to say the least.

    Let that be a lesson to all – intelligence, power, and wisdom are not the same things.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Twinkie

    No one is arguing that Israel doesn't have a powerful lobby in the US. That is your strawman.

    Replies: @anon

    , @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    Israel's seemingly intractable Palestinian mess coexists with Israel having a more stable, friendly geopolitical environment than they've ever had outside of the West. India's government is overtly sympathetic to Likud. China's doesn't go quite that far, it's not hard to see where they'd come down on when it comes to issues of "domestic order" and "national sovereignty". Russia-whose leader is, again, not unfriendly to Likud-esque views of the world-serves as a useful restraint on Iran. East Africa's governments all compete with each other for Israeli attention and expertise. Many of Israel's immediate neighbors either collapsed in the last couple of decades or are controlled by governments with relations with them. They even now have direct flights to Dubai and an understanding with the kingdom of Saud.

    It's hard not to feel sympathetic toward the Palestinians. Their situation sucks. But the situation sucks more than it has to by refusing to acknowledge reality over right of return/Jerusalem, and focusing on concessions that Israel (which doesn't like perpetual war for the hell of it any more than any other nation) might be willing to give. Any Palestinian leader that tries to pull a Michael Collins would be assassinated.

    So that leaves the demographic arms race we have today... which, however it ends, will not end well. It's also manifestly not America's concern in any way, shape, form.

    >It can try to increase the Jewish settler population while encouraging outmigration by the non-Jews, but that’s a very difficult proposition, to say the least.

    Even back in the 1990s, Israel was desperate enough for manpower to be willing to accept claims of Jewish ancestry from prospective Russian emigrants that were... sometimes dubious, to say the least. As long as they were willing to buy into the charade, assimilate, and raise their kids as Jewish, why not?

    For comparison, the Singaporeans similarly tried to encourage ethnic Chinese from Malaysia and Indonesia facing discrimination and violence at home to emigrate as Singaporean Chinese birth-rates began to tank. They came from the same cultural sphere as the native Singaporean Han, unlike most of the mainlanders, so they were (and still are) given preferred treatment. But those wells began to dry up eventually, and ethnic Chinese in other Southeast Asian countries are either assimilated (Thailand, Philippines) or had fled/been killed decades ago (Vietnam, Cambodia). Everybody young and wanting to start over in Singapore has already gone, leaving behind people who either don't want to leave Malaysia, or can't.

    So, now the PRC has picked up the slack. Nobody is happy about it, but what other choice does Singapore have if they want to keep the Han at 70% of the populace?

    Israel doesn't have a mega-Jewish state of over a billion people, obviously. All the Russian Jews who were going to emigrate already have. The most it has are French Jews emigrating away from an increasingly hostile, Islamified atmosphere in the cities. So they've got to focus on the domestic birth rate. And to be fair, they've been more successful than any other developed state. But they have to compete with Palestinians, not"Singaporeanized" Malays and Indians whose own birth rates have sharply declined, if not to the same extent as the Han.

  88. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don’t you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?
     
    Yes, and there are probably far rightists who think child molestation is a-ok. None of this has anything to do with “far rightism” as defined by the mainstream media today, which includes opposition to homosexual “marriage,” trans “rights,” over-the-top race preference for blacks, and so on. Hitler-fanboys and the like may get attention, but most far rightists, I suspect, are much like I am, i.e. people who used to be merely rightists who have been termed “far…” practically overnight by the powers that be.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    most far rightists, I suspect, are much like I am, i.e. people who used to be merely rightists who have been termed “far…” practically overnight by the powers that be.

    How do you think I feel? There was I, thinking of myself as a run-of-the-mill moderate leftist, and then I wake up one morning and discover that because I’m opposed to immigration and homosexual marriage and political correctness I’m now a member of the far right.

    And strangely enough that happened in Australia, where the powers that be, the elites, are overwhelmingly non-Jewish. So I can’t even blame the Jews.

    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @dfordoom

    How do you think I feel? All I really find non-negotiable, is that there needs to be reasonable social peace and tolerance, so that people are able to continue on their individual journeys; and I get called far right for this.

    One person, whom I was intimate with for 6 months, declared, upon me eventually explaining this in detail, "Oh, thank god, you're a hippy, not Hitler".

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.
     
    A good starting point would be you stopping tarring “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  89. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    most far rightists, I suspect, are much like I am, i.e. people who used to be merely rightists who have been termed “far…” practically overnight by the powers that be.
     
    How do you think I feel? There was I, thinking of myself as a run-of-the-mill moderate leftist, and then I wake up one morning and discover that because I'm opposed to immigration and homosexual marriage and political correctness I'm now a member of the far right.

    And strangely enough that happened in Australia, where the powers that be, the elites, are overwhelmingly non-Jewish. So I can't even blame the Jews.

    I admit that I don't really see a way forward at this point.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    How do you think I feel? All I really find non-negotiable, is that there needs to be reasonable social peace and tolerance, so that people are able to continue on their individual journeys; and I get called far right for this.

    One person, whom I was intimate with for 6 months, declared, upon me eventually explaining this in detail, “Oh, thank god, you’re a hippy, not Hitler”.

    • LOL: dfordoom
  90. @Twinkie
    @Mario Partisan


    It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof.
     
    This is exactly right. I have been to the West Bank. I have Israeli friends who protected me while I was in Israel. I’m generally fond of Israel and Israelis (well, Sabras, anyway).

    But the statements that “Israel has a hugely powerful lobby in the U.S.” and “Israel’s power has limits” are not mutually contradictory.

    Even Israel has learned that colonialism is like riding the back of a tiger, sooner or later - you can’t stay on and you can’t get off. The only way Israel could have made the conquest of West Bank (Judea and Samaria) work would have been to repeat what they did in 1948 - by expelling the non-Jews. But 1967 wasn’t 1948 - Israel couldn’t just create an obvious mass suffering in full view of everyone. So now it’s stuck - it can’t just absorb the millions of Arabs and it can’t just withdraw either. It can try to increase the Jewish settler population while encouraging outmigration by the non-Jews, but that’s a very difficult proposition, to say the least.

    Let that be a lesson to all - intelligence, power, and wisdom are not the same things.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @nebulafox

    No one is arguing that Israel doesn’t have a powerful lobby in the US. That is your strawman.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    No one is arguing that Israel doesn’t have a powerful lobby in the US.

    Sure about that? Maybe you should communicate with the person who poasted this comment:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/jewishness-will-become-problematic/#comment-4718625


    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?
     

    And if “Jewish power”, of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can “see” it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?
     
    Just a suggestion.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  91. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    most far rightists, I suspect, are much like I am, i.e. people who used to be merely rightists who have been termed “far…” practically overnight by the powers that be.
     
    How do you think I feel? There was I, thinking of myself as a run-of-the-mill moderate leftist, and then I wake up one morning and discover that because I'm opposed to immigration and homosexual marriage and political correctness I'm now a member of the far right.

    And strangely enough that happened in Australia, where the powers that be, the elites, are overwhelmingly non-Jewish. So I can't even blame the Jews.

    I admit that I don't really see a way forward at this point.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.

    A good starting point would be you stopping tarring “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.
     
    A good starting point would be you stopping tarring “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys.
     
    What I think about the "far right" doesn't matter. What matters is that the "far right" has a very big image problem. That ain't my fault.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Bill

  92. @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I know practically nothing about Jeremy Corbyn and lack an opinion regarding the last British general election, but the frenetic, hamfisted panic over Corbyn’s anti-Semitism at The Daily Mail was pure hilarity; so I looked it up and what do you know? The Mail’s new editor-in-chief was Jewish
     
    Born 16 December 1960 in Lambeth, London, Greig is the son of Sir Carron Greig and Monica Stourton, granddaughter of the 24th Lord Mowbray, Segrave and Stourton. Members of his father's family have been royal courtiers for three generations — including his twin sister Laura, who was a lady-in-waiting to Diana, Princess of Wales. He attended Eton College and St Peter's College, Oxford.

    This guy is not Jewish, but you might notice that he went to Eton, like most British prime-ministers. Eton is about 1% Jewish.

    The Editor is also less important than the owner, who is the son or grandson of the owner who published plaudits for the blackshirts in the 1930s. He is, unsurprisingly, not Jewish either.

    Nor was the use of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn a "ham-fisted panic". Some of it may have been cynical, given that Corbyn was a traitor in his own party for decades and was loathed by the establishment for his 80s identity socialism politics.

    The accusations of racism were useful. They usually are.

    On the subject of Jews in the UK, more generally. There are plenty of highly influential Jews, though the most influential are also often the most conservative. Nigel Lawson, Jimmy Goldsmith, Richard Desmond and Benjamin Disraeli are fascinating figures. There are data points on the other side, of course, in what represents an interesting diversity of opinion.

    What I do notice though, is that Israel received broadly negative media coverage in the last little conflict. There were some positive areas, like the Spectator blogging section, which has an actual overlap with Unz.com, but the big picture was still negative. Commenters here may claim that it should have been much more negative, but it hardly shows some sort of Jewish control. Libya and Mali are much bigger and closer conflicts, yet they get the neutrality of no mention.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    This guy is not Jewish, …

    That’s twice in one week I’ve made that error. It must be the approach of old age.

    Thank you for the correction. It seems that you are right, and not only slightly: that’s not a very Jewish-looking crew.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Thanks. (No reacts left.)

    Can we have more? Like a few times more? They don't seem to be clogging up the page at the moment and are conducive to considerate and efficient dialogue.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  93. I see this thread has gone in one direction, but I thought I’d take a stab at some rough math for AE’s original post.

    Orthodox retention currently looks set to stabilize around 80% at the moment. Something like 60% of Orthodox Jews appear to be Haredi (the rest are less fertile Modern Orthodox), but if this is true, then Orthodox TFR of 3.3 seems low (I see 4.1 in a 2012 study, but then again this has been a very bad decade for TFR).

    If we run with 3.3 TFR though, then that means the average Orthodox woman produces 2.64 Orthodox children and 0.66 secular/liberal Jewish children. As Orthodox are only 10% of the Jewish population, it will take a good while for this group to dominate the American Jewish population at such a pace, and the children they shed will be a small fraction of liberal Judaism for the foreseeable future.

    I think others did make a legitimate point though that the tendency of half-Jews to identify as Jewish means that, up to a point, Jewish intermarriage is actually a positive for secular Jews in retaining their numbers. I see elsewhere a stat that about 70% of half-Jews continue to identify as Jewish. This means that every point of TFR from such couples is worth about 1.4 TFR in terms of sustaining numbers of self-identified Jews.

    If we do this math on Reform Jews, per AE’s stats above, I arrive at a TFR of 1.64 (compared to a basic Reform TFR of 1.4). Thus, Reform Jews are still not replacing themselves. But also, this math suggests that half-Jews will be a bit more than 50% of self-identified Jews in the next generation.

    I also think that Jewishness will be diluted somewhere in this process of intermarriage, that quarter and 1/8 Jews will maybe still identify as Jewish when asked, but it will be an identity that really doesn’t mean very much to them.

    Thus the picture this paints in the back half of this century if trends largely remain in place: there will still be a Reform Jewish core that remains highly culturally Jewish, but its numbers will have contracted modestly, and ex-Orthodox will still be a minority within this group. There will perhaps be an equal number of marginally-attached partial Jews. And the Orthodox numbers will have grown, but not exploded.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  94. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.
     
    But we don't live in the world of 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. I don't like it either but that's the way it is.

    Really all I'm saying is that a political movement that takes positions that appear extreme will have an uphill battle trying to gain any kind of worthwhile support base. It might be possible to get away with extreme positions if you have rich powerful interest groups behind you and/or you can rely on some degree of media support. If those conditions apply then you can conduct your own propaganda campaigns.

    But if you look at far right groups, they don't have rich powerful interest groups behind them and they cannot rely on any degree of media support. So it's not clear to me how they're going to make progress while they include so many people whose positions really are very extreme.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?

    I don't see the far right as serious political players because I honestly don't see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed. But if you think they do have such a strategy for success then I'm happy to listen while you explain it to me.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @V. K. Ovelund

    I honestly don’t see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed

    Can we have Trumpism without Trump?

    Can there be a right without anti-Semites, obnoxious racists and xenophobes, Pollyanna libertarians, tinkle-on-down economic aficionados, small government enthusiasts, assorted reactionaries, etc.?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Can there be a right without anti-Semites, obnoxious racists and xenophobes, Pollyanna libertarians, tinkle-on-down economic aficionados, small government enthusiasts, assorted reactionaries, etc.?
     
    Probably not. But I'm damned if I can see how the Right can win with those people.
  95. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read the graphs. My position was the norm only 20-30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.
     
    But we don't live in the world of 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. I don't like it either but that's the way it is.

    Really all I'm saying is that a political movement that takes positions that appear extreme will have an uphill battle trying to gain any kind of worthwhile support base. It might be possible to get away with extreme positions if you have rich powerful interest groups behind you and/or you can rely on some degree of media support. If those conditions apply then you can conduct your own propaganda campaigns.

    But if you look at far right groups, they don't have rich powerful interest groups behind them and they cannot rely on any degree of media support. So it's not clear to me how they're going to make progress while they include so many people whose positions really are very extreme.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw you out of the US. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who take Hitler as a role model. Don't you regard that as extreme? There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote. Do you not think that most people would see that as extreme?

    I don't see the far right as serious political players because I honestly don't see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed. But if you think they do have such a strategy for success then I'm happy to listen while you explain it to me.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @V. K. Ovelund

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote.

    Wise women themselves would deprive women of the vote. When men vote, it’s bad enough already. The women’s vote is inherently too mischievous, and runs too contrary to the nature of the proper object of the franchise.

    However, that’s all theoretical. Observably, most women want the vote. I think that that’s probably unwise, but there is little present prospect of changing minds. One must await a turn of events.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw [an east Asian] out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme?

    Richard B. Spencer is at his best when discussing precisely this topic. Are you familiar?

    The early 20th century exchanged populations in a few parts of Europe. Not everyone was sorry. In some instances, even those forced to move were not sorry. Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he’s not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench. The Great Replacement is real. The Great Replacement will in one way or another be resisted by the replaced.

    Spencer presents the ethnostate as an aspiration. Aspirations seldom come to pass, of course, but they matter because—having been prepared in advance—they illuminate decisions forced upon unexpected heroes during an unforeseen crisis. Such decisions will in any case bring effects on the margin, so it matters whether those effects promote or retard the Great Replacement.

    My comment is too short for satisfaction but the topic is just too long for a blog comment.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The early 20th century exchanged populations in a few parts of Europe. Not everyone was sorry. In some instances, even those forced to move were not sorry.
     
    Population transfers have a tendency to leave a lot of people dead. Are there any examples of successful population transfers that haven't involved bloodbaths?
    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he’s not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench.
     
    I am not an island. I have a family, an extended clan (my wife's people), friends, organic communities in which I am a member of long standing, and all those other people in my intersecting networks of affiliations and affinities have theirs in turn.

    And that's just all for one man. Now imagine a million or ten million people like me. Their extended social networks contain a huge fraction of the country's population. I don't think a majority of whites would ever support an ethno-state, because there are millions and millions of whites with nonwhite or part-white spouses, children, in-laws, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc.

    The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration - it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.

    And Richard Spencer is a self-serving clown. I'll take him seriously as an advocate for whites and their rights when and if he ever lifts a finger to help ordinary whites in actuality instead of trolling for media attention (and don't get me started on how he apparently treated his ex-wife*).

    *As Anatoly Karlin once wrote sarcastically, "Only the best people."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  96. anon[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @Twinkie

    No one is arguing that Israel doesn't have a powerful lobby in the US. That is your strawman.

    Replies: @anon

    No one is arguing that Israel doesn’t have a powerful lobby in the US.

    Sure about that? Maybe you should communicate with the person who poasted this comment:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/jewishness-will-become-problematic/#comment-4718625

    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?

    And if “Jewish power”, of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can “see” it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?

    Just a suggestion.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    A powerful lobby and "control of America" are not the same thing. There are many powerful lobbies in the US.

    Replies: @anon

  97. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan


    Look, I offered you a compromise
     
    Are you a child?

    This isn't a personal disagreement on the playground, about who gets to play in the sandpit. There's no point about compromising because there's no cost to this.

    Is this really your mindset!


    So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t
     
    But Eritrea is, with Tigray? And China is, with Tibet?

    And America hasn't been in the last 80 years?

    Even though countless numbers of people have been cleared all over the world, even by America?


    The other limitation at work is that such a bold and bloody move would significantly hurt Jewish Moral Power
     
    You seem to make out Jews to be totally immoral in their actions. Yet now you say a common action from the last 80 years would reduce some stupid concept you think has validity because you've capitalised it?

    If immoral actions delete their moral power, and they have moral power, you must think they don't do many immoral actions.

    So self-contradictory. Your catchphrases only delude yourself.

    Replies: @Mario Partisan

    There’s no point about compromising because there’s no cost to this.

    As I suspected, you only compromise when there is a cost, never out of basic decency. Your toxic Jewishness is showing.

    I should have written Jewish Moral Power ™. It was written ironically, but also to indicate that elite Jews now constitute a kind of priest class in the West, where they can define the boundaries of legitimate discourse. I did not mean to indicate that the Kosher Nostra has any actual moral power. They have the same Moral Power as the Pharisees – they have it, but it is illegitimate and unearned. However, for policy purposes, perceptions matter, and the drooling goyim of America still see Jews as having Moral Power by virtue of being the “Ultimate Eternal Victims ™”. Keeping this fraud intact requires some tact. You should acquire some.

    So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t

    But Eritrea is, with Tigray? And China is, with Tibet?

    And America hasn’t been in the last 80 years?

    You really refuse to get the point. I almost started to go through a longer history, but figured against it. As I said, yes America could send troops to Israel, invade the West Bank and start ethnic cleansing on behalf of Israel. But what would be the consequences? Well, during much of the last 80 years, the US had a competing rival on the planet that was arming and allied with the Arab nationalist states – namely the Soviet Union. Making moves that were too bold against the Arabs was very risky and thus some kind of tact was involved. Also, the Arabs have oil, so not completely alienating them is of practical interest and once again, American Moral Power ™ was important against the USSR and such an action would have compromised it. I don’t think it is a coincidence that American foreign policy went full Neocon/Likud after the fall of the USSR, but the military actions were aimed at less sympathetic states like Iraq, partially in order to deprive the Palestinians of state backers in preparation for a more decisive move. Fortunately, these moves have met road blocks throughout the region and now Iran is at Israel’s doorstep in Syria.

    Look, “that guy has committed murder so I get to commit murder and you have to shut your mouth and pay up” is not a good message to lead with. At root, you are confessing your guilt.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan


    As I suspected, you only compromise when there is a cost, never out of basic decency.
     
    You are asking me to split the difference in my view of the world with how you view the world.

    I don't perceive you as addressing what I write or giving me reasons to do so. You write some text, but it always seems tangential to the point. I appreciate that you may disagree, but you don't get upset by that.

    You seem instead to get extremely agitated that I won't change my worldview towards yours as a compromise, because you imply that compromising is the moral and decent thing to do.

    Does no part of you understand why someone reasonable might find this a completely bizarre request? Do I need to explain it?

    Replies: @notanon

  98. @Twinkie
    @Mario Partisan


    It basically amounts to characterizing limitations/complications on Jewish Power with the nonexistence thereof.
     
    This is exactly right. I have been to the West Bank. I have Israeli friends who protected me while I was in Israel. I’m generally fond of Israel and Israelis (well, Sabras, anyway).

    But the statements that “Israel has a hugely powerful lobby in the U.S.” and “Israel’s power has limits” are not mutually contradictory.

    Even Israel has learned that colonialism is like riding the back of a tiger, sooner or later - you can’t stay on and you can’t get off. The only way Israel could have made the conquest of West Bank (Judea and Samaria) work would have been to repeat what they did in 1948 - by expelling the non-Jews. But 1967 wasn’t 1948 - Israel couldn’t just create an obvious mass suffering in full view of everyone. So now it’s stuck - it can’t just absorb the millions of Arabs and it can’t just withdraw either. It can try to increase the Jewish settler population while encouraging outmigration by the non-Jews, but that’s a very difficult proposition, to say the least.

    Let that be a lesson to all - intelligence, power, and wisdom are not the same things.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @nebulafox

    Israel’s seemingly intractable Palestinian mess coexists with Israel having a more stable, friendly geopolitical environment than they’ve ever had outside of the West. India’s government is overtly sympathetic to Likud. China’s doesn’t go quite that far, it’s not hard to see where they’d come down on when it comes to issues of “domestic order” and “national sovereignty”. Russia-whose leader is, again, not unfriendly to Likud-esque views of the world-serves as a useful restraint on Iran. East Africa’s governments all compete with each other for Israeli attention and expertise. Many of Israel’s immediate neighbors either collapsed in the last couple of decades or are controlled by governments with relations with them. They even now have direct flights to Dubai and an understanding with the kingdom of Saud.

    It’s hard not to feel sympathetic toward the Palestinians. Their situation sucks. But the situation sucks more than it has to by refusing to acknowledge reality over right of return/Jerusalem, and focusing on concessions that Israel (which doesn’t like perpetual war for the hell of it any more than any other nation) might be willing to give. Any Palestinian leader that tries to pull a Michael Collins would be assassinated.

    So that leaves the demographic arms race we have today… which, however it ends, will not end well. It’s also manifestly not America’s concern in any way, shape, form.

    >It can try to increase the Jewish settler population while encouraging outmigration by the non-Jews, but that’s a very difficult proposition, to say the least.

    Even back in the 1990s, Israel was desperate enough for manpower to be willing to accept claims of Jewish ancestry from prospective Russian emigrants that were… sometimes dubious, to say the least. As long as they were willing to buy into the charade, assimilate, and raise their kids as Jewish, why not?

    For comparison, the Singaporeans similarly tried to encourage ethnic Chinese from Malaysia and Indonesia facing discrimination and violence at home to emigrate as Singaporean Chinese birth-rates began to tank. They came from the same cultural sphere as the native Singaporean Han, unlike most of the mainlanders, so they were (and still are) given preferred treatment. But those wells began to dry up eventually, and ethnic Chinese in other Southeast Asian countries are either assimilated (Thailand, Philippines) or had fled/been killed decades ago (Vietnam, Cambodia). Everybody young and wanting to start over in Singapore has already gone, leaving behind people who either don’t want to leave Malaysia, or can’t.

    So, now the PRC has picked up the slack. Nobody is happy about it, but what other choice does Singapore have if they want to keep the Han at 70% of the populace?

    Israel doesn’t have a mega-Jewish state of over a billion people, obviously. All the Russian Jews who were going to emigrate already have. The most it has are French Jews emigrating away from an increasingly hostile, Islamified atmosphere in the cities. So they’ve got to focus on the domestic birth rate. And to be fair, they’ve been more successful than any other developed state. But they have to compete with Palestinians, not”Singaporeanized” Malays and Indians whose own birth rates have sharply declined, if not to the same extent as the Han.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  99. @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa


    There’s no point about compromising because there’s no cost to this.
     
    As I suspected, you only compromise when there is a cost, never out of basic decency. Your toxic Jewishness is showing.

    I should have written Jewish Moral Power ™. It was written ironically, but also to indicate that elite Jews now constitute a kind of priest class in the West, where they can define the boundaries of legitimate discourse. I did not mean to indicate that the Kosher Nostra has any actual moral power. They have the same Moral Power as the Pharisees – they have it, but it is illegitimate and unearned. However, for policy purposes, perceptions matter, and the drooling goyim of America still see Jews as having Moral Power by virtue of being the “Ultimate Eternal Victims ™”. Keeping this fraud intact requires some tact. You should acquire some.

    So, part of the answer to “why isn’t Israel powerful enough to grab the WB,” is that America isn’t

    But Eritrea is, with Tigray? And China is, with Tibet?

    And America hasn’t been in the last 80 years?

     

    You really refuse to get the point. I almost started to go through a longer history, but figured against it. As I said, yes America could send troops to Israel, invade the West Bank and start ethnic cleansing on behalf of Israel. But what would be the consequences? Well, during much of the last 80 years, the US had a competing rival on the planet that was arming and allied with the Arab nationalist states – namely the Soviet Union. Making moves that were too bold against the Arabs was very risky and thus some kind of tact was involved. Also, the Arabs have oil, so not completely alienating them is of practical interest and once again, American Moral Power ™ was important against the USSR and such an action would have compromised it. I don’t think it is a coincidence that American foreign policy went full Neocon/Likud after the fall of the USSR, but the military actions were aimed at less sympathetic states like Iraq, partially in order to deprive the Palestinians of state backers in preparation for a more decisive move. Fortunately, these moves have met road blocks throughout the region and now Iran is at Israel’s doorstep in Syria.

    Look, “that guy has committed murder so I get to commit murder and you have to shut your mouth and pay up” is not a good message to lead with. At root, you are confessing your guilt.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    As I suspected, you only compromise when there is a cost, never out of basic decency.

    You are asking me to split the difference in my view of the world with how you view the world.

    I don’t perceive you as addressing what I write or giving me reasons to do so. You write some text, but it always seems tangential to the point. I appreciate that you may disagree, but you don’t get upset by that.

    You seem instead to get extremely agitated that I won’t change my worldview towards yours as a compromise, because you imply that compromising is the moral and decent thing to do.

    Does no part of you understand why someone reasonable might find this a completely bizarre request? Do I need to explain it?

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    one simple example

    13% of the population commit 50%+ of US homicides

    the media have lied about this for 60 years and their cover up has resulted in 100,000s of stabbings, shootings, rapes and murders of white people which drove the ethnic cleansing of tens of millions from the cities they built

    the media and more particularly the media's owners are evil people.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  100. @Mario Partisan
    @Triteleia Laxa

    First, let me say that the poll results that AE presents are certainly food for thought for the anti-Semites of UR (yours truly included.) But, whatever their actual meaning, they have to be squared with observable reality.

    The problem that I have with this and other JQ-related comments of yours is that they regularly engage in gaslighting, pathologizing, or diagnosing (the standard elements of pilpul) those who question Jewish Power in the West. In your comments, you don’t present counter data, but simply say that those reading the data in a way unfriendly to Jews are afflicted with some kind of syndrome. In short, you do the equivalent of the feminists’ “you just have a small dick.”

    A couple examples from recent past posts come to mind.

    1) At Mr. Guyenot’s article, a commenter said something to the effect, “how do you explain what Jews/Israel have accomplished, if you deny that they are powerful?” (paraphrasing.) Your response was, “if they were as powerful as you say, they would have accomplished things they have not.” (paraphrasing.) Of course, your interlocutor had not said they were powerful enough to do things they have not, but powerful enough to do what they have actually done. Sly straw man building on your part.

    2) In response to your stating that you would vote for Bibi (in America), I replied that he pretty much already has your vote. In response, I got a “Troll.” The irony is that your comment was in response to a posting of excerpts from Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to congress, showing unanimous applause after unanimous applause for a foreign leader undermining a US President’s negotiations with another country. The video you “liked” made my point!

    The simple fact is that Jewish Power is obvious to anyone who isn’t blind or in denial. There are simply too many “data” points to argue against this observation. That is why you have to gaslight the people who see, because you are in denial.

    Now, perhaps we can meet half way. It is true that Marty Goldblattermanfeld next door has more in common with Mario, than he does with Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Ben Bernanke, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jeffrey Epstein, Les Wexner, George Soros, Jonathan Greenblatt, Jared Kushner, Alan Greenspan, Janet Yellen, Chuck Schumer, JB Pritzker, Phillip Zelikow, Dov Zakheim, Haim Saban, Paul Woflowitz, Richard Pearl, Larry Silverstein…(okay I’ll get to my point). Really I don’t want to have anything against him (Marty actually lives next door).

    But then how do we reconcile this with reality? Perhaps the answer is that not all Sicilians are Cosa Nostra, but all Cosa Nostra are Sicilians. Can we call it the Kosher Nostra and agree?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @sarz

    Can we call it the Kosher Nostra and agree?

    “Kosher Nostra” and “Jewish Mafia” is like hiding a crocodile behind a rat. Call them by the name they call themselves.

    Mishpucha

    When Hillary wants to show her identification she remembers her Jewish grandfather and the Mishpucha.

    Compare the results for “Hillary Mishpucha” on Google and Duckduckgo.

  101. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    This guy is not Jewish, ...
     
    That's twice in one week I've made that error. It must be the approach of old age.

    Thank you for the correction. It seems that you are right, and not only slightly: that's not a very Jewish-looking crew.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Thanks. (No reacts left.)

    Can we have more? Like a few times more? They don’t seem to be clogging up the page at the moment and are conducive to considerate and efficient dialogue.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Can we have more? Like a few times more? They don’t seem to be clogging up the page at the moment and are conducive to considerate and efficient dialogue.
     
    Opinions can differ, but for myself, I like it as it is. The fewness of available reacts protects me from inadvertently insulting someone by failure to react. I don't feel as though I had to react to every comment I read and find interesting.

    Besides, upvote/downvote systems seem to turn thoughtful fora into echo chambers.

    Replies: @Dissident

  102. @brabantian
    The Jewish influence machine is more oriented toward a core of Jewish elites, rather than being a general tribal welfare tool, and has a replacement mechanism for Jews who drift away or rebel, which has been happening for millennia

    A Jewish writer whose name I forgot, pointed out that Jewish affiliation has not only always been 'leaky' on one side, with members being lost through inter-marriage or just being fed up, but also having more 'acquisition' via marriage than officially admitted ... enabling elite Judaism to be a self-sustaining machine over the centuries

    This was particularly done in the UK. Leslie Gilbert Pine (1907-87), editor of Burke's Peerage, in his 1950s book 'Tales of the British Aristocracy', devoted a chapter to 'Anglo-Jewish Peerage', where he famously wrote:

    So closely linked are the Jews and the Lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.
     
    For Jewish elites, the average Jew or Israeli is simply another pawn, tho a pawn with special utilities ... yet still ultimately disposable

    These pawns include not only the 20 million or so 'full' Jews, but also some of the 200 million or so 'part Jews', such as the USA politician John 'Kohn' Kerry, who 'forgot' his father was a Jew from Prague who strategically adopted an Irish name ... it's notable that with this larger group - recognised by Israel's government as a strategic asset - 'Jewry' comprises nearly 3% of the world's population

    Replies: @SFG, @anon, @216, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Patrick McNally

    These numbers are way off. Taking from the American Jewish Yearbook 2015:

    As an estimate of the “core Jewish population” worldwide we have 14,310,500. Then the “population with Jewish parents” comes as 17,411,450. Then the “enlarged Jewish population” is defined by adding on any non-Jewish household members who may be involved with members of the 2nd group to be 20,235,700. Finally the “Law or Return population is defined by including grandchildren of Jews as well as anyone of non-Jewish background with whom they may share a household and such to be 23,047,900.

    One thing which may be frustrating about the latter data is the way that they begin mixing in Gentiles with the 3rd group before they have started counting grandchildren. It might be interesting to know how many have at least 1 clearly Jewish grandparent, but that number is fudged inside of the combination with non-Jewish household members. They give a somewhat different formulation for the US specifically in another part of the text:

    “Jews by religion” are estimated at 5.1 million in the US. On top of that another 600g are counted as “Jews of no-religion” so that when combined together these give a “core Jewish population” in the US of 5.7 million. Then they list “no religion, partly Jewish” which adds on an extra million (hence 6.7 million in total). Then there is a category of those with “Jewish background (Non-Jews)” of people who presumably who could be counted as “partly Jewish” from genealogy alone but choose not to be and thereby add another 3.9 million to the total (giving 10.6 million as cumulative). Finally there is “Jewish affinity (Non-Jews)” which adds another 1.2 million giving 11.8 million as the overall grand total.

    This category “Jewish affinity (Non-Jews)” seems to account for the full Gentiles who have married into Jewish circles a la Ivanka Trump. It would be better if the world Jewish population estimates had been done in the same format with Gentiles saved for the very last category only. But in any case, that “200 million” is hopefully just a typo. Otherwise it’s really off in space.

  103. @SFG
    It's entirely possible for birthrates to be falling and for secular left-wing Jews to still be the reason for a lot of aspects of American leftism. From what I've seen (what do I know, I only lived in NYC for 22 years), they seem to actually believe all the B.S. they spout about alternative this and that. Homosexuality 40 years ago, trans 20 years ago, and the next big thing is nonmonogamy. Also, practically speaking, the bigger the city, the smaller the family, and that's been seen around the world and throughout history. You don't want to try to raise two kids in Manhattan.

    But yeah, between the IDW and the rise of the Orthodox I wouldn't be surprised to see a new batch of neoconservatives. I just hope they don't drag the USA into another war.

    Replies: @A123, @Dutch Boy

    Secular Jews drink from the same well they helped poison, featuring the normalization of non-procreative sex. The Orthodox are somewhat protected from that poison by their self-imposed ghettoization.

  104. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    The obvious explanation is that the far right simply doesn’t have much appeal. Most people are uncomfortable with political extremism.
     
    Really? The far left has not been able to capture the mainstream left and then impose all kinds of deeply unappealing extremist positions on the rest of the society in the past 20-30 years?
     
    The problem is that most people don't see these positions as extremist. You do, but most people don't.

    It's true that the increasing acceptance of things like homosexuality is largely the result of propaganda, but then you could argue that many of the traditionalist positions on social issues that were widespread in the past were also largely the result of propaganda.

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn't very successful.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @notanon

    The fact remains that the positions taken by many on the far right are seen today as extreme, and this is the reason the far right isn’t very successful.

    normal views are seen as extreme because we are ruled by a banking mafia who have controlled the media for 100+ years to ensure it couldn’t be used against them

    the power that comes from media control is overwhelming but also fragile i.e. all it takes for it to crumble to dust is for people to stop trusting the media.

  105. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mario Partisan


    As I suspected, you only compromise when there is a cost, never out of basic decency.
     
    You are asking me to split the difference in my view of the world with how you view the world.

    I don't perceive you as addressing what I write or giving me reasons to do so. You write some text, but it always seems tangential to the point. I appreciate that you may disagree, but you don't get upset by that.

    You seem instead to get extremely agitated that I won't change my worldview towards yours as a compromise, because you imply that compromising is the moral and decent thing to do.

    Does no part of you understand why someone reasonable might find this a completely bizarre request? Do I need to explain it?

    Replies: @notanon

    one simple example

    13% of the population commit 50%+ of US homicides

    the media have lied about this for 60 years and their cover up has resulted in 100,000s of stabbings, shootings, rapes and murders of white people which drove the ethnic cleansing of tens of millions from the cities they built

    the media and more particularly the media’s owners are evil people.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    Example of what?

    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.

    I also disagree that their not mentioning it can be seen as responsible for those murders. Aren't the murderers responsible?

    I also disagree that this would make them evil people. They have a lot of sincerely good reasons for choosing to avoid the topic of black crime. I disagree with their reasons, but that does not make them evil.

    Replies: @notanon

  106. @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    one simple example

    13% of the population commit 50%+ of US homicides

    the media have lied about this for 60 years and their cover up has resulted in 100,000s of stabbings, shootings, rapes and murders of white people which drove the ethnic cleansing of tens of millions from the cities they built

    the media and more particularly the media's owners are evil people.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Example of what?

    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.

    I also disagree that their not mentioning it can be seen as responsible for those murders. Aren’t the murderers responsible?

    I also disagree that this would make them evil people. They have a lot of sincerely good reasons for choosing to avoid the topic of black crime. I disagree with their reasons, but that does not make them evil.

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Example of what?
     
    example of your bad faith

    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.
     
    they quite clearly lie about it

    they could admit 13/50 is true but then blame it on historical white villainy but they straight up lie and say the stats are caused by white racist over-policing

    I also disagree that their not mentioning it can be seen as responsible for those murders.
     
    see point 1

    I also disagree that this would make them evil people
     
    see point 1

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  107. @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    Example of what?

    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.

    I also disagree that their not mentioning it can be seen as responsible for those murders. Aren't the murderers responsible?

    I also disagree that this would make them evil people. They have a lot of sincerely good reasons for choosing to avoid the topic of black crime. I disagree with their reasons, but that does not make them evil.

    Replies: @notanon

    Example of what?

    example of your bad faith

    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.

    they quite clearly lie about it

    they could admit 13/50 is true but then blame it on historical white villainy but they straight up lie and say the stats are caused by white racist over-policing

    I also disagree that their not mentioning it can be seen as responsible for those murders.

    see point 1

    I also disagree that this would make them evil people

    see point 1

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    Anyone who doesn't think that black crime needs to be constantly talked about and/or thinks it is not an example of something inherently deficient in black people, is speaking in bad faith?

    I pity you.

    I don't even think like those "bad faith" people. I only recognise that they are not evil. Yet for this, you call me evil. That's OK. It is your journey. I just question if it is doing you any good?

    Replies: @notanon

  108. @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Example of what?
     
    example of your bad faith

    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.
     
    they quite clearly lie about it

    they could admit 13/50 is true but then blame it on historical white villainy but they straight up lie and say the stats are caused by white racist over-policing

    I also disagree that their not mentioning it can be seen as responsible for those murders.
     
    see point 1

    I also disagree that this would make them evil people
     
    see point 1

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Anyone who doesn’t think that black crime needs to be constantly talked about and/or thinks it is not an example of something inherently deficient in black people, is speaking in bad faith?

    I pity you.

    I don’t even think like those “bad faith” people. I only recognise that they are not evil. Yet for this, you call me evil. That’s OK. It is your journey. I just question if it is doing you any good?

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.
     
    they self-evidently lie about it

    Replies: @Twinkie

  109. @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    Anyone who doesn't think that black crime needs to be constantly talked about and/or thinks it is not an example of something inherently deficient in black people, is speaking in bad faith?

    I pity you.

    I don't even think like those "bad faith" people. I only recognise that they are not evil. Yet for this, you call me evil. That's OK. It is your journey. I just question if it is doing you any good?

    Replies: @notanon

    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.

    they self-evidently lie about it

    • Disagree: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @notanon


    they self-evidently lie about it
     
    Anyone with eyes and ears can see that the mainstream media try to suppress the facts of black crime and offer up all kinds of nonsense such as systemic racism and economic deprivation as the causal reasons even when pressed by a few brave souls. They are not just “ignoring” black crime. They are lying about it - everyday, to our faces. To suggest that the media is merely eliding the issue isn’t just bad faith, it is bald-faced lying.

    For a quick example, who’s being blamed for the so-called #asianhate? Blacks? Of course not. It’s Peasant-Americans.

    Replies: @A123

  110. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives.
     
    This is generally the case with many commenters here, but not with a few.

    After my last extended interactions with the commenter in question, I tend to think that she argues in bad faith (and resorts to ad hominem rather than data to rebut others): https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-short-mans-burden/#comment-4687533

    Ultimately, since the Jews are not going to go away, one has got to get along with them, and I can get along with Jews who think like Triteleia. What I am not willing to do however is to play the rôle of the Jews’ eternal gentile chump.
     
    As you well know, I am not with the "It's always the Jews" brigade here. I'd like all of us to be treated as individuals for our own words and actions - Jews included. I welcome patriotic Jews into my company and those of my loved ones, as I do with all patriotic Americans.

    That said, we should be able to discuss larger demographic issues without censorship and repression be it black crime, Jewish domination of major economic, political, educational, and media institutions, Hispanic/Asian immigration, and what have you.

    So I salute your high-mindedness and wish to join in it. But anyone who says, "Jews likely network a bit, just like people do with their alma mater or any number of other factors" and wants us to believe that ARE telling us to "play the role of the Jews' eternal gentile chump."

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Twinkie K Shrute, the man who thinks saying Jews network like people from the same College, is an automatic expression of bad faith; thereby rendering the vast majority of people in the world, who think it is less than that, also in bad faith.

    I guess I shouldn’t have laughed at your sense of masculinity.

  111. @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I also disagree that the media have lied about this. They just avoid it.
     
    they self-evidently lie about it

    Replies: @Twinkie

    they self-evidently lie about it

    Anyone with eyes and ears can see that the mainstream media try to suppress the facts of black crime and offer up all kinds of nonsense such as systemic racism and economic deprivation as the causal reasons even when pressed by a few brave souls. They are not just “ignoring” black crime. They are lying about it – everyday, to our faces. To suggest that the media is merely eliding the issue isn’t just bad faith, it is bald-faced lying.

    For a quick example, who’s being blamed for the so-called #asianhate? Blacks? Of course not. It’s Peasant-Americans.

    • Agree: iffen, notanon
    • Replies: @A123
    @Twinkie


    Anyone with eyes and ears can see that the mainstream media try to suppress the facts of black crime and offer up all kinds of nonsense such as systemic racism and economic deprivation as the causal reasons even when pressed by a few brave souls.
     
    For the U.S., you have correctly identified the bias of the Fake Stream Media.

     
    https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-05-27-at-7.44.57-AM.png
     

    In Europe, the SJW media bias is converting up Islamic crimes.

     
    https://www.informationliberation.com/files/rape_sweden_charts.jpg
     

    White Christians are a double enemy in the eyes of SJW Globalism.

    PEACE 😇
  112. A123 says: • Website
    @Twinkie
    @notanon


    they self-evidently lie about it
     
    Anyone with eyes and ears can see that the mainstream media try to suppress the facts of black crime and offer up all kinds of nonsense such as systemic racism and economic deprivation as the causal reasons even when pressed by a few brave souls. They are not just “ignoring” black crime. They are lying about it - everyday, to our faces. To suggest that the media is merely eliding the issue isn’t just bad faith, it is bald-faced lying.

    For a quick example, who’s being blamed for the so-called #asianhate? Blacks? Of course not. It’s Peasant-Americans.

    Replies: @A123

    Anyone with eyes and ears can see that the mainstream media try to suppress the facts of black crime and offer up all kinds of nonsense such as systemic racism and economic deprivation as the causal reasons even when pressed by a few brave souls.

    For the U.S., you have correctly identified the bias of the Fake Stream Media.

     

     

    In Europe, the SJW media bias is converting up Islamic crimes.

     

     

    White Christians are a double enemy in the eyes of SJW Globalism.

    PEACE 😇

  113. @Triteleia Laxa
    I find the comments where people just make up a bunch of stuff about Jews and pronounce it authoritatively to be so interesting.

    Rahan and Brabantian's comments are particularly fantastical. They even communicate their absolute certainty!

    What purpose does it serve them? How does it calm their personal anxieties in the world? How does it allow them to work through their own issues?



    Take Rahan's comment. It seems that no contemporary phenomena can be explained, in his head, by reference to anything but Jews. To him, Jews may as well be the fulcrum on which divine agency changes the world. It would make no difference to their awesome power.

    This is very strange. He must feel like a plastic bag in the wind. He has no substance, no real existence, he is just a meaningless piece of plastic; bewildered and buffeted, by the Jewish gusts.

    Can Rahan understand why he makes the choices that he does? Or is his unconscious, for a lack of introspection, in hidden control.

    Perhaps he has a hint of this and has even come to hate his unconscious as a tool manipulated by Jews, through media and advertising and propaganda? Rather than as an aspect of his greater self.

    The Jews, in this model of Rahan, are a synonym for his unconscious; so, because they control him, unseen, sinister, all-powerful, he needs to inflate his fragile ego, and pretend that this same force controls the world.

    He has his own journey, but pity he who feels like a speck of jetsam on a hostile sea.

    Replies: @iffen, @Robert Dolan, @fredtard, @rebel yell, @Mario Partisan, @Bill

    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Bill

    I'll take that it some part of you recognises yourself in my description of Rahan.

    Replies: @Bill

  114. @Bill
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I’ll take that it some part of you recognises yourself in my description of Rahan.

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  115. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Robert Dolan


    Your comments are idiotic and they fly in the face of objective reality.

    It’s easy to track jewish influence as much as you try to provide some kind of stupid pseudo-intellectual diversion.
     
    If it is so easy, then why is it only the activity of a handful of erratic internet oddballs?

    Replies: @Bill

    Ask Rick Sanchez. He won’t explain it to you, and that’s your answer.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Bill

    A guy got fired from an extremely politically correct news company for picking out and insulting his colleague in a racist way.

    Big news. This is in an era when people get fired for saying women have vaginas. It only shows how intolerant political correctness is.

  116. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Bill

    I'll take that it some part of you recognises yourself in my description of Rahan.

    Replies: @Bill

    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.

    • Troll: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Bill


    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.
     
    That commenter's shtick is pretty obvious and I got a quick dose of that the first few times I engaged her. These are some of the long-distance amateur psycho comments she wrote in just one thread I linked earlier:

    "You just launched into a emotional reaction."

    "... launch into a battle with your own demons."

    "you need to continue to make me your own demon though…."

    "Your tone is almost adult now. I’ll upgrade you to a B+."

    "You have a number of defence mechanisms against being wrong. Boring autistic download is my least favourite."

    "You’re just entirely incapable of noticing your own emotional impulses..."

    "It is all motivated reasoning directed by an unexamined emotional core. Enjoy your mid-life crisis, whenever it hits."

    "Mid-life crisis is coming soon…check back in if you need help."
     
    During this time she presented zero data or evidence for the assertions she made earlier, despite my best efforts to engage her with numbers. What she does is just transparently juvenile and silly - it's the shtick of someone who doesn't have good arguments and has little to no evidence to back them up. She's a Hasbara Rosie. Just ignore her and move on.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Mario Partisan

  117. @Bill
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Ask Rick Sanchez. He won't explain it to you, and that's your answer.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    A guy got fired from an extremely politically correct news company for picking out and insulting his colleague in a racist way.

    Big news. This is in an era when people get fired for saying women have vaginas. It only shows how intolerant political correctness is.

  118. @rebel yell
    @Triteleia Laxa

    There is nothing wrong with critiquing Jewish politics.
    We talk openly about blacks in politics. We have the congressional black caucus, black churches as a focal point for political organizing, black political organizations such as the NAACP and BLM, the black civil rights movement, the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party, black issues such as affirmative action, courting the black vote, etc. We rightly talk about blacks as a political actor with an agenda and with influence.
    Same goes for feminists, gun owners, greens, gays, rural whites, Evangelicals, the Catholic church on abortion, etc.
    Pre-civil war there was much talk about "the slave power". What was the slave power? It was wealthy plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and in national politics. These plantation owners had common interests and organized themselves to get what they wanted in politics.
    Is there some reason we can't talk just as normally about Jewish politics and Jewish influence in politics? Some reason we can't critique it just as we would political influence by any other identifiable group?
    This doesn't assume there is a single Jewish agenda or that all Jews agree. We also don't assume that about blacks or slave owners.
    But why this hyper-sensitivity to any discussion of Jewish political influence? Why is it scary to say "Jewish political influence" but not scary to say "black political influence"?

    Replies: @Charlotte, @Triteleia Laxa, @anarchyst

    Your comment:
    /”Pre-civil war there was much talk about “the slave power”. What was the slave power? It was wealthy plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and in national politics. These plantation owners had common interests and organized themselves to get what they wanted in politics.”/
    …leaves out one important, perhaps the most important point.
    Chattel slavery in the western hemisphere was run lock, stock, and barrel by JEWS.
    Jews owned the slave ships, insured the ships and human cargo, and paid crews to sail them from the African continent. Jews owned the “slave auction houses” and owned the majority of slaves on the American continent. It was wealthy JEWISH plantation owners and the influence they wielded in southern states and national politics…
    You see, the jewish talmud not only condones slavery, but encourages it among jews.
    Christianity was bastardized by Protestantism when the jews were “rehabilitated” and looked upon as Christianity’s “elder brothers rather than the enemies of Christianity. Of course shyster Schofield and Calvinism had a lot to do with “rehabilitating” jewish behavior regarding the institution of chattel slavery..
    Protestant approval of slavery was based on the excuse that “converting slaves to Christianity” was a noble cause, despite the whole aspect of slavery being an abomination on its face.
    We are paying for the “sin” of slavery to this very day…

  119. @Dumbo
    In a sense, Orthodox Jews are viewed more like Muslims, an "alien" group with outlandish habits that doesn't really fit. I think even secular Jews see them like that, even in Israel.

    This is good.

    I am no great fan of the Orthodox Jews and their strange religion, but at least they are easily identifiable - in that sense, better than the subversive "fellow white guys" type of Jews who pretend to be something they are not.

    Howevet, it must be noted that secular Jews descend from Orthodox Jews (2 or three generations down the line), so secular Jews are not going to "disappear". Unless there's another Holocaust or something. But the last one failed, and now Jews are stronger than ever. "What doesn't kill you make you stronger"?

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Audacious Epigone

    As I’ve said in the past, there are a fair number of parallels between Orthodox Judaism and Islam, which is a comparison that will never, ever be propagated by the Usual Suspects. As I’ve also said, Islam probably started out in the 7th Century as a monotheist community with heavy Jewish millenarian overtones. It’s only when Persian culture and thought had a similar impact on Islam as Greco-Roman culture and thought did on Christianity that you begin to see distinctly Islamic stuff.

    It’s not a perfect comparison: in fact, the former is considerably more strict. But it’s good way of wrapping your head around how an Islamic society actually works if you are unfamiliar with it. They are both programmatic religions that prescribe detailed codes of behavior, from what you can eat to ritual ablutions after sex.

  120. @UncommonGround
    @Rahan

    I don't believe that that your last category of Jews can exist, the silent one. The reason for that is that Judaism isn't a religion. It cannot exist without special rewards for Jews: advantages, money, prestige, high positions in society, power. When they become a normal part of society, they stop being a separated and special group.

    But there are different systems of rewards. The more open the group is and the more integrated they are in society (reform), the bigger the rewards for its members have to be in order to keep them in the group. When the group is tighter (orthodoxs), the rewards go to the top of the group while the rest of it has more symbolic forms of rewards.

    Replies: @Rahan

    Yeah, and sometimes the rewards for the periphery are based even not on “you having it better”, but rather “you having the ability to make it worse for others”.

    A slightly older post on how recent historical events filtered out mostly the “subversive” and “predatory” Jews out of Russia, and how this would be much more difficult for the west.
    https://www.unz.com/aanglin/as-jews-call-for-increased-competition-with-china-they-continue-to-shut-down-racist-ap-courses/#comment-4715912

    • Agree: UncommonGround
  121. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.
     
    A good starting point would be you stopping tarring “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.

    A good starting point would be you stopping tarring “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys.

    What I think about the “far right” doesn’t matter. What matters is that the “far right” has a very big image problem. That ain’t my fault.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    What I think about the “far right” doesn’t matter.
     
    Your constant straw men portrayals of "the far right" as Hitler-fanboys does matter if you are trying to have honest conversations here - that is, you make it difficult to have them.

    What matters is that the “far right” has a very big image problem. That ain’t my fault.
     
    I didn't blame you for how the media dishonestly portray the right, far or otherwise. I simply blamed you for maligning people unfairly here.

    Probably not. But I’m damned if I can see how the Right can win with those people.
     
    Funny. How did the left win with all sorts of crazy, radical people on their side? As I advised others earlier, you don't build coalitions or electoral strength by playing the ally-disavowal game. Your comments reek of attempting to get the right to disavow parts of itself and weaken itself.

    Why don't you go on and on about how the mainstream left should be disavowing the radical leftists who have seized the agenda of the former?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Bill
    @dfordoom

    The far right has an image problem because we lost. That's all. Eventually the clown show which runs the US will lose (though not to the far right), and it will then have an image problem.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  122. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    I honestly don’t see them having any kind of political strategy that would allow them to succeed

    Can we have Trumpism without Trump?

    Can there be a right without anti-Semites, obnoxious racists and xenophobes, Pollyanna libertarians, tinkle-on-down economic aficionados, small government enthusiasts, assorted reactionaries, etc.?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Can there be a right without anti-Semites, obnoxious racists and xenophobes, Pollyanna libertarians, tinkle-on-down economic aficionados, small government enthusiasts, assorted reactionaries, etc.?

    Probably not. But I’m damned if I can see how the Right can win with those people.

  123. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote.
     
    Wise women themselves would deprive women of the vote. When men vote, it's bad enough already. The women's vote is inherently too mischievous, and runs too contrary to the nature of the proper object of the franchise.

    However, that's all theoretical. Observably, most women want the vote. I think that that's probably unwise, but there is little present prospect of changing minds. One must await a turn of events.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw [an east Asian] out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme?
     
    Richard B. Spencer is at his best when discussing precisely this topic. Are you familiar?

    The early 20th century exchanged populations in a few parts of Europe. Not everyone was sorry. In some instances, even those forced to move were not sorry. Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he's not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench. The Great Replacement is real. The Great Replacement will in one way or another be resisted by the replaced.

    Spencer presents the ethnostate as an aspiration. Aspirations seldom come to pass, of course, but they matter because—having been prepared in advance—they illuminate decisions forced upon unexpected heroes during an unforeseen crisis. Such decisions will in any case bring effects on the margin, so it matters whether those effects promote or retard the Great Replacement.

    My comment is too short for satisfaction but the topic is just too long for a blog comment.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    The early 20th century exchanged populations in a few parts of Europe. Not everyone was sorry. In some instances, even those forced to move were not sorry.

    Population transfers have a tendency to leave a lot of people dead. Are there any examples of successful population transfers that haven’t involved bloodbaths?

  124. @Bill
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.

    That commenter’s shtick is pretty obvious and I got a quick dose of that the first few times I engaged her. These are some of the long-distance amateur psycho comments she wrote in just one thread I linked earlier:

    “You just launched into a emotional reaction.”

    “… launch into a battle with your own demons.”

    “you need to continue to make me your own demon though….”

    “Your tone is almost adult now. I’ll upgrade you to a B+.”

    “You have a number of defence mechanisms against being wrong. Boring autistic download is my least favourite.”

    “You’re just entirely incapable of noticing your own emotional impulses…”

    “It is all motivated reasoning directed by an unexamined emotional core. Enjoy your mid-life crisis, whenever it hits.”

    “Mid-life crisis is coming soon…check back in if you need help.”

    During this time she presented zero data or evidence for the assertions she made earlier, despite my best efforts to engage her with numbers. What she does is just transparently juvenile and silly – it’s the shtick of someone who doesn’t have good arguments and has little to no evidence to back them up. She’s a Hasbara Rosie. Just ignore her and move on.

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Twinkie

    I'm glad you spent the hour it likely took to go back and read those comments and collect those quotes. It should help you. I can't imagine any other purpose.

    Replies: @res

    , @Mario Partisan
    @Twinkie


    She’s a Hasbara Rosie.
     
    Read my mind!
  125. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.
     
    A good starting point would be you stopping tarring “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys.
     
    What I think about the "far right" doesn't matter. What matters is that the "far right" has a very big image problem. That ain't my fault.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Bill

    What I think about the “far right” doesn’t matter.

    Your constant straw men portrayals of “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys does matter if you are trying to have honest conversations here – that is, you make it difficult to have them.

    What matters is that the “far right” has a very big image problem. That ain’t my fault.

    I didn’t blame you for how the media dishonestly portray the right, far or otherwise. I simply blamed you for maligning people unfairly here.

    Probably not. But I’m damned if I can see how the Right can win with those people.

    Funny. How did the left win with all sorts of crazy, radical people on their side? As I advised others earlier, you don’t build coalitions or electoral strength by playing the ally-disavowal game. Your comments reek of attempting to get the right to disavow parts of itself and weaken itself.

    Why don’t you go on and on about how the mainstream left should be disavowing the radical leftists who have seized the agenda of the former?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Funny. How did the left win with all sorts of crazy, radical people on their side?
     
    The left won by pushing agendas that would attract elite support and media support, and that could be made to sound attractive to ordinary people.

    They also won by disavowing all the things that the elites and the media were never going to support. They won by disavowing all the leftists who were likely to upset the elites and the media. The mainstream left parties disavowed people like the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and the communists and the Trotskyites. They didn't have to disavow people like the feminists and the homosexual lobby because the elites and the media weren't bothered by such people because they didn't consider them to be a threat.

    The left figured out that without elite support and media support they could not win. The left parties have won whenever they had elite and media support (Tony Blair in Britain, Obama and Biden in the US, Hawke in Australia). When they haven't had elite support and media support (Labour under Jeremy Corbyn in the UK) they've lost.
  126. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    There are far rightists right here on UR who would deprive women of the vote.
     
    Wise women themselves would deprive women of the vote. When men vote, it's bad enough already. The women's vote is inherently too mischievous, and runs too contrary to the nature of the proper object of the franchise.

    However, that's all theoretical. Observably, most women want the vote. I think that that's probably unwise, but there is little present prospect of changing minds. One must await a turn of events.

    There are far rightists right here on UR who would cheerfully throw [an east Asian] out of the US. Don’t you regard that as extreme?
     
    Richard B. Spencer is at his best when discussing precisely this topic. Are you familiar?

    The early 20th century exchanged populations in a few parts of Europe. Not everyone was sorry. In some instances, even those forced to move were not sorry. Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he's not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench. The Great Replacement is real. The Great Replacement will in one way or another be resisted by the replaced.

    Spencer presents the ethnostate as an aspiration. Aspirations seldom come to pass, of course, but they matter because—having been prepared in advance—they illuminate decisions forced upon unexpected heroes during an unforeseen crisis. Such decisions will in any case bring effects on the margin, so it matters whether those effects promote or retard the Great Replacement.

    My comment is too short for satisfaction but the topic is just too long for a blog comment.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he’s not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench.

    I am not an island. I have a family, an extended clan (my wife’s people), friends, organic communities in which I am a member of long standing, and all those other people in my intersecting networks of affiliations and affinities have theirs in turn.

    And that’s just all for one man. Now imagine a million or ten million people like me. Their extended social networks contain a huge fraction of the country’s population. I don’t think a majority of whites would ever support an ethno-state, because there are millions and millions of whites with nonwhite or part-white spouses, children, in-laws, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc.

    The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration – it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.

    And Richard Spencer is a self-serving clown. I’ll take him seriously as an advocate for whites and their rights when and if he ever lifts a finger to help ordinary whites in actuality instead of trolling for media attention (and don’t get me started on how he apparently treated his ex-wife*).

    *As Anatoly Karlin once wrote sarcastically, “Only the best people.”

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    I get it. I have little appetite to debate this particular matter with you. You are simply the wrong target for me, for I neither wish to persuade you (because what good would that do either of us?) nor to prove you wrong. There is nothing to be gained by me in the debate and anyway I pretty much agree with what you wrote, so yours stands as the last word.

    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration – it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.
     
    I agree with that. A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea. It's never going to attract any support from any element within the elite or the media and it's never going to gain traction with ordinary people. If you're advocating for whites (which is fine) you have to set your sights on something a lot more moderate and a lot more achievable. You don't have to surrender, just pick a battle that you have a better chance of winning.

    It's the same with social conservatism. Even if you'd like to return to the mores of the 17th century or the Victorian era or even the 1950s you're not going to achieve that. But you might have a fighting chance of persuading people that a return to the 80s (before political correctness and feminism and the homosexual agenda got totally out of hand and before pick-up culture gained such a hold) is a good idea.

    Politics is not about what you'd like to achieve. It's about what you have a reasonable chance of achieving.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  127. @Twinkie
    @Bill


    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.
     
    That commenter's shtick is pretty obvious and I got a quick dose of that the first few times I engaged her. These are some of the long-distance amateur psycho comments she wrote in just one thread I linked earlier:

    "You just launched into a emotional reaction."

    "... launch into a battle with your own demons."

    "you need to continue to make me your own demon though…."

    "Your tone is almost adult now. I’ll upgrade you to a B+."

    "You have a number of defence mechanisms against being wrong. Boring autistic download is my least favourite."

    "You’re just entirely incapable of noticing your own emotional impulses..."

    "It is all motivated reasoning directed by an unexamined emotional core. Enjoy your mid-life crisis, whenever it hits."

    "Mid-life crisis is coming soon…check back in if you need help."
     
    During this time she presented zero data or evidence for the assertions she made earlier, despite my best efforts to engage her with numbers. What she does is just transparently juvenile and silly - it's the shtick of someone who doesn't have good arguments and has little to no evidence to back them up. She's a Hasbara Rosie. Just ignore her and move on.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Mario Partisan

    I’m glad you spent the hour it likely took to go back and read those comments and collect those quotes. It should help you. I can’t imagine any other purpose.

    • Replies: @res
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I can’t imagine any other purpose.
     
    Because you don't seem to understand the idea of reasoned argument based on evidence. Seems to me that is your problem, not Twinkie's.

    P.S. For anyone who wants to be taken seriously, your comments here are a master class in how not to be.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  128. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he’s not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench.
     
    I am not an island. I have a family, an extended clan (my wife's people), friends, organic communities in which I am a member of long standing, and all those other people in my intersecting networks of affiliations and affinities have theirs in turn.

    And that's just all for one man. Now imagine a million or ten million people like me. Their extended social networks contain a huge fraction of the country's population. I don't think a majority of whites would ever support an ethno-state, because there are millions and millions of whites with nonwhite or part-white spouses, children, in-laws, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc.

    The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration - it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.

    And Richard Spencer is a self-serving clown. I'll take him seriously as an advocate for whites and their rights when and if he ever lifts a finger to help ordinary whites in actuality instead of trolling for media attention (and don't get me started on how he apparently treated his ex-wife*).

    *As Anatoly Karlin once wrote sarcastically, "Only the best people."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    I get it. I have little appetite to debate this particular matter with you. You are simply the wrong target for me, for I neither wish to persuade you (because what good would that do either of us?) nor to prove you wrong. There is nothing to be gained by me in the debate and anyway I pretty much agree with what you wrote, so yours stands as the last word.

    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.
     
    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, but he appears to be a good husband and a decent father. I prefer Trumpism to liberal Republicanism to say the least, but Trump is clearly an inveterate womanizer and no role model for my sons. As for Spencer, what can you say about a man who threatens to break his wife’s nose? And someone who is unwise enough to tell his wife to commit suicide in writing, to boot?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @notanon, @nebulafox

  129. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    I get it. I have little appetite to debate this particular matter with you. You are simply the wrong target for me, for I neither wish to persuade you (because what good would that do either of us?) nor to prove you wrong. There is nothing to be gained by me in the debate and anyway I pretty much agree with what you wrote, so yours stands as the last word.

    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.

    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, but he appears to be a good husband and a decent father. I prefer Trumpism to liberal Republicanism to say the least, but Trump is clearly an inveterate womanizer and no role model for my sons. As for Spencer, what can you say about a man who threatens to break his wife’s nose? And someone who is unwise enough to tell his wife to commit suicide in writing, to boot?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, ...
     
    Romney is not particularly oligarchic as congressmen go and he has a markedly stiffer spine than most. That he has somehow allowed himself to be portrayed as spineless only demonstrates that he is rather hapless as a pol.

    He probably should have stuck to his original line of work. Politics is not his talent. How a politician manages to convince the public that he is simultaneously inconstant and intransigent is beyond me, especially when neither is true.

    For various reasons, I happen to know more Mormons than most readers here probably do. I get how they think. I do not always like how they think, for they evince a peculiar brand of hypocrisy they assure themselves were only humility and compassion: but no one is perfect and Mormonism is not in my judgment a problem the United States needs to solve.

    If you don't get how Mormons think (and I do not know why you should), then you're never going to understand a man like Mitt Romney. Since Romney was asking for your vote, that was Romney's failing not yours; but I am certain that Romney is not what you believe he is. He never was.

    There is more in Romney's relationship with his wife and family than you think. In my estimation, that is really the man he is, both in public and in private.

    And I say all this in full knowledge that, if Romney were present in this blog, he would thoroughly, unjustly, sincerely castigate me and dismiss everything I had to say as the rantings of a bigot. Romney is a flawed but good man and would have been a better president, but his moment has passed and now we'll never know.

    , @notanon
    @Twinkie


    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, but he appears to be a good husband and a decent father.
     
    "Pierre Delecto" is the sort of fake name married but homosexual men pick for when they go to gay clubs so...
    , @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    Agreed, though as we know and the MSM still doesn't, most people who voted for Trump did so in spite of his ethics (business and personal alike), not because of them. Trump's JFK/Clinton-esque sexual life had been the stuff of New York tabloid legend since the 1980s, and wasn't ever really something he tried to hide.

    To be fair to Trump, though, there's no evidence to suggest that he was a crappy father, jokes in considerably bad taste aside*. If anything, he was too indulgent of Ivanka rather than uncaring. How else can you explain Jared Kushner's nepotistic, baleful career in the White House?

    * There was this classic from 2006 on whether Ivanka could pose in Playboy. You ask me, that's the kind of question about your daughter that should elicit a immediate walkout on the reporter, if not a direct punch to the face.

    Trump: “It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what’s inside the magazine. I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

    Ivanka's reply after the interview: "If he weren't my father, I would have sprayed him with mace."

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  130. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    You are assuming a lot here. The premise does not hold.* And you are assuming that he/she is not Jewish or a fellow-traveler who benefits from the said Jewish actions.
     
    The thought had occurred to me, but I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives. One intelligent, reasonable, uncommonly decent gentile in my own extended family has told me almost exactly the same as Triteleia Laxa has told Mario, so I am inclined to take such tellings seriously.

    Even if Triteleia were Jewish, he doesn't seem a bad sort, at least within the narrow frame of our quite limited acquaintance. He does not remind me of Dissident, for example. Ultimately, since the Jews are not going to go away, one has got to get along with them, and I can get along with Jews who think like Triteleia. What I am not willing to do however is to play the rôle of the Jews' eternal gentile chump.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Dissident

    I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives.

    ROTFLMAO!

    If that’s* your idea of assuming honest motives, I suppose I should be grateful for not having encountered you back in your dark days of assuming dishonest motives…

    (*The incredibly rich examples in the linked comment.)

    You just keep outdoing yourself. Thanks for the continued comic relief.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Dissident

    If that’s* your idea of assuming honest motives,

    When O. V. states that he is an anti-Semite, that is intellectual honesty. What part of O. V. being a self-described anti-Semite do you not understand?

    Do you have any knowledge in modern times of any Jew persuading an anti-Semite to give up his stance? Is that one of your objectives? Or, are you just happy giving "the rest of the story" when you encounter anti-Semitic comments?

  131. @Dissident
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives.
     
    ROTFLMAO!

    If that's* your idea of assuming honest motives, I suppose I should be grateful for not having encountered you back in your dark days of assuming dishonest motives...

    (*The incredibly rich examples in the linked comment.)

    You just keep outdoing yourself. Thanks for the continued comic relief.

    Replies: @iffen

    If that’s* your idea of assuming honest motives,

    When O. V. states that he is an anti-Semite, that is intellectual honesty. What part of O. V. being a self-described anti-Semite do you not understand?

    Do you have any knowledge in modern times of any Jew persuading an anti-Semite to give up his stance? Is that one of your objectives? Or, are you just happy giving “the rest of the story” when you encounter anti-Semitic comments?

  132. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.
     
    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, but he appears to be a good husband and a decent father. I prefer Trumpism to liberal Republicanism to say the least, but Trump is clearly an inveterate womanizer and no role model for my sons. As for Spencer, what can you say about a man who threatens to break his wife’s nose? And someone who is unwise enough to tell his wife to commit suicide in writing, to boot?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @notanon, @nebulafox

    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, …

    Romney is not particularly oligarchic as congressmen go and he has a markedly stiffer spine than most. That he has somehow allowed himself to be portrayed as spineless only demonstrates that he is rather hapless as a pol.

    He probably should have stuck to his original line of work. Politics is not his talent. How a politician manages to convince the public that he is simultaneously inconstant and intransigent is beyond me, especially when neither is true.

    For various reasons, I happen to know more Mormons than most readers here probably do. I get how they think. I do not always like how they think, for they evince a peculiar brand of hypocrisy they assure themselves were only humility and compassion: but no one is perfect and Mormonism is not in my judgment a problem the United States needs to solve.

    If you don’t get how Mormons think (and I do not know why you should), then you’re never going to understand a man like Mitt Romney. Since Romney was asking for your vote, that was Romney’s failing not yours; but I am certain that Romney is not what you believe he is. He never was.

    There is more in Romney’s relationship with his wife and family than you think. In my estimation, that is really the man he is, both in public and in private.

    And I say all this in full knowledge that, if Romney were present in this blog, he would thoroughly, unjustly, sincerely castigate me and dismiss everything I had to say as the rantings of a bigot. Romney is a flawed but good man and would have been a better president, but his moment has passed and now we’ll never know.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
  133. jacobs-adder [AKA "jacob-the -adder"] says:

    jews network like every other ethnic group….

    When white people try and do the same, we are labelled ‘Hitler Fan Boys’ or ‘White Supremacists’.

    I really dont think most people on this site are stupid enough to actually believe in removing the vote from women, they are just tired of how easily manipulated certain groups are by the media into believing false narratives regarding topics like black crime, white domestic terror, cover, trans and gay rights etc. Its just ‘Overton Window’ style backlash to try and return to a place before ‘Cancel Culture’, ‘Wokeness’ and SJW’s performing sickening acts of ‘Virtue Signalling’.

    Most people are completely unaware of how political lobbying and media ownership tie in with the big money behind it pushing for targeted political and social agendas. They just think trans rights have evolved naturally and its the most important thing in our society because the media tells us so and the law enforces it via politics. This is true of every liberal agenda, people on this site are opposed to. We are just aware of how contrived it is, and how dangerous it is for our children and our countries future.

    Racism is actually a conflict of behavioural issues and cultures. It is not simply the colour of someones skin. I hope most people on this site are open enough to judge people by their character and how they treat others in society. What do they contribute? This is what being ‘Conservative’ means to me, the conservation of traditional values that have allowed Europen Civilisation to flourish and provided the world with so much that it now, takes for granted.

    It feels like logic and common sense are now prosecutable ‘thought crimes’ under this insane Neo -liberal mafia that controls our communications.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @jacobs-adder

    "Most people are completely unaware of how political lobbying and media ownership tie in with the big money behind it pushing for targeted political and social agendas."

    I would say you are underestimating the number of people who have arrived at their own decisions about race and culture, that they are cognizant of those factors you listed when arriving at those conclusions.

    , @jacobs-adder
    @jacobs-adder

    I certainly hope so!

  134. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.
     
    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, but he appears to be a good husband and a decent father. I prefer Trumpism to liberal Republicanism to say the least, but Trump is clearly an inveterate womanizer and no role model for my sons. As for Spencer, what can you say about a man who threatens to break his wife’s nose? And someone who is unwise enough to tell his wife to commit suicide in writing, to boot?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @notanon, @nebulafox

    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, but he appears to be a good husband and a decent father.

    “Pierre Delecto” is the sort of fake name married but homosexual men pick for when they go to gay clubs so…

  135. @Twinkie
    @Bill


    The problem with constantly psychopathologizing disagreement with your shibboleths is that it only really works before people notice that you are doing it.
     
    That commenter's shtick is pretty obvious and I got a quick dose of that the first few times I engaged her. These are some of the long-distance amateur psycho comments she wrote in just one thread I linked earlier:

    "You just launched into a emotional reaction."

    "... launch into a battle with your own demons."

    "you need to continue to make me your own demon though…."

    "Your tone is almost adult now. I’ll upgrade you to a B+."

    "You have a number of defence mechanisms against being wrong. Boring autistic download is my least favourite."

    "You’re just entirely incapable of noticing your own emotional impulses..."

    "It is all motivated reasoning directed by an unexamined emotional core. Enjoy your mid-life crisis, whenever it hits."

    "Mid-life crisis is coming soon…check back in if you need help."
     
    During this time she presented zero data or evidence for the assertions she made earlier, despite my best efforts to engage her with numbers. What she does is just transparently juvenile and silly - it's the shtick of someone who doesn't have good arguments and has little to no evidence to back them up. She's a Hasbara Rosie. Just ignore her and move on.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Mario Partisan

    She’s a Hasbara Rosie.

    Read my mind!

  136. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    What I think about the “far right” doesn’t matter.
     
    Your constant straw men portrayals of "the far right" as Hitler-fanboys does matter if you are trying to have honest conversations here - that is, you make it difficult to have them.

    What matters is that the “far right” has a very big image problem. That ain’t my fault.
     
    I didn't blame you for how the media dishonestly portray the right, far or otherwise. I simply blamed you for maligning people unfairly here.

    Probably not. But I’m damned if I can see how the Right can win with those people.
     
    Funny. How did the left win with all sorts of crazy, radical people on their side? As I advised others earlier, you don't build coalitions or electoral strength by playing the ally-disavowal game. Your comments reek of attempting to get the right to disavow parts of itself and weaken itself.

    Why don't you go on and on about how the mainstream left should be disavowing the radical leftists who have seized the agenda of the former?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Funny. How did the left win with all sorts of crazy, radical people on their side?

    The left won by pushing agendas that would attract elite support and media support, and that could be made to sound attractive to ordinary people.

    They also won by disavowing all the things that the elites and the media were never going to support. They won by disavowing all the leftists who were likely to upset the elites and the media. The mainstream left parties disavowed people like the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and the communists and the Trotskyites. They didn’t have to disavow people like the feminists and the homosexual lobby because the elites and the media weren’t bothered by such people because they didn’t consider them to be a threat.

    The left figured out that without elite support and media support they could not win. The left parties have won whenever they had elite and media support (Tony Blair in Britain, Obama and Biden in the US, Hawke in Australia). When they haven’t had elite support and media support (Labour under Jeremy Corbyn in the UK) they’ve lost.

  137. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he’s not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench.
     
    I am not an island. I have a family, an extended clan (my wife's people), friends, organic communities in which I am a member of long standing, and all those other people in my intersecting networks of affiliations and affinities have theirs in turn.

    And that's just all for one man. Now imagine a million or ten million people like me. Their extended social networks contain a huge fraction of the country's population. I don't think a majority of whites would ever support an ethno-state, because there are millions and millions of whites with nonwhite or part-white spouses, children, in-laws, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc.

    The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration - it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.

    And Richard Spencer is a self-serving clown. I'll take him seriously as an advocate for whites and their rights when and if he ever lifts a finger to help ordinary whites in actuality instead of trolling for media attention (and don't get me started on how he apparently treated his ex-wife*).

    *As Anatoly Karlin once wrote sarcastically, "Only the best people."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration – it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.

    I agree with that. A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea. It’s never going to attract any support from any element within the elite or the media and it’s never going to gain traction with ordinary people. If you’re advocating for whites (which is fine) you have to set your sights on something a lot more moderate and a lot more achievable. You don’t have to surrender, just pick a battle that you have a better chance of winning.

    It’s the same with social conservatism. Even if you’d like to return to the mores of the 17th century or the Victorian era or even the 1950s you’re not going to achieve that. But you might have a fighting chance of persuading people that a return to the 80s (before political correctness and feminism and the homosexual agenda got totally out of hand and before pick-up culture gained such a hold) is a good idea.

    Politics is not about what you’d like to achieve. It’s about what you have a reasonable chance of achieving.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea.
     
    Yes, but don't you want one? If you do then, as an idea, it is hardly too extreme.

    You have stumbled into the usual error. Aspirations are being confused with plans. Aspirations come first, then the range of possibilities are considered, and then finally plans are made.

    If you won't even say that you prefer to live chiefly among your own kind then, when the crisis arrives and the hero steps forward to make the pivotal choice, he'll make the choice that moves away from the aspiration rather than toward it. Aspirations matter.


    ... it’s never going to gain traction with ordinary people ...
     
    This is abject defeatism and is simply incorrect, anyway. It already has traction with ordinary people. That is why the idea is censored and suppressed.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

  138. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:

    The HAPA dynamic among young, upper-class Jewish males needs discussion. Without it, the replacement rate among high-SES Jews looks much higher than it is.

    The next generation of Jewish elite men are pairing up with Asian women in record numbers. Between work and college, every Jewish guy I known has ended up with an Asian girl.

    It’s also worth thinking about the offspring from these couples. Based on what I’ve seen, HAPA guys are viewed as high SVM by Asian women, but lower SVM (too short, too quiet) by White women. So it’s reasonable the male line will end up being absorbed into the wider Asian population. The female line will probably pair up with White men, longer-term.

    Demographically, the high SES Jewish population is collapsing quickly. Once beyond Gen-Z, it will likely be gone completely.

    • Replies: @xxxeliss
    @Anon

    most of the jewish men marriying asians are non-orthodox , and they barely have any children, the majority of jewish children in the USA will be orthodox in a few decades

  139. res says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @Twinkie

    I'm glad you spent the hour it likely took to go back and read those comments and collect those quotes. It should help you. I can't imagine any other purpose.

    Replies: @res

    I can’t imagine any other purpose.

    Because you don’t seem to understand the idea of reasoned argument based on evidence. Seems to me that is your problem, not Twinkie’s.

    P.S. For anyone who wants to be taken seriously, your comments here are a master class in how not to be.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    I don't think you realise that evidence need to be relevant.

    I also don't think you know what "taking seriously" means, given that Twinkie spent hours going though my old comments to try to persuade himself that my appraisal of him was wrong.

    I wonder if he knows why he felt compelled to do that?

    Replies: @RSDB, @res

  140. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration – it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.
     
    I agree with that. A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea. It's never going to attract any support from any element within the elite or the media and it's never going to gain traction with ordinary people. If you're advocating for whites (which is fine) you have to set your sights on something a lot more moderate and a lot more achievable. You don't have to surrender, just pick a battle that you have a better chance of winning.

    It's the same with social conservatism. Even if you'd like to return to the mores of the 17th century or the Victorian era or even the 1950s you're not going to achieve that. But you might have a fighting chance of persuading people that a return to the 80s (before political correctness and feminism and the homosexual agenda got totally out of hand and before pick-up culture gained such a hold) is a good idea.

    Politics is not about what you'd like to achieve. It's about what you have a reasonable chance of achieving.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea.

    Yes, but don’t you want one? If you do then, as an idea, it is hardly too extreme.

    You have stumbled into the usual error. Aspirations are being confused with plans. Aspirations come first, then the range of possibilities are considered, and then finally plans are made.

    If you won’t even say that you prefer to live chiefly among your own kind then, when the crisis arrives and the hero steps forward to make the pivotal choice, he’ll make the choice that moves away from the aspiration rather than toward it. Aspirations matter.

    … it’s never going to gain traction with ordinary people …

    This is abject defeatism and is simply incorrect, anyway. It already has traction with ordinary people. That is why the idea is censored and suppressed.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes, but don’t you want one?

    No, and not many people want one.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund



    A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea.
     
    Yes, but don’t you want one?
     
    To be honest I don't really want one. Not because it would be a terrible thing in itself, but because I think the cost would be too high.

    I think the mass immigration of the postwar period (not just in the US but in Canada, Britain, Australia and western Europe) was a catastrophic mistake. I do think that the demographic changes that resulted have been an extremely bad thing.

    And I do think that a halt should be called to any further mass immigration.

    But I think it's now irreversible. The demographic mixes we now have in all western countries are something we'll just have to learn to live with. Any attempt to reverse those demographic changes would come at a cost that I personally think would be unacceptable.

    And I think that most of the immigrants will eventually assimilate, provided that we call a halt to further mass immigration.

    There are some mistakes that can't really be fixed. You just have to learn to deal with the consequences.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  141. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I can’t imagine any other purpose.
     
    Because you don't seem to understand the idea of reasoned argument based on evidence. Seems to me that is your problem, not Twinkie's.

    P.S. For anyone who wants to be taken seriously, your comments here are a master class in how not to be.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I don’t think you realise that evidence need to be relevant.

    I also don’t think you know what “taking seriously” means, given that Twinkie spent hours going though my old comments to try to persuade himself that my appraisal of him was wrong.

    I wonder if he knows why he felt compelled to do that?

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Where did you get the time figure "hours", up from your last estimate of an "hour"?

    When I pulled a selection of choice phrases to quote in this comment it took about a couple of minutes.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    , @res
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Twinkie spent hours
     
    Unlikely. Not sure whether it is more likely that you are exaggerating or just giving an accurate estimate of how long you would need to do it.

    I thought the evidence (along with accompanying argument) was relevant for helping determine how worthwhile it is to listen to you (or respond to your comments for that matter).

    I also don’t think you know what “taking seriously” means
     
    Well, just more evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. Thanks.

    I wonder if he knows why he felt compelled to do that?
     
    You might ponder how that comes across to anyone even the slightest bit aware of rhetorical techniques like that. Hint. It's not the way you hope. You must deal with some pretty stupid people in real life.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  142. @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    I don't think you realise that evidence need to be relevant.

    I also don't think you know what "taking seriously" means, given that Twinkie spent hours going though my old comments to try to persuade himself that my appraisal of him was wrong.

    I wonder if he knows why he felt compelled to do that?

    Replies: @RSDB, @res

    Where did you get the time figure “hours”, up from your last estimate of an “hour”?

    When I pulled a selection of choice phrases to quote in this comment it took about a couple of minutes.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @RSDB

    Maybe you're right. I'm just glad he went back and read my comments. I perceive them as appropriate and accurate in context. I feel they might be to his benefit.

    The other peoples' comments, you linked to, are funny. They seem like they are from a comedy exorcism skit! I understand why you'd bother.

    , @Twinkie
    @RSDB


    Where did you get the time figure “hours”, up from your last estimate of an “hour”?
     
    I spent days doing it! ;)

    I might be a middle-aged Luddite, but even I know how to use ctrl-f and find these idiotic psycho-babble attempts on one page in minutes.

    What’s truly pathetic is that Hasbara Rosie thinks this kind of a “debate tactic” actually works. Her shtick isn’t some humorous satire or even a clever burn. It’s just sad and desperate. Now she follows me around and leaves replies on my comments like a jilted girlfriend even though I stopped engaging her.

    After couple of you helpfully pointed out her antics, I was going to predict her next move, but she beat me to it - flattery (“Oh, ok, ok, now that you are calling me out, you guys are great, I just use these tactics against stupid people, not you”).

    It’s just so much a junior high school girl’s idea of “winning” a debate.
  143. @RSDB
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Where did you get the time figure "hours", up from your last estimate of an "hour"?

    When I pulled a selection of choice phrases to quote in this comment it took about a couple of minutes.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    Maybe you’re right. I’m just glad he went back and read my comments. I perceive them as appropriate and accurate in context. I feel they might be to his benefit.

    The other peoples’ comments, you linked to, are funny. They seem like they are from a comedy exorcism skit! I understand why you’d bother.

    • LOL: RSDB
  144. res says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    I don't think you realise that evidence need to be relevant.

    I also don't think you know what "taking seriously" means, given that Twinkie spent hours going though my old comments to try to persuade himself that my appraisal of him was wrong.

    I wonder if he knows why he felt compelled to do that?

    Replies: @RSDB, @res

    Twinkie spent hours

    Unlikely. Not sure whether it is more likely that you are exaggerating or just giving an accurate estimate of how long you would need to do it.

    I thought the evidence (along with accompanying argument) was relevant for helping determine how worthwhile it is to listen to you (or respond to your comments for that matter).

    I also don’t think you know what “taking seriously” means

    Well, just more evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about. Thanks.

    I wonder if he knows why he felt compelled to do that?

    You might ponder how that comes across to anyone even the slightest bit aware of rhetorical techniques like that. Hint. It’s not the way you hope. You must deal with some pretty stupid people in real life.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    It wasn't rhetorical, but, looking through your comment history, it is not the sort of observation which I think you would understand. We can disagree on that, but you know my position.

    Your previous comments are meticulous, impersonal and well-reasoned. A lot of people on the internet, who think they have Asperger's, because they think they are wholly rational, are actually just narcissistic and a bit emotionally repressed. They don't make points like you do. They just think they make points like you do. It is not hard to see the difference.

    I find those others stupid, but I think you're great, and I don't need it to be mutual.

    Replies: @res

  145. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Twinkie spent hours
     
    Unlikely. Not sure whether it is more likely that you are exaggerating or just giving an accurate estimate of how long you would need to do it.

    I thought the evidence (along with accompanying argument) was relevant for helping determine how worthwhile it is to listen to you (or respond to your comments for that matter).

    I also don’t think you know what “taking seriously” means
     
    Well, just more evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. Thanks.

    I wonder if he knows why he felt compelled to do that?
     
    You might ponder how that comes across to anyone even the slightest bit aware of rhetorical techniques like that. Hint. It's not the way you hope. You must deal with some pretty stupid people in real life.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    It wasn’t rhetorical, but, looking through your comment history, it is not the sort of observation which I think you would understand. We can disagree on that, but you know my position.

    Your previous comments are meticulous, impersonal and well-reasoned. A lot of people on the internet, who think they have Asperger’s, because they think they are wholly rational, are actually just narcissistic and a bit emotionally repressed. They don’t make points like you do. They just think they make points like you do. It is not hard to see the difference.

    I find those others stupid, but I think you’re great, and I don’t need it to be mutual.

    • Replies: @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Fascinating. The internet shrink routine comes off as more than a bit passive aggressive, you know.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  146. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Except one point: let us please hold Richard Spencer, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump to the same standard when it comes to wives.
     
    Mitt Romney is an oligarchic, spineless pol, but he appears to be a good husband and a decent father. I prefer Trumpism to liberal Republicanism to say the least, but Trump is clearly an inveterate womanizer and no role model for my sons. As for Spencer, what can you say about a man who threatens to break his wife’s nose? And someone who is unwise enough to tell his wife to commit suicide in writing, to boot?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @notanon, @nebulafox

    Agreed, though as we know and the MSM still doesn’t, most people who voted for Trump did so in spite of his ethics (business and personal alike), not because of them. Trump’s JFK/Clinton-esque sexual life had been the stuff of New York tabloid legend since the 1980s, and wasn’t ever really something he tried to hide.

    To be fair to Trump, though, there’s no evidence to suggest that he was a crappy father, jokes in considerably bad taste aside*. If anything, he was too indulgent of Ivanka rather than uncaring. How else can you explain Jared Kushner’s nepotistic, baleful career in the White House?

    * There was this classic from 2006 on whether Ivanka could pose in Playboy. You ask me, that’s the kind of question about your daughter that should elicit a immediate walkout on the reporter, if not a direct punch to the face.

    Trump: “It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what’s inside the magazine. I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

    Ivanka’s reply after the interview: “If he weren’t my father, I would have sprayed him with mace.”

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @nebulafox

    Trump's children seem to really like hanging out with him, and his ex-wives seem positive on him, apart from when in divorce proceedings.

  147. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    Agreed, though as we know and the MSM still doesn't, most people who voted for Trump did so in spite of his ethics (business and personal alike), not because of them. Trump's JFK/Clinton-esque sexual life had been the stuff of New York tabloid legend since the 1980s, and wasn't ever really something he tried to hide.

    To be fair to Trump, though, there's no evidence to suggest that he was a crappy father, jokes in considerably bad taste aside*. If anything, he was too indulgent of Ivanka rather than uncaring. How else can you explain Jared Kushner's nepotistic, baleful career in the White House?

    * There was this classic from 2006 on whether Ivanka could pose in Playboy. You ask me, that's the kind of question about your daughter that should elicit a immediate walkout on the reporter, if not a direct punch to the face.

    Trump: “It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what’s inside the magazine. I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

    Ivanka's reply after the interview: "If he weren't my father, I would have sprayed him with mace."

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Trump’s children seem to really like hanging out with him, and his ex-wives seem positive on him, apart from when in divorce proceedings.

  148. @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    No one is arguing that Israel doesn’t have a powerful lobby in the US.

    Sure about that? Maybe you should communicate with the person who poasted this comment:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/jewishness-will-become-problematic/#comment-4718625


    You can’t see how contradictory it is to think that Jews control America and Jews can’t even absorb the West Bank in 80 years?
     

    And if “Jewish power”, of the sort that is alleged on Unz.com, is obvious to everyone who is not blind, then how come the only people who can “see” it, are random internet oddballs, whose sense of sight, in their every day lives, must be close to zero?
     
    Just a suggestion.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    A powerful lobby and “control of America” are not the same thing. There are many powerful lobbies in the US.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AIPAC-conference-scaled.jpeg

  149. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Priss Factor


    Indeed, think of how much thing could change if people named the Jew.
     
    Unfortunately, it took me literally decades to figure this out.

    Perplexingly, I rather like the Jews I know on an individual basis—nor is this a mere sign of tolerance on my part, for several Jews I know have treated me with significant individual kindness—so for the first 50 years of my life I'd accept any rationalization to afford Jewry the benefit of the doubt. I finally ran out of excuses, though. You are exactly and precisely right.

    (A123 wants me to say, “élite Jews.” I am not really sure how that helps, but I'll say it if he likes.)

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

    “so for the first 50 years of my life I’d accept any rationalization to afford Jewry the benefit of the doubt.”

    I find this perspective fascinating, in light of American teens and those in their 20’s who do not harbor the same wariness and animosity toward Jews (and even Boomers, for that matter). It’s really more a Generation X or Silent Generation propensity to have those attitudes.

    But I suppose we can always hope that young people will “grow up”, realize they were being propagandized by Jewish elites, and become as disillusioned and angry as some of the posters here on this fine opinion webzine.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    But I suppose we can always hope that young people will “grow up”, realize they were being propagandized by Jewish elites, and become as disillusioned and angry as some of the posters here on this fine opinion webzine.
     
    Yes, I second your emotion. Nevertheless, my chief hope is that some moderate social pressure can be brought to bear on Jewry. I suspect that Jewish behavior would markedly improve if that were done. Moreover, since Jewry have brought massive social pressure to bear on me, moderate social pressure in return seems a fair turnabout, at least from my perspective.

    Like Richard Spencer, I believe that history is a slaughterbench, but I don't really have any grand plans for history. I do not think that history works that way. What I want is a decent, moderate, unpretentious, fair-minded, modest society, and once I get it, I want to keep it as long as history will allow.

    However, since matters have been framed such that any sign of resistance on your part and mine is “white supremacy,” then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Corvinus

  150. @jacobs-adder
    jews network like every other ethnic group....

    When white people try and do the same, we are labelled 'Hitler Fan Boys' or 'White Supremacists'.

    I really dont think most people on this site are stupid enough to actually believe in removing the vote from women, they are just tired of how easily manipulated certain groups are by the media into believing false narratives regarding topics like black crime, white domestic terror, cover, trans and gay rights etc. Its just 'Overton Window' style backlash to try and return to a place before 'Cancel Culture', 'Wokeness' and SJW's performing sickening acts of 'Virtue Signalling'.

    Most people are completely unaware of how political lobbying and media ownership tie in with the big money behind it pushing for targeted political and social agendas. They just think trans rights have evolved naturally and its the most important thing in our society because the media tells us so and the law enforces it via politics. This is true of every liberal agenda, people on this site are opposed to. We are just aware of how contrived it is, and how dangerous it is for our children and our countries future.

    Racism is actually a conflict of behavioural issues and cultures. It is not simply the colour of someones skin. I hope most people on this site are open enough to judge people by their character and how they treat others in society. What do they contribute? This is what being 'Conservative' means to me, the conservation of traditional values that have allowed Europen Civilisation to flourish and provided the world with so much that it now, takes for granted.

    It feels like logic and common sense are now prosecutable 'thought crimes' under this insane Neo -liberal mafia that controls our communications.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @jacobs-adder

    “Most people are completely unaware of how political lobbying and media ownership tie in with the big money behind it pushing for targeted political and social agendas.”

    I would say you are underestimating the number of people who have arrived at their own decisions about race and culture, that they are cognizant of those factors you listed when arriving at those conclusions.

  151. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea.
     
    Yes, but don't you want one? If you do then, as an idea, it is hardly too extreme.

    You have stumbled into the usual error. Aspirations are being confused with plans. Aspirations come first, then the range of possibilities are considered, and then finally plans are made.

    If you won't even say that you prefer to live chiefly among your own kind then, when the crisis arrives and the hero steps forward to make the pivotal choice, he'll make the choice that moves away from the aspiration rather than toward it. Aspirations matter.


    ... it’s never going to gain traction with ordinary people ...
     
    This is abject defeatism and is simply incorrect, anyway. It already has traction with ordinary people. That is why the idea is censored and suppressed.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    Yes, but don’t you want one?

    No, and not many people want one.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    No, and not many people want one.

    When Somalis move in next door, you might change your mind.

  152. @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    A powerful lobby and "control of America" are not the same thing. There are many powerful lobbies in the US.

    Replies: @anon

  153. @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "so for the first 50 years of my life I’d accept any rationalization to afford Jewry the benefit of the doubt."

    I find this perspective fascinating, in light of American teens and those in their 20's who do not harbor the same wariness and animosity toward Jews (and even Boomers, for that matter). It's really more a Generation X or Silent Generation propensity to have those attitudes.

    But I suppose we can always hope that young people will "grow up", realize they were being propagandized by Jewish elites, and become as disillusioned and angry as some of the posters here on this fine opinion webzine.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    But I suppose we can always hope that young people will “grow up”, realize they were being propagandized by Jewish elites, and become as disillusioned and angry as some of the posters here on this fine opinion webzine.

    Yes, I second your emotion. Nevertheless, my chief hope is that some moderate social pressure can be brought to bear on Jewry. I suspect that Jewish behavior would markedly improve if that were done. Moreover, since Jewry have brought massive social pressure to bear on me, moderate social pressure in return seems a fair turnabout, at least from my perspective.

    Like Richard Spencer, I believe that history is a slaughterbench, but I don’t really have any grand plans for history. I do not think that history works that way. What I want is a decent, moderate, unpretentious, fair-minded, modest society, and once I get it, I want to keep it as long as history will allow.

    However, since matters have been framed such that any sign of resistance on your part and mine is “white supremacy,” then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!
     
    That’s exactly what the Wall Street-Americans want. That makes it easy to demonize opposition to them as dirty, evil racism/anti-Semitism.

    Remember that you and I are insurgents. Our goal should be - foremost - to survive and then expose the oppressors as malevolently tyrannical and capriciously unreasonable, so that the population turns sympathetic to our dissent and then becomes the vast sea, in which we can swim as fish (to paraphrase Mao).

    Falling into the script written by our opponents and becoming cartoon villains is exactly what they want. Don’t do it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund, @Corvinus

    , @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "Yes, I second your emotion. Nevertheless, my chief hope is that some moderate social pressure can be brought to bear on Jewry. I suspect that Jewish behavior would markedly improve if that were done. Moreover, since Jewry have brought massive social pressure to bear on me, moderate social pressure in return seems a fair turnabout, at least from my perspective."

    Assuming that Jews are the primary factor for our current predicaments, however you define them. Moreover, my comment about "young people growing up", well, I was being sarcastic. Young people today are very much capable of making their own decisions when it comes to race and culture, and they will be contrary to your own preferences.

    "What I want is a decent, moderate, unpretentious, fair-minded, modest society, and once I get it, I want to keep it as long as history will allow."

    You do realize your "enemies"--whomever you personally believe them to be--also want those things as well?

    "However, since matters have been framed such that any sign of resistance on your part and mine is “white supremacy,” then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!"

    But you're not even to personally go down that road, especially when the situation is so dire, so why even mention it? It makes you look foolish.

    "In my country, when it comes to blacks, we need some form of resegregation, too. This need is just too blatantly obvious to ignore. The details could be negotiated with blacks if blacks were negotiation-capable."

    You are offering a completely unrealistic course of action.

  154. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    But I suppose we can always hope that young people will “grow up”, realize they were being propagandized by Jewish elites, and become as disillusioned and angry as some of the posters here on this fine opinion webzine.
     
    Yes, I second your emotion. Nevertheless, my chief hope is that some moderate social pressure can be brought to bear on Jewry. I suspect that Jewish behavior would markedly improve if that were done. Moreover, since Jewry have brought massive social pressure to bear on me, moderate social pressure in return seems a fair turnabout, at least from my perspective.

    Like Richard Spencer, I believe that history is a slaughterbench, but I don't really have any grand plans for history. I do not think that history works that way. What I want is a decent, moderate, unpretentious, fair-minded, modest society, and once I get it, I want to keep it as long as history will allow.

    However, since matters have been framed such that any sign of resistance on your part and mine is “white supremacy,” then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Corvinus

    then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!

    That’s exactly what the Wall Street-Americans want. That makes it easy to demonize opposition to them as dirty, evil racism/anti-Semitism.

    Remember that you and I are insurgents. Our goal should be – foremost – to survive and then expose the oppressors as malevolently tyrannical and capriciously unreasonable, so that the population turns sympathetic to our dissent and then becomes the vast sea, in which we can swim as fish (to paraphrase Mao).

    Falling into the script written by our opponents and becoming cartoon villains is exactly what they want. Don’t do it.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Falling into the script written by our opponents and becoming cartoon villains is exactly what they want. Don’t do it.
     
    I like your alternative even better. However, when viciously and surreptitiously assaulted, I get onery. I have only contempt for our opponents' script, which is good for nothing but toilet paper.

    I'll take any honorable, decent, honest, reasonably fair alternative I can get. I prefer your alternative. I will not however play optics games. I refuse.

    Call me a Nazi, and I'm a Nazi. Let me be a patriot, and I'm a patriot.

    As far as being a villain is concerned, everyone who has the slightest acquaintance with me knows I am no villain. Normal people aren't generally that stupid. In fact, it's the really intelligent ones of whom you and Wency have spoken that give me grief. I obediently played their game for ten years and it wasn't good enough for them, so I have learned my lesson.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    After posting the foregoing, what I really should have said occurred to me:

    I do not think that trying to avoid our opponents' insults, labels and narratives works. The attempt not only fails but also affords our opponents a control with which to manipulate us. Their propaganda lies beyond our influence. You and I need to accept that.

    Just do what you do, rather. That is the right motive. Proper optics means brushing one's teeth, standing up straight and speaking clearly. If your optics instead involve dodging a narrative in a opposition-controlled script, then you're already on the losing side.

    Would your son take the mat if he knew that the referee had rigged the pairing against him?

    Sometimes, the only way to win is to refuse to participate.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Corvinus
    @Twinkie

    "Remember that you and I are insurgents. Our goal should be – foremost – to survive and then expose the oppressors as malevolently tyrannical and capriciously unreasonable, so that the population turns sympathetic to our dissent..."

    Take your own advice--be reasoned and factual about it [criticizing your "enemies"] instead of being gratuitous.

  155. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!
     
    That’s exactly what the Wall Street-Americans want. That makes it easy to demonize opposition to them as dirty, evil racism/anti-Semitism.

    Remember that you and I are insurgents. Our goal should be - foremost - to survive and then expose the oppressors as malevolently tyrannical and capriciously unreasonable, so that the population turns sympathetic to our dissent and then becomes the vast sea, in which we can swim as fish (to paraphrase Mao).

    Falling into the script written by our opponents and becoming cartoon villains is exactly what they want. Don’t do it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund, @Corvinus

    Falling into the script written by our opponents and becoming cartoon villains is exactly what they want. Don’t do it.

    I like your alternative even better. However, when viciously and surreptitiously assaulted, I get onery. I have only contempt for our opponents’ script, which is good for nothing but toilet paper.

    I’ll take any honorable, decent, honest, reasonably fair alternative I can get. I prefer your alternative. I will not however play optics games. I refuse.

    Call me a Nazi, and I’m a Nazi. Let me be a patriot, and I’m a patriot.

    As far as being a villain is concerned, everyone who has the slightest acquaintance with me knows I am no villain. Normal people aren’t generally that stupid. In fact, it’s the really intelligent ones of whom you and Wency have spoken that give me grief. I obediently played their game for ten years and it wasn’t good enough for them, so I have learned my lesson.

  156. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!
     
    That’s exactly what the Wall Street-Americans want. That makes it easy to demonize opposition to them as dirty, evil racism/anti-Semitism.

    Remember that you and I are insurgents. Our goal should be - foremost - to survive and then expose the oppressors as malevolently tyrannical and capriciously unreasonable, so that the population turns sympathetic to our dissent and then becomes the vast sea, in which we can swim as fish (to paraphrase Mao).

    Falling into the script written by our opponents and becoming cartoon villains is exactly what they want. Don’t do it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund, @Corvinus

    After posting the foregoing, what I really should have said occurred to me:

    I do not think that trying to avoid our opponents’ insults, labels and narratives works. The attempt not only fails but also affords our opponents a control with which to manipulate us. Their propaganda lies beyond our influence. You and I need to accept that.

    Just do what you do, rather. That is the right motive. Proper optics means brushing one’s teeth, standing up straight and speaking clearly. If your optics instead involve dodging a narrative in a opposition-controlled script, then you’re already on the losing side.

    Would your son take the mat if he knew that the referee had rigged the pairing against him?

    Sometimes, the only way to win is to refuse to participate.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    If your optics instead involve dodging a narrative in a opposition-controlled script, then you’re already on the losing side.
     
    Insurgents have to pick their battles. They can't die on every hill.

    Would your son take the mat if he knew that the referee had rigged the pairing against him?
     
    This situation happened once. Early on in my eldest son's Jiujitsu career, we went to a tournament with a less than stellar reputation. The gossip was that it was run by this one group of schools and that they often played games with seeds and weights to advantage their own participants.

    Back then, I was still trying to get my eldest boy as much competition experience as possible, so I ignored all that and brought him anyway. Well, those rumors were correct, because they put my boy with a kid at least half a foot taller and 25 lbs. heavier. That first match was a grueling, very gritty and physical match and my son won it after a tough slog. The first two times he threw the other kid, the ref (also from the hosting school) kept disallowing the points (and kept re-setting the match). The third time was so obvious - the big kid was thrown cleanly over his head - that he gave the points. In the final match, my son crushed reputedly the best kid in his weight class from the hosting school (he took him down and strangled him within a couple of minutes) and won gold. Some of the coaches and competitors from other schools who saw the match and came by to congratulate us. One of them said very loudly (presumably so that everyone can hear), "That was a really unfair matchup your boy had to go through. But you know what? He is a WARRIOR."

    As much as that made me extremely proud, we never went back to that tournament and picked entries carefully from that point on. He went on to smash every competitor from that school he's has run into since, at tournaments that are better- and fairly-run. I learned my lesson (I was pretty upset at myself that I put that on my son).

    Nonetheless, one of the things I have always emphasized with my children is that champions don't complain. Champions win even when the ref makes bad calls. Champions win even if they unluckily slip on a banana peel. Real champions have to overcome all sorts of unfair vagaries of life - because there is no such thing as a perfectly level playing field - and still win. I've told my kiddos that someone who can only win under the most ideal circumstances isn't a real champion and won't stay one for long even if he got lucky once and won.

    Sometimes, the only way to win is to refuse to participate.
     
    I agree. But putting on a "Hitler armband," because your opponents want to paint you as a Nazi is most certainly not refusing to play along. It is exactly playing along to their tune. And you can't play along - "I'll give them what they want, in spades!" - just because you are angry.

    Trust me when I say this: sometimes when I watch the news or see egregious behaviors of leftist radicals in person, I get a certain look that my wife instantly recognizes. She knows what's going on in my brain - she gets right away that I'm thinking, "These evil MoFo bastards, one day... ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!" (She jokingly calls them my "Jawohl, mein Kommandant" moments.)

    I get very angry too. But fighting angry is almost never good.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

  157. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes, but don’t you want one?

    No, and not many people want one.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    No, and not many people want one.

    When Somalis move in next door, you might change your mind.

  158. @RSDB
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Where did you get the time figure "hours", up from your last estimate of an "hour"?

    When I pulled a selection of choice phrases to quote in this comment it took about a couple of minutes.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Twinkie

    Where did you get the time figure “hours”, up from your last estimate of an “hour”?

    I spent days doing it! 😉

    I might be a middle-aged Luddite, but even I know how to use ctrl-f and find these idiotic psycho-babble attempts on one page in minutes.

    What’s truly pathetic is that Hasbara Rosie thinks this kind of a “debate tactic” actually works. Her shtick isn’t some humorous satire or even a clever burn. It’s just sad and desperate. Now she follows me around and leaves replies on my comments like a jilted girlfriend even though I stopped engaging her.

    After couple of you helpfully pointed out her antics, I was going to predict her next move, but she beat me to it – flattery (“Oh, ok, ok, now that you are calling me out, you guys are great, I just use these tactics against stupid people, not you”).

    It’s just so much a junior high school girl’s idea of “winning” a debate.

  159. @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    It wasn't rhetorical, but, looking through your comment history, it is not the sort of observation which I think you would understand. We can disagree on that, but you know my position.

    Your previous comments are meticulous, impersonal and well-reasoned. A lot of people on the internet, who think they have Asperger's, because they think they are wholly rational, are actually just narcissistic and a bit emotionally repressed. They don't make points like you do. They just think they make points like you do. It is not hard to see the difference.

    I find those others stupid, but I think you're great, and I don't need it to be mutual.

    Replies: @res

    Fascinating. The internet shrink routine comes off as more than a bit passive aggressive, you know.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    You might look back and see that the negative part of what I was doing, was only in response to them trying to pass their negative energy off onto me. I don't think that returning what is theirs, with added analysis, is either passive or aggressive.

    I could just mirror them and screech projected nonsense back in their direction, but I would feel terrible doing that.

    Or, I could ignore them, which I usually do; but sometimes I prefer to reframe their incontinency, to see if they can recognise themselves, and also to test as to what works to help and understand their way of being. It is an experiment.

    I don't think there is any harm in it, and there may be some good. I could be far more provocative, but then they would freak out and be unable to read my comments. I feel I have found the right balance on the whole.

    If it comes across badly to an observer l, like you, so motivated as to mention it, I am happy to explain, but otherwise I don't care much. How strangers perceive me, especially an anonymous handle which I use, is of very little consequence. My actions are those that are generally congruent with myself.

  160. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    After posting the foregoing, what I really should have said occurred to me:

    I do not think that trying to avoid our opponents' insults, labels and narratives works. The attempt not only fails but also affords our opponents a control with which to manipulate us. Their propaganda lies beyond our influence. You and I need to accept that.

    Just do what you do, rather. That is the right motive. Proper optics means brushing one's teeth, standing up straight and speaking clearly. If your optics instead involve dodging a narrative in a opposition-controlled script, then you're already on the losing side.

    Would your son take the mat if he knew that the referee had rigged the pairing against him?

    Sometimes, the only way to win is to refuse to participate.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    If your optics instead involve dodging a narrative in a opposition-controlled script, then you’re already on the losing side.

    Insurgents have to pick their battles. They can’t die on every hill.

    Would your son take the mat if he knew that the referee had rigged the pairing against him?

    This situation happened once. Early on in my eldest son’s Jiujitsu career, we went to a tournament with a less than stellar reputation. The gossip was that it was run by this one group of schools and that they often played games with seeds and weights to advantage their own participants.

    Back then, I was still trying to get my eldest boy as much competition experience as possible, so I ignored all that and brought him anyway. Well, those rumors were correct, because they put my boy with a kid at least half a foot taller and 25 lbs. heavier. That first match was a grueling, very gritty and physical match and my son won it after a tough slog. The first two times he threw the other kid, the ref (also from the hosting school) kept disallowing the points (and kept re-setting the match). The third time was so obvious – the big kid was thrown cleanly over his head – that he gave the points. In the final match, my son crushed reputedly the best kid in his weight class from the hosting school (he took him down and strangled him within a couple of minutes) and won gold. Some of the coaches and competitors from other schools who saw the match and came by to congratulate us. One of them said very loudly (presumably so that everyone can hear), “That was a really unfair matchup your boy had to go through. But you know what? He is a WARRIOR.”

    As much as that made me extremely proud, we never went back to that tournament and picked entries carefully from that point on. He went on to smash every competitor from that school he’s has run into since, at tournaments that are better- and fairly-run. I learned my lesson (I was pretty upset at myself that I put that on my son).

    Nonetheless, one of the things I have always emphasized with my children is that champions don’t complain. Champions win even when the ref makes bad calls. Champions win even if they unluckily slip on a banana peel. Real champions have to overcome all sorts of unfair vagaries of life – because there is no such thing as a perfectly level playing field – and still win. I’ve told my kiddos that someone who can only win under the most ideal circumstances isn’t a real champion and won’t stay one for long even if he got lucky once and won.

    Sometimes, the only way to win is to refuse to participate.

    I agree. But putting on a “Hitler armband,” because your opponents want to paint you as a Nazi is most certainly not refusing to play along. It is exactly playing along to their tune. And you can’t play along – “I’ll give them what they want, in spades!” – just because you are angry.

    Trust me when I say this: sometimes when I watch the news or see egregious behaviors of leftist radicals in person, I get a certain look that my wife instantly recognizes. She knows what’s going on in my brain – she gets right away that I’m thinking, “These evil MoFo bastards, one day… ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!” (She jokingly calls them my “Jawohl, mein Kommandant” moments.)

    I get very angry too. But fighting angry is almost never good.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    I agree. But putting on a “Hitler armband,” because your opponents want to paint you as a Nazi is most certainly not refusing to play along. It is exactly playing along to their tune.
     
    It's not a good idea to walk into obvious traps that your opponents have laid for you.

    Say you're a leftist and somebody says to you, "Hey, you're a leftist, that must mean that you idolise Stalin and you want to murder all your political opponents." It would be a serious tactical error to reply, "Yes, absolutely. I want to liquidate everybody who isn't a leftist."

    Or say you're a Christian and somebody says to you, "Hey, you're a Christian, that must mean that you want to burn witches." It would be a major tactical error to reply, "Yes, absolutely. We need to revive witch-burning right now."

    They're both very obvious traps.

    But there are dissident rightists/white nationalists who do walk straight into such obvious traps.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    As much as that made me extremely proud, ...
     
    It's quite a tale, regarding quite an achievement. Thanks for telling it. Your son ought to remember that the rest of his life.

    ... one day… ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!
     
    Judging by the MAGA-tier subscribers' comments at The Epoch Times, you are not the only American who is starting to think like this.

    The MAGA-tier subscribers are just shooting their mouths off, of course, but the sentiment for violent resistance is nevertheless slowly building.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Twinkie

  161. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea.
     
    Yes, but don't you want one? If you do then, as an idea, it is hardly too extreme.

    You have stumbled into the usual error. Aspirations are being confused with plans. Aspirations come first, then the range of possibilities are considered, and then finally plans are made.

    If you won't even say that you prefer to live chiefly among your own kind then, when the crisis arrives and the hero steps forward to make the pivotal choice, he'll make the choice that moves away from the aspiration rather than toward it. Aspirations matter.


    ... it’s never going to gain traction with ordinary people ...
     
    This is abject defeatism and is simply incorrect, anyway. It already has traction with ordinary people. That is why the idea is censored and suppressed.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea.

    Yes, but don’t you want one?

    To be honest I don’t really want one. Not because it would be a terrible thing in itself, but because I think the cost would be too high.

    I think the mass immigration of the postwar period (not just in the US but in Canada, Britain, Australia and western Europe) was a catastrophic mistake. I do think that the demographic changes that resulted have been an extremely bad thing.

    And I do think that a halt should be called to any further mass immigration.

    But I think it’s now irreversible. The demographic mixes we now have in all western countries are something we’ll just have to learn to live with. Any attempt to reverse those demographic changes would come at a cost that I personally think would be unacceptable.

    And I think that most of the immigrants will eventually assimilate, provided that we call a halt to further mass immigration.

    There are some mistakes that can’t really be fixed. You just have to learn to deal with the consequences.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    To be honest I don’t really want one. Not because it would be a terrible thing in itself, but because I think the cost would be too high.
     
    For all my brave talk, in truth, I completely agree with this. However, it frustrates me when my affluent countrymen pretend to be antiracist while they arrange to dwell within the country in expensive, exclusive places in which they do not have to deal with the baleful effects of race.

    Hundreds of thousands of my less affluent countrymen have had most of their home equity wiped out, and have been forced by criminal violence to sell for pennies on the dollar and to buy new houses elsewhere, because the more affluent—rather than protecting the vital interests of the less affluent—prefer to lecture the less affluent regarding racism. They prefer hideous moral posturing to genuine compassion for their own countrymen. Practically no one with power seems to care.

    Inexcusable.


    And I do think that a halt should be called to any further mass immigration.
     
    In my country, when it comes to blacks, we need some form of resegregation, too. This need is just too blatantly obvious to ignore.

    The details could be negotiated with blacks if blacks were negotiation-capable, but in their present, giddy, furious state, one doubts that black are negotiation-capable. Instead, the details will probably have to be negotiated with Mexican-Americans and others impacted by black chaos, and then imposed by fiat.


    And I think that most of the immigrants will eventually assimilate, provided that we call a halt to further mass immigration.
     
    Oddly enough, even in the United States, I suspect that this might still work.

    It’s not a good idea to walk into obvious traps that your opponents have laid for you.
     
    I am going to spring the traps and kick them over, every time. Enjoy the show.
  162. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    If your optics instead involve dodging a narrative in a opposition-controlled script, then you’re already on the losing side.
     
    Insurgents have to pick their battles. They can't die on every hill.

    Would your son take the mat if he knew that the referee had rigged the pairing against him?
     
    This situation happened once. Early on in my eldest son's Jiujitsu career, we went to a tournament with a less than stellar reputation. The gossip was that it was run by this one group of schools and that they often played games with seeds and weights to advantage their own participants.

    Back then, I was still trying to get my eldest boy as much competition experience as possible, so I ignored all that and brought him anyway. Well, those rumors were correct, because they put my boy with a kid at least half a foot taller and 25 lbs. heavier. That first match was a grueling, very gritty and physical match and my son won it after a tough slog. The first two times he threw the other kid, the ref (also from the hosting school) kept disallowing the points (and kept re-setting the match). The third time was so obvious - the big kid was thrown cleanly over his head - that he gave the points. In the final match, my son crushed reputedly the best kid in his weight class from the hosting school (he took him down and strangled him within a couple of minutes) and won gold. Some of the coaches and competitors from other schools who saw the match and came by to congratulate us. One of them said very loudly (presumably so that everyone can hear), "That was a really unfair matchup your boy had to go through. But you know what? He is a WARRIOR."

    As much as that made me extremely proud, we never went back to that tournament and picked entries carefully from that point on. He went on to smash every competitor from that school he's has run into since, at tournaments that are better- and fairly-run. I learned my lesson (I was pretty upset at myself that I put that on my son).

    Nonetheless, one of the things I have always emphasized with my children is that champions don't complain. Champions win even when the ref makes bad calls. Champions win even if they unluckily slip on a banana peel. Real champions have to overcome all sorts of unfair vagaries of life - because there is no such thing as a perfectly level playing field - and still win. I've told my kiddos that someone who can only win under the most ideal circumstances isn't a real champion and won't stay one for long even if he got lucky once and won.

    Sometimes, the only way to win is to refuse to participate.
     
    I agree. But putting on a "Hitler armband," because your opponents want to paint you as a Nazi is most certainly not refusing to play along. It is exactly playing along to their tune. And you can't play along - "I'll give them what they want, in spades!" - just because you are angry.

    Trust me when I say this: sometimes when I watch the news or see egregious behaviors of leftist radicals in person, I get a certain look that my wife instantly recognizes. She knows what's going on in my brain - she gets right away that I'm thinking, "These evil MoFo bastards, one day... ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!" (She jokingly calls them my "Jawohl, mein Kommandant" moments.)

    I get very angry too. But fighting angry is almost never good.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    I agree. But putting on a “Hitler armband,” because your opponents want to paint you as a Nazi is most certainly not refusing to play along. It is exactly playing along to their tune.

    It’s not a good idea to walk into obvious traps that your opponents have laid for you.

    Say you’re a leftist and somebody says to you, “Hey, you’re a leftist, that must mean that you idolise Stalin and you want to murder all your political opponents.” It would be a serious tactical error to reply, “Yes, absolutely. I want to liquidate everybody who isn’t a leftist.”

    Or say you’re a Christian and somebody says to you, “Hey, you’re a Christian, that must mean that you want to burn witches.” It would be a major tactical error to reply, “Yes, absolutely. We need to revive witch-burning right now.”

    They’re both very obvious traps.

    But there are dissident rightists/white nationalists who do walk straight into such obvious traps.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    They’re both very obvious traps.
     
    You know, your first example would have sufficed, but you just couldn't help yourself, could you?

    There are lots of radical leftists who indeed want to liquidate non-leftists. I don't think there is any Christian who wants to burn witches (or anyone else, for that matter). Maybe a tiny, miniscule lot of deranged people who call themselves Christians, maybe.

    Really, and pretty please, I'd take you much more seriously as a reasoned, good-faith left-leaning interlocutor if you could just spare me of your reflexive anti-Americanism, anti-conservatism, and anti-Christianism.

    I am NOT saying you can't criticize America, conservatives, or Christians. Just be reasoned and factual about it instead of being gratuitous.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  163. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    I agree. But putting on a “Hitler armband,” because your opponents want to paint you as a Nazi is most certainly not refusing to play along. It is exactly playing along to their tune.
     
    It's not a good idea to walk into obvious traps that your opponents have laid for you.

    Say you're a leftist and somebody says to you, "Hey, you're a leftist, that must mean that you idolise Stalin and you want to murder all your political opponents." It would be a serious tactical error to reply, "Yes, absolutely. I want to liquidate everybody who isn't a leftist."

    Or say you're a Christian and somebody says to you, "Hey, you're a Christian, that must mean that you want to burn witches." It would be a major tactical error to reply, "Yes, absolutely. We need to revive witch-burning right now."

    They're both very obvious traps.

    But there are dissident rightists/white nationalists who do walk straight into such obvious traps.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    They’re both very obvious traps.

    You know, your first example would have sufficed, but you just couldn’t help yourself, could you?

    There are lots of radical leftists who indeed want to liquidate non-leftists. I don’t think there is any Christian who wants to burn witches (or anyone else, for that matter). Maybe a tiny, miniscule lot of deranged people who call themselves Christians, maybe.

    Really, and pretty please, I’d take you much more seriously as a reasoned, good-faith left-leaning interlocutor if you could just spare me of your reflexive anti-Americanism, anti-conservatism, and anti-Christianism.

    I am NOT saying you can’t criticize America, conservatives, or Christians. Just be reasoned and factual about it instead of being gratuitous.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    You know, your first example would have sufficed, but you just couldn’t help yourself, could you?
     
    You have in this case entirely misunderstood what I was saying. I used the Christian example because it was an example of a very obvious trap based on an accusation that is clearly absurd. An obvious trap based on a ridiculous caricature of Christians as witch-burners. In that example it would be blindingly obvious that no Christian would be dumb enough or insane enough to fall into such a trap.

    And yet there are dissident rightists who walk right into traps that are just as obvious, traps based on accusations and caricatures that are equally absurd.

    That's the point I was trying to make.

    You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Christians on my part. You also have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Americans on my part. You need to work on that. Sometimes you seriously over-react or fall into the very obvious trap of immediately assuming that such remarks are intended to be spiteful. In this case I can assure you that I had no such intention. I merely used Christians as an example because they're a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  164. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    They’re both very obvious traps.
     
    You know, your first example would have sufficed, but you just couldn't help yourself, could you?

    There are lots of radical leftists who indeed want to liquidate non-leftists. I don't think there is any Christian who wants to burn witches (or anyone else, for that matter). Maybe a tiny, miniscule lot of deranged people who call themselves Christians, maybe.

    Really, and pretty please, I'd take you much more seriously as a reasoned, good-faith left-leaning interlocutor if you could just spare me of your reflexive anti-Americanism, anti-conservatism, and anti-Christianism.

    I am NOT saying you can't criticize America, conservatives, or Christians. Just be reasoned and factual about it instead of being gratuitous.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You know, your first example would have sufficed, but you just couldn’t help yourself, could you?

    You have in this case entirely misunderstood what I was saying. I used the Christian example because it was an example of a very obvious trap based on an accusation that is clearly absurd. An obvious trap based on a ridiculous caricature of Christians as witch-burners. In that example it would be blindingly obvious that no Christian would be dumb enough or insane enough to fall into such a trap.

    And yet there are dissident rightists who walk right into traps that are just as obvious, traps based on accusations and caricatures that are equally absurd.

    That’s the point I was trying to make.

    You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Christians on my part. You also have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Americans on my part. You need to work on that. Sometimes you seriously over-react or fall into the very obvious trap of immediately assuming that such remarks are intended to be spiteful. In this case I can assure you that I had no such intention. I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.
     
    Was the leftist example also a caricature?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  165. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    You know, your first example would have sufficed, but you just couldn’t help yourself, could you?
     
    You have in this case entirely misunderstood what I was saying. I used the Christian example because it was an example of a very obvious trap based on an accusation that is clearly absurd. An obvious trap based on a ridiculous caricature of Christians as witch-burners. In that example it would be blindingly obvious that no Christian would be dumb enough or insane enough to fall into such a trap.

    And yet there are dissident rightists who walk right into traps that are just as obvious, traps based on accusations and caricatures that are equally absurd.

    That's the point I was trying to make.

    You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Christians on my part. You also have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Americans on my part. You need to work on that. Sometimes you seriously over-react or fall into the very obvious trap of immediately assuming that such remarks are intended to be spiteful. In this case I can assure you that I had no such intention. I merely used Christians as an example because they're a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.

    Was the leftist example also a caricature?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.
     
    Was the leftist example also a caricature?
     
    Of course it was. I'm assuming you don't really think that all leftists really are at heart bloodthirsty murderers. There are some people who are foolish enough to think this, just as some foolish people think all Christians are closet witch-burners.

    In the past some leftists did liquidate their political opponents. And some Christians did burn witches. The trap wouldn't work otherwise. But it's obviously silly to apply such silly caricatures to an entire group of people. The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches. And I don't think the average dissident rightist actually intends to emulate the Nazis.

    The point I was making was about traps based on applying such absurd accusations and caricatures, and the foolishness of anyone who in such a situation thinks it's somehow clever to accept the absurd accusation.

    Replies: @iffen, @Twinkie, @notanon

  166. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.
     
    Was the leftist example also a caricature?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.

    Was the leftist example also a caricature?

    Of course it was. I’m assuming you don’t really think that all leftists really are at heart bloodthirsty murderers. There are some people who are foolish enough to think this, just as some foolish people think all Christians are closet witch-burners.

    In the past some leftists did liquidate their political opponents. And some Christians did burn witches. The trap wouldn’t work otherwise. But it’s obviously silly to apply such silly caricatures to an entire group of people. The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches. And I don’t think the average dissident rightist actually intends to emulate the Nazis.

    The point I was making was about traps based on applying such absurd accusations and caricatures, and the foolishness of anyone who in such a situation thinks it’s somehow clever to accept the absurd accusation.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Do you know of any way that you can have a "movement" or political grouping where cartoon villains are allowed the run of the place (because, as you well know, the unlimited tent is the only choice), and the worst mistake that you can make is to deny membership to "any" person or faction while at the same time not “walking into” the trap laid down by the opposition?

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches.
     
    That right there is false equivalency. There are today quite clearly some leftists with eliminationist tendencies (certainly such rhetoric). There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @anon, @Anon

    , @notanon
    @dfordoom


    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder,
     
    the policies they have been conned into lead to the engineered extinction of white people.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  167. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.
     
    Was the leftist example also a caricature?
     
    Of course it was. I'm assuming you don't really think that all leftists really are at heart bloodthirsty murderers. There are some people who are foolish enough to think this, just as some foolish people think all Christians are closet witch-burners.

    In the past some leftists did liquidate their political opponents. And some Christians did burn witches. The trap wouldn't work otherwise. But it's obviously silly to apply such silly caricatures to an entire group of people. The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches. And I don't think the average dissident rightist actually intends to emulate the Nazis.

    The point I was making was about traps based on applying such absurd accusations and caricatures, and the foolishness of anyone who in such a situation thinks it's somehow clever to accept the absurd accusation.

    Replies: @iffen, @Twinkie, @notanon

    Do you know of any way that you can have a “movement” or political grouping where cartoon villains are allowed the run of the place (because, as you well know, the unlimited tent is the only choice), and the worst mistake that you can make is to deny membership to “any” person or faction while at the same time not “walking into” the trap laid down by the opposition?

  168. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.
     
    Was the leftist example also a caricature?
     
    Of course it was. I'm assuming you don't really think that all leftists really are at heart bloodthirsty murderers. There are some people who are foolish enough to think this, just as some foolish people think all Christians are closet witch-burners.

    In the past some leftists did liquidate their political opponents. And some Christians did burn witches. The trap wouldn't work otherwise. But it's obviously silly to apply such silly caricatures to an entire group of people. The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches. And I don't think the average dissident rightist actually intends to emulate the Nazis.

    The point I was making was about traps based on applying such absurd accusations and caricatures, and the foolishness of anyone who in such a situation thinks it's somehow clever to accept the absurd accusation.

    Replies: @iffen, @Twinkie, @notanon

    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches.

    That right there is false equivalency. There are today quite clearly some leftists with eliminationist tendencies (certainly such rhetoric). There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Twinkie


    That right there is false equivalency. There are today quite clearly some leftists with eliminationist tendencies (certainly such rhetoric). There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.
     
    How do you decry "a false equivalency", while launching into one?

    Rhetorical "eliminationist tendencies" and directly "advocating" the "burning" of anyone, are not equivalents.
    , @anon
    @Twinkie


    There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.
     
    What about the Christian Zionist fanatics advocating war and genocidal policies in the middle east? Not so few, are they?
    , @Anon
    @Twinkie

    To say nothing of your own Holy Church of Rome whose rich and long history of persecuting, torturing and burning people includes a lot more than just witches. Well-documented and discussed. Orwell, Twain, the opening of Dickens' Tale of Two Cities just scratch the surface.
    (And that's not even mentioning all the corruption-- sexual as well as financial. The recent paedo priest scandals may have been largely overblown, who knows. But anyone who thinks kids and teens weren't being fucked, raped and sodomized by priests for centuries, or, as Fred Reed has put it, that Popes weren't catting around like any other men given the chance would, well, I've got a bridge somewhere to sell them. You religious types are such a hoot. Perennial sanctimony. LOL)

  169. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I merely used Christians as an example because they’re a group who do at times get subjected to clearly absurd accusations and who do at times get treated as caricatures.
     
    Was the leftist example also a caricature?
     
    Of course it was. I'm assuming you don't really think that all leftists really are at heart bloodthirsty murderers. There are some people who are foolish enough to think this, just as some foolish people think all Christians are closet witch-burners.

    In the past some leftists did liquidate their political opponents. And some Christians did burn witches. The trap wouldn't work otherwise. But it's obviously silly to apply such silly caricatures to an entire group of people. The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches. And I don't think the average dissident rightist actually intends to emulate the Nazis.

    The point I was making was about traps based on applying such absurd accusations and caricatures, and the foolishness of anyone who in such a situation thinks it's somehow clever to accept the absurd accusation.

    Replies: @iffen, @Twinkie, @notanon

    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder,

    the policies they have been conned into lead to the engineered extinction of white people.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @notanon



    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder,
     
    the policies they have been conned into lead to the engineered extinction of white people.
     
    If you're referring to immigration then you're conveniently ignoring the reality that mass immigration has happened because it's in the interests of the corporate sector and the Chamber of Commerce types, and small business owners and farmers. Both the left and the right have supported mass immigration.

    And immigration has not and will not lead to the engineered extinction of white people. That's pure paranoia.

    If you're referring to low white fertility then you're completely wrong. Due to a whole raft of social, cultural and political factors birth rates are plummeting among all races and it's happening globally. The people most in danger of extinction are actually the Koreans.

    Why is fertility collapsing? The most obvious explanations are technological (improvements in contraception), capitalism, consumerism, the decline of religion and urbanisation. None of which are leftist plots.

    Replies: @notanon

  170. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund



    A white ethno-state is just too extreme an idea.
     
    Yes, but don’t you want one?
     
    To be honest I don't really want one. Not because it would be a terrible thing in itself, but because I think the cost would be too high.

    I think the mass immigration of the postwar period (not just in the US but in Canada, Britain, Australia and western Europe) was a catastrophic mistake. I do think that the demographic changes that resulted have been an extremely bad thing.

    And I do think that a halt should be called to any further mass immigration.

    But I think it's now irreversible. The demographic mixes we now have in all western countries are something we'll just have to learn to live with. Any attempt to reverse those demographic changes would come at a cost that I personally think would be unacceptable.

    And I think that most of the immigrants will eventually assimilate, provided that we call a halt to further mass immigration.

    There are some mistakes that can't really be fixed. You just have to learn to deal with the consequences.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    To be honest I don’t really want one. Not because it would be a terrible thing in itself, but because I think the cost would be too high.

    For all my brave talk, in truth, I completely agree with this. However, it frustrates me when my affluent countrymen pretend to be antiracist while they arrange to dwell within the country in expensive, exclusive places in which they do not have to deal with the baleful effects of race.

    Hundreds of thousands of my less affluent countrymen have had most of their home equity wiped out, and have been forced by criminal violence to sell for pennies on the dollar and to buy new houses elsewhere, because the more affluent—rather than protecting the vital interests of the less affluent—prefer to lecture the less affluent regarding racism. They prefer hideous moral posturing to genuine compassion for their own countrymen. Practically no one with power seems to care.

    Inexcusable.

    And I do think that a halt should be called to any further mass immigration.

    In my country, when it comes to blacks, we need some form of resegregation, too. This need is just too blatantly obvious to ignore.

    The details could be negotiated with blacks if blacks were negotiation-capable, but in their present, giddy, furious state, one doubts that black are negotiation-capable. Instead, the details will probably have to be negotiated with Mexican-Americans and others impacted by black chaos, and then imposed by fiat.

    And I think that most of the immigrants will eventually assimilate, provided that we call a halt to further mass immigration.

    Oddly enough, even in the United States, I suspect that this might still work.

    It’s not a good idea to walk into obvious traps that your opponents have laid for you.

    I am going to spring the traps and kick them over, every time. Enjoy the show.

  171. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    If your optics instead involve dodging a narrative in a opposition-controlled script, then you’re already on the losing side.
     
    Insurgents have to pick their battles. They can't die on every hill.

    Would your son take the mat if he knew that the referee had rigged the pairing against him?
     
    This situation happened once. Early on in my eldest son's Jiujitsu career, we went to a tournament with a less than stellar reputation. The gossip was that it was run by this one group of schools and that they often played games with seeds and weights to advantage their own participants.

    Back then, I was still trying to get my eldest boy as much competition experience as possible, so I ignored all that and brought him anyway. Well, those rumors were correct, because they put my boy with a kid at least half a foot taller and 25 lbs. heavier. That first match was a grueling, very gritty and physical match and my son won it after a tough slog. The first two times he threw the other kid, the ref (also from the hosting school) kept disallowing the points (and kept re-setting the match). The third time was so obvious - the big kid was thrown cleanly over his head - that he gave the points. In the final match, my son crushed reputedly the best kid in his weight class from the hosting school (he took him down and strangled him within a couple of minutes) and won gold. Some of the coaches and competitors from other schools who saw the match and came by to congratulate us. One of them said very loudly (presumably so that everyone can hear), "That was a really unfair matchup your boy had to go through. But you know what? He is a WARRIOR."

    As much as that made me extremely proud, we never went back to that tournament and picked entries carefully from that point on. He went on to smash every competitor from that school he's has run into since, at tournaments that are better- and fairly-run. I learned my lesson (I was pretty upset at myself that I put that on my son).

    Nonetheless, one of the things I have always emphasized with my children is that champions don't complain. Champions win even when the ref makes bad calls. Champions win even if they unluckily slip on a banana peel. Real champions have to overcome all sorts of unfair vagaries of life - because there is no such thing as a perfectly level playing field - and still win. I've told my kiddos that someone who can only win under the most ideal circumstances isn't a real champion and won't stay one for long even if he got lucky once and won.

    Sometimes, the only way to win is to refuse to participate.
     
    I agree. But putting on a "Hitler armband," because your opponents want to paint you as a Nazi is most certainly not refusing to play along. It is exactly playing along to their tune. And you can't play along - "I'll give them what they want, in spades!" - just because you are angry.

    Trust me when I say this: sometimes when I watch the news or see egregious behaviors of leftist radicals in person, I get a certain look that my wife instantly recognizes. She knows what's going on in my brain - she gets right away that I'm thinking, "These evil MoFo bastards, one day... ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!" (She jokingly calls them my "Jawohl, mein Kommandant" moments.)

    I get very angry too. But fighting angry is almost never good.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    As much as that made me extremely proud, …

    It’s quite a tale, regarding quite an achievement. Thanks for telling it. Your son ought to remember that the rest of his life.

    … one day… ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!

    Judging by the MAGA-tier subscribers’ comments at The Epoch Times, you are not the only American who is starting to think like this.

    The MAGA-tier subscribers are just shooting their mouths off, of course, but the sentiment for violent resistance is nevertheless slowly building.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Your son ought to remember that the rest of his life.
     
    Thanks, but I think he's forgotten all about it. He's moved on a long time ago. He's pretty phlegmatic about "unfairness" in competition (I, on the other hand...).

    the sentiment for violent resistance is nevertheless slowly building.

     

    But that was so not my message. My message was that insurgents have to be very careful about where to choose to fight. Angry attacks are usually counterproductive (as Jan. 6th showed), precisely because angry attacks are often unsuccessful attacks.
    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    By the way, if you ever want to see a gritty, "Excuses are for wusses" champion, check out Spencer Lee of Iowa wrestling (he's not Asian, but a white kid out of PA - his dad was a coach for the US Olympic Judo team and mom was an Olympic alternate for the French national team).

    Lee is probably the best wrestler alive. He is famous for competing injured (even seriously injured) and not giving shit about it. Just intensely competitive and wants to win no matter what the adversity. He's not a meathead either. Very technical and skillful wrestler combined with an indomitable spirit for victory.

    He won his third national title after damaging both ACLs (the second one a week before the national tournament). Check out his interviews and footage on YouTube.

    https://youtu.be/OzAKyM8My84

    https://youtu.be/OBczEkHb0jE

    I was particularly moved by his story about the conversation he had with his father. He was at a tournament and had badly injured himself. His father came over to him and said something like, "Son, let's withdraw. There is courage and then there is stupidity. Competing when you are hurt like this is closer stupidity. You've already been a champion several times. You don't have to prove anything." Lee told his father, "Dad, you don't really know me, do you?"

    As someone who has coached his eldest son in two combat sports and have seen him compete, mature, grow, and become a young man. I completely get this. Too often fathers see their sons as copies of themselves, but the sons are their own men with their own internal motivations - they have different a fire within them.

    I try to remember this when I coach my sons (my eldest is the best among my sons, so he gets a lot of attention, but I also have to remember to pay attention to less accomplished sons - as my in-laws once told me, "parenting is naturally socialist, it's not and shouldn't be winner-take-all capitalism").

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  172. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches.
     
    That right there is false equivalency. There are today quite clearly some leftists with eliminationist tendencies (certainly such rhetoric). There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @anon, @Anon

    That right there is false equivalency. There are today quite clearly some leftists with eliminationist tendencies (certainly such rhetoric). There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.

    How do you decry “a false equivalency”, while launching into one?

    Rhetorical “eliminationist tendencies” and directly “advocating” the “burning” of anyone, are not equivalents.

    • LOL: iffen
  173. jacobs-adder [AKA "jacob-the -adder"] says:
    @jacobs-adder
    jews network like every other ethnic group....

    When white people try and do the same, we are labelled 'Hitler Fan Boys' or 'White Supremacists'.

    I really dont think most people on this site are stupid enough to actually believe in removing the vote from women, they are just tired of how easily manipulated certain groups are by the media into believing false narratives regarding topics like black crime, white domestic terror, cover, trans and gay rights etc. Its just 'Overton Window' style backlash to try and return to a place before 'Cancel Culture', 'Wokeness' and SJW's performing sickening acts of 'Virtue Signalling'.

    Most people are completely unaware of how political lobbying and media ownership tie in with the big money behind it pushing for targeted political and social agendas. They just think trans rights have evolved naturally and its the most important thing in our society because the media tells us so and the law enforces it via politics. This is true of every liberal agenda, people on this site are opposed to. We are just aware of how contrived it is, and how dangerous it is for our children and our countries future.

    Racism is actually a conflict of behavioural issues and cultures. It is not simply the colour of someones skin. I hope most people on this site are open enough to judge people by their character and how they treat others in society. What do they contribute? This is what being 'Conservative' means to me, the conservation of traditional values that have allowed Europen Civilisation to flourish and provided the world with so much that it now, takes for granted.

    It feels like logic and common sense are now prosecutable 'thought crimes' under this insane Neo -liberal mafia that controls our communications.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @jacobs-adder

    I certainly hope so!

  174. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    But I suppose we can always hope that young people will “grow up”, realize they were being propagandized by Jewish elites, and become as disillusioned and angry as some of the posters here on this fine opinion webzine.
     
    Yes, I second your emotion. Nevertheless, my chief hope is that some moderate social pressure can be brought to bear on Jewry. I suspect that Jewish behavior would markedly improve if that were done. Moreover, since Jewry have brought massive social pressure to bear on me, moderate social pressure in return seems a fair turnabout, at least from my perspective.

    Like Richard Spencer, I believe that history is a slaughterbench, but I don't really have any grand plans for history. I do not think that history works that way. What I want is a decent, moderate, unpretentious, fair-minded, modest society, and once I get it, I want to keep it as long as history will allow.

    However, since matters have been framed such that any sign of resistance on your part and mine is “white supremacy,” then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Corvinus

    “Yes, I second your emotion. Nevertheless, my chief hope is that some moderate social pressure can be brought to bear on Jewry. I suspect that Jewish behavior would markedly improve if that were done. Moreover, since Jewry have brought massive social pressure to bear on me, moderate social pressure in return seems a fair turnabout, at least from my perspective.”

    Assuming that Jews are the primary factor for our current predicaments, however you define them. Moreover, my comment about “young people growing up”, well, I was being sarcastic. Young people today are very much capable of making their own decisions when it comes to race and culture, and they will be contrary to your own preferences.

    “What I want is a decent, moderate, unpretentious, fair-minded, modest society, and once I get it, I want to keep it as long as history will allow.”

    You do realize your “enemies”–whomever you personally believe them to be–also want those things as well?

    “However, since matters have been framed such that any sign of resistance on your part and mine is “white supremacy,” then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!”

    But you’re not even to personally go down that road, especially when the situation is so dire, so why even mention it? It makes you look foolish.

    “In my country, when it comes to blacks, we need some form of resegregation, too. This need is just too blatantly obvious to ignore. The details could be negotiated with blacks if blacks were negotiation-capable.”

    You are offering a completely unrealistic course of action.

  175. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    then screw it, I say. Get me that Hitler armband!
     
    That’s exactly what the Wall Street-Americans want. That makes it easy to demonize opposition to them as dirty, evil racism/anti-Semitism.

    Remember that you and I are insurgents. Our goal should be - foremost - to survive and then expose the oppressors as malevolently tyrannical and capriciously unreasonable, so that the population turns sympathetic to our dissent and then becomes the vast sea, in which we can swim as fish (to paraphrase Mao).

    Falling into the script written by our opponents and becoming cartoon villains is exactly what they want. Don’t do it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund, @Corvinus

    “Remember that you and I are insurgents. Our goal should be – foremost – to survive and then expose the oppressors as malevolently tyrannical and capriciously unreasonable, so that the population turns sympathetic to our dissent…”

    Take your own advice–be reasoned and factual about it [criticizing your “enemies”] instead of being gratuitous.

  176. You do realize your “enemies”–whomever you personally believe them to be–also want those things as well?

    elites are generally full of sociopaths but a regular elite wants to maintain a productive society so they can skim 10% off the top in perpetuity

    the banking mafia are different because their business model (usury and currency debasement) is parasitic and *inevitably* leads to economic collapse

    so no, they don’t want that.

    You are offering a completely unrealistic course of action.

    you are offering a course of action that has lead to 100,000s of white people being stabbed, shot, raped or killed and tens of millions ethnically cleansed from their homes.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @notanon

    "elites are generally full of sociopaths"

    Citations needed.

    "but a regular elite wants to maintain a productive society so they can skim 10% off the top in perpetuity"

    What is even this "regular elite", and how do you know they take this fixed amount?

    "the banking mafia are different because their business model (usury and currency debasement) is parasitic and *inevitably* leads to economic collapse"

    Pray tell, what nations have collapsed as a result of these practices?

    Replies: @notanon, @res

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @notanon

    It annoys me to agree with Corvinus, but he has a point.


    ... economic collapse ...
     
    As far as I know, there is no such thing as economic collapse.

    Replies: @notanon

  177. @notanon
    @dfordoom


    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder,
     
    the policies they have been conned into lead to the engineered extinction of white people.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder,

    the policies they have been conned into lead to the engineered extinction of white people.

    If you’re referring to immigration then you’re conveniently ignoring the reality that mass immigration has happened because it’s in the interests of the corporate sector and the Chamber of Commerce types, and small business owners and farmers. Both the left and the right have supported mass immigration.

    And immigration has not and will not lead to the engineered extinction of white people. That’s pure paranoia.

    If you’re referring to low white fertility then you’re completely wrong. Due to a whole raft of social, cultural and political factors birth rates are plummeting among all races and it’s happening globally. The people most in danger of extinction are actually the Koreans.

    Why is fertility collapsing? The most obvious explanations are technological (improvements in contraception), capitalism, consumerism, the decline of religion and urbanisation. None of which are leftist plots.

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @notanon
    @dfordoom

    1. support for mass immigration leads to a white minority

    (obviously)

    2. support for integration in the context of a white minority leads to every white child going to white minority schools

    (obviously)

    3. anti-white gang violence in white-minority schools will lead to white extinction

    (i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)

    Replies: @Corvinus

  178. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches.
     
    That right there is false equivalency. There are today quite clearly some leftists with eliminationist tendencies (certainly such rhetoric). There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @anon, @Anon

    There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.

    What about the Christian Zionist fanatics advocating war and genocidal policies in the middle east? Not so few, are they?

  179. Anon[326] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder, just as the average American (or Australian) Christian is not planning to burn witches.
     
    That right there is false equivalency. There are today quite clearly some leftists with eliminationist tendencies (certainly such rhetoric). There is no Christian advocating burning of witches. If there were, it’s a vanishing few with mental illnesses of some sort.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @anon, @Anon

    To say nothing of your own Holy Church of Rome whose rich and long history of persecuting, torturing and burning people includes a lot more than just witches. Well-documented and discussed. Orwell, Twain, the opening of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities just scratch the surface.
    (And that’s not even mentioning all the corruption– sexual as well as financial. The recent paedo priest scandals may have been largely overblown, who knows. But anyone who thinks kids and teens weren’t being fucked, raped and sodomized by priests for centuries, or, as Fred Reed has put it, that Popes weren’t catting around like any other men given the chance would, well, I’ve got a bridge somewhere to sell them. You religious types are such a hoot. Perennial sanctimony. LOL)

  180. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Fascinating. The internet shrink routine comes off as more than a bit passive aggressive, you know.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    You might look back and see that the negative part of what I was doing, was only in response to them trying to pass their negative energy off onto me. I don’t think that returning what is theirs, with added analysis, is either passive or aggressive.

    I could just mirror them and screech projected nonsense back in their direction, but I would feel terrible doing that.

    Or, I could ignore them, which I usually do; but sometimes I prefer to reframe their incontinency, to see if they can recognise themselves, and also to test as to what works to help and understand their way of being. It is an experiment.

    I don’t think there is any harm in it, and there may be some good. I could be far more provocative, but then they would freak out and be unable to read my comments. I feel I have found the right balance on the whole.

    If it comes across badly to an observer l, like you, so motivated as to mention it, I am happy to explain, but otherwise I don’t care much. How strangers perceive me, especially an anonymous handle which I use, is of very little consequence. My actions are those that are generally congruent with myself.

  181. @dfordoom
    @notanon



    The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder,
     
    the policies they have been conned into lead to the engineered extinction of white people.
     
    If you're referring to immigration then you're conveniently ignoring the reality that mass immigration has happened because it's in the interests of the corporate sector and the Chamber of Commerce types, and small business owners and farmers. Both the left and the right have supported mass immigration.

    And immigration has not and will not lead to the engineered extinction of white people. That's pure paranoia.

    If you're referring to low white fertility then you're completely wrong. Due to a whole raft of social, cultural and political factors birth rates are plummeting among all races and it's happening globally. The people most in danger of extinction are actually the Koreans.

    Why is fertility collapsing? The most obvious explanations are technological (improvements in contraception), capitalism, consumerism, the decline of religion and urbanisation. None of which are leftist plots.

    Replies: @notanon

    1. support for mass immigration leads to a white minority

    (obviously)

    2. support for integration in the context of a white minority leads to every white child going to white minority schools

    (obviously)

    3. anti-white gang violence in white-minority schools will lead to white extinction

    (i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @notanon

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    “(i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)”

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @notanon

  182. @Anon
    The HAPA dynamic among young, upper-class Jewish males needs discussion. Without it, the replacement rate among high-SES Jews looks much higher than it is.

    The next generation of Jewish elite men are pairing up with Asian women in record numbers. Between work and college, every Jewish guy I known has ended up with an Asian girl.

    It's also worth thinking about the offspring from these couples. Based on what I've seen, HAPA guys are viewed as high SVM by Asian women, but lower SVM (too short, too quiet) by White women. So it's reasonable the male line will end up being absorbed into the wider Asian population. The female line will probably pair up with White men, longer-term.

    Demographically, the high SES Jewish population is collapsing quickly. Once beyond Gen-Z, it will likely be gone completely.

    Replies: @xxxeliss

    most of the jewish men marriying asians are non-orthodox , and they barely have any children, the majority of jewish children in the USA will be orthodox in a few decades

    • Agree: Dissident
  183. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I admit that I don’t really see a way forward at this point.
     
    A good starting point would be you stopping tarring “the far right” as Hitler-fanboys.
     
    What I think about the "far right" doesn't matter. What matters is that the "far right" has a very big image problem. That ain't my fault.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Bill

    The far right has an image problem because we lost. That’s all. Eventually the clown show which runs the US will lose (though not to the far right), and it will then have an image problem.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Bill

    Losing isn't random. Losing suggests inherent flaws. Perpetual losing means they are deep.

    Replies: @notanon

  184. @notanon
    @dfordoom

    1. support for mass immigration leads to a white minority

    (obviously)

    2. support for integration in the context of a white minority leads to every white child going to white minority schools

    (obviously)

    3. anti-white gang violence in white-minority schools will lead to white extinction

    (i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    “(i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)”

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Corvinus

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    He doesn't need to share shit.

    It is common knowledge.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @anon
    @Corvinus

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled "racist"?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @notanon
    @Corvinus


    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?
     
    some potential answers to the extreme levels of inter-racial sexual violence inflicted on white females:

    1. white people should just put up with it

    2. re-segregation

    3. people from the ethnic groups responsible say "hey guys maybe we should do something about this"

    black people who choose option 1 because they don't want to be re-segregated and they personally aren't responsible for the sexual violence aren't the good guys.

    they're not even good guys from the black pov as the levels of black-on-black sexual violence in gang-ruled neighborhoods has been at Congo levels for generations.
  185. @Corvinus
    @notanon

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    “(i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)”

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @notanon

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    He doesn’t need to share shit.

    It is common knowledge.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @iffen

    According to Who/Whom?

  186. @Corvinus
    @notanon

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    “(i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)”

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @notanon

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “racist”?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “racist”?"

    Not at all.

    So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Replies: @anon

  187. @notanon

    You do realize your “enemies”–whomever you personally believe them to be–also want those things as well?
     
    elites are generally full of sociopaths but a regular elite wants to maintain a productive society so they can skim 10% off the top in perpetuity

    the banking mafia are different because their business model (usury and currency debasement) is parasitic and *inevitably* leads to economic collapse

    so no, they don't want that.

    You are offering a completely unrealistic course of action.
     
    you are offering a course of action that has lead to 100,000s of white people being stabbed, shot, raped or killed and tens of millions ethnically cleansed from their homes.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @V. K. Ovelund

    “elites are generally full of sociopaths”

    Citations needed.

    “but a regular elite wants to maintain a productive society so they can skim 10% off the top in perpetuity”

    What is even this “regular elite”, and how do you know they take this fixed amount?

    “the banking mafia are different because their business model (usury and currency debasement) is parasitic and *inevitably* leads to economic collapse”

    Pray tell, what nations have collapsed as a result of these practices?

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Corvinus


    Pray tell, what nations have collapsed as a result of these practices?
     
    all the big empires imo from Sumer to USA via Rome, Persians, Ottomans etc.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @res
    @Corvinus


    “elites are generally full of sociopaths”

    Citations needed.
     
    Depends on how you define "full," but it is definitely a thing.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo

    For some numbers:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace

    Hare reports that about 1 percent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[11] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3–4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[6] A 2011 study of Australian white-collar managers found that 5.76 percent could be classed as psychopathic and another 10.42 percent dysfunctional with psychopathic characteristics.
     
    I think it is reasonable to speculate that the higher the stakes the higher the proportion.

    P.S. To everyone else, I realize Corvinus isn't truly interested in a serious conversation, but it is fun to answer him that way sometimes just to see how he reacts. And demonstrate his unseriousness to everyone.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Corvinus

  188. @iffen
    @Corvinus

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    He doesn't need to share shit.

    It is common knowledge.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    According to Who/Whom?

  189. @notanon

    You do realize your “enemies”–whomever you personally believe them to be–also want those things as well?
     
    elites are generally full of sociopaths but a regular elite wants to maintain a productive society so they can skim 10% off the top in perpetuity

    the banking mafia are different because their business model (usury and currency debasement) is parasitic and *inevitably* leads to economic collapse

    so no, they don't want that.

    You are offering a completely unrealistic course of action.
     
    you are offering a course of action that has lead to 100,000s of white people being stabbed, shot, raped or killed and tens of millions ethnically cleansed from their homes.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @V. K. Ovelund

    It annoys me to agree with Corvinus, but he has a point.

    … economic collapse …

    As far as I know, there is no such thing as economic collapse.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @notanon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    technically true maybe

    when a nation/empire/civilization gets hijacked by a banking mafia and has their currency slowly debased the end result is economic collapse but it doesn't usually end that way because either

    a) the bankers are expelled before it's too late

    or

    b) the weakening of the nation/empire/civilization leads to them being invaded and conquered

    like the USA now.

  190. @anon
    @Corvinus

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled "racist"?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “racist”?”

    Not at all.

    So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Not at all.

    But must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled "racist"?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  191. @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “racist”?"

    Not at all.

    So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Replies: @anon

    So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Not at all.

    But must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “racist”?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”? Not at all."

    Great! That's a start. So, what does "anti-white" exactly mean to you?

    Replies: @anon

  192. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    As much as that made me extremely proud, ...
     
    It's quite a tale, regarding quite an achievement. Thanks for telling it. Your son ought to remember that the rest of his life.

    ... one day… ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!
     
    Judging by the MAGA-tier subscribers' comments at The Epoch Times, you are not the only American who is starting to think like this.

    The MAGA-tier subscribers are just shooting their mouths off, of course, but the sentiment for violent resistance is nevertheless slowly building.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Twinkie

    Your son ought to remember that the rest of his life.

    Thanks, but I think he’s forgotten all about it. He’s moved on a long time ago. He’s pretty phlegmatic about “unfairness” in competition (I, on the other hand…).

    the sentiment for violent resistance is nevertheless slowly building.

    But that was so not my message. My message was that insurgents have to be very careful about where to choose to fight. Angry attacks are usually counterproductive (as Jan. 6th showed), precisely because angry attacks are often unsuccessful attacks.

  193. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    As much as that made me extremely proud, ...
     
    It's quite a tale, regarding quite an achievement. Thanks for telling it. Your son ought to remember that the rest of his life.

    ... one day… ditch in front and a pistol on the back of your heads!
     
    Judging by the MAGA-tier subscribers' comments at The Epoch Times, you are not the only American who is starting to think like this.

    The MAGA-tier subscribers are just shooting their mouths off, of course, but the sentiment for violent resistance is nevertheless slowly building.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Twinkie

    By the way, if you ever want to see a gritty, “Excuses are for wusses” champion, check out Spencer Lee of Iowa wrestling (he’s not Asian, but a white kid out of PA – his dad was a coach for the US Olympic Judo team and mom was an Olympic alternate for the French national team).

    Lee is probably the best wrestler alive. He is famous for competing injured (even seriously injured) and not giving shit about it. Just intensely competitive and wants to win no matter what the adversity. He’s not a meathead either. Very technical and skillful wrestler combined with an indomitable spirit for victory.

    He won his third national title after damaging both ACLs (the second one a week before the national tournament). Check out his interviews and footage on YouTube.

    I was particularly moved by his story about the conversation he had with his father. He was at a tournament and had badly injured himself. His father came over to him and said something like, “Son, let’s withdraw. There is courage and then there is stupidity. Competing when you are hurt like this is closer stupidity. You’ve already been a champion several times. You don’t have to prove anything.” Lee told his father, “Dad, you don’t really know me, do you?”

    As someone who has coached his eldest son in two combat sports and have seen him compete, mature, grow, and become a young man. I completely get this. Too often fathers see their sons as copies of themselves, but the sons are their own men with their own internal motivations – they have different a fire within them.

    I try to remember this when I coach my sons (my eldest is the best among my sons, so he gets a lot of attention, but I also have to remember to pay attention to less accomplished sons – as my in-laws once told me, “parenting is naturally socialist, it’s not and shouldn’t be winner-take-all capitalism”).

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Too often fathers see their sons as copies of themselves, but the sons are their own men with their own internal motivations – they have different a fire within them.
     
    I can confirm.

    I wish that I had time for a 47-minute interview today. Unfortunately, it'll probably get piled under the list of things to do and I'll never watch it, unless you recommend it as high-priority. I appreciate the reference nevertheless. Thanks for pulling the key quote out for me.


    Angry attacks are usually counterproductive (as Jan. 6th showed), precisely because angry attacks are often unsuccessful attacks.
     
    All true but Jan. 6th was glorious. Great deeds by great hearts are not to be deprecated by me. If our people showed no fighting spirit, that would be far worse.
  194. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    By the way, if you ever want to see a gritty, "Excuses are for wusses" champion, check out Spencer Lee of Iowa wrestling (he's not Asian, but a white kid out of PA - his dad was a coach for the US Olympic Judo team and mom was an Olympic alternate for the French national team).

    Lee is probably the best wrestler alive. He is famous for competing injured (even seriously injured) and not giving shit about it. Just intensely competitive and wants to win no matter what the adversity. He's not a meathead either. Very technical and skillful wrestler combined with an indomitable spirit for victory.

    He won his third national title after damaging both ACLs (the second one a week before the national tournament). Check out his interviews and footage on YouTube.

    https://youtu.be/OzAKyM8My84

    https://youtu.be/OBczEkHb0jE

    I was particularly moved by his story about the conversation he had with his father. He was at a tournament and had badly injured himself. His father came over to him and said something like, "Son, let's withdraw. There is courage and then there is stupidity. Competing when you are hurt like this is closer stupidity. You've already been a champion several times. You don't have to prove anything." Lee told his father, "Dad, you don't really know me, do you?"

    As someone who has coached his eldest son in two combat sports and have seen him compete, mature, grow, and become a young man. I completely get this. Too often fathers see their sons as copies of themselves, but the sons are their own men with their own internal motivations - they have different a fire within them.

    I try to remember this when I coach my sons (my eldest is the best among my sons, so he gets a lot of attention, but I also have to remember to pay attention to less accomplished sons - as my in-laws once told me, "parenting is naturally socialist, it's not and shouldn't be winner-take-all capitalism").

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Too often fathers see their sons as copies of themselves, but the sons are their own men with their own internal motivations – they have different a fire within them.

    I can confirm.

    I wish that I had time for a 47-minute interview today. Unfortunately, it’ll probably get piled under the list of things to do and I’ll never watch it, unless you recommend it as high-priority. I appreciate the reference nevertheless. Thanks for pulling the key quote out for me.

    Angry attacks are usually counterproductive (as Jan. 6th showed), precisely because angry attacks are often unsuccessful attacks.

    All true but Jan. 6th was glorious. Great deeds by great hearts are not to be deprecated by me. If our people showed no fighting spirit, that would be far worse.

  195. @anon
    @Corvinus

    So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    Not at all.

    But must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled "racist"?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”? Not at all.”

    Great! That’s a start. So, what does “anti-white” exactly mean to you?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    Great! That’s a start.

    Do you often quote yourself like this?

    So, what does “anti-white” exactly mean to you?

    Those are your words you quoted. So what does "anti-white" mean to you?

    Please consider having a long and detailed dialog with yourself over these things.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  196. @Bill
    @dfordoom

    The far right has an image problem because we lost. That's all. Eventually the clown show which runs the US will lose (though not to the far right), and it will then have an image problem.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Losing isn’t random. Losing suggests inherent flaws. Perpetual losing means they are deep.

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Losing suggests inherent flaws.
     
    yes

    1. not understanding the nature of money

    2. not being shameless

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  197. “Will become problematic” was a gross misstatement.
    It has long been problematic for most of us, you should have added “for the jews”

  198. @V. K. Ovelund
    @notanon

    It annoys me to agree with Corvinus, but he has a point.


    ... economic collapse ...
     
    As far as I know, there is no such thing as economic collapse.

    Replies: @notanon

    technically true maybe

    when a nation/empire/civilization gets hijacked by a banking mafia and has their currency slowly debased the end result is economic collapse but it doesn’t usually end that way because either

    a) the bankers are expelled before it’s too late

    or

    b) the weakening of the nation/empire/civilization leads to them being invaded and conquered

    like the USA now.

  199. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Bill

    Losing isn't random. Losing suggests inherent flaws. Perpetual losing means they are deep.

    Replies: @notanon

    Losing suggests inherent flaws.

    yes

    1. not understanding the nature of money

    2. not being shameless

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @notanon

    If your root assumption, for why the world rejects you, is because you're too good/intelligent and they're too bad/stupid; you'll be wrong 9 times out of 10.

    It is the habit of people who are narcissistically deluded.

  200. @Corvinus
    @notanon

    "elites are generally full of sociopaths"

    Citations needed.

    "but a regular elite wants to maintain a productive society so they can skim 10% off the top in perpetuity"

    What is even this "regular elite", and how do you know they take this fixed amount?

    "the banking mafia are different because their business model (usury and currency debasement) is parasitic and *inevitably* leads to economic collapse"

    Pray tell, what nations have collapsed as a result of these practices?

    Replies: @notanon, @res

    Pray tell, what nations have collapsed as a result of these practices?

    all the big empires imo from Sumer to USA via Rome, Persians, Ottomans etc.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @notanon

    “all the big empires imo from Sumer to USA via Rome, Persians, Ottomans etc.“

    Really? There was a “ banking mafia” in all or most of those empires? And they engaged in usury and currency debasement? That’s news to me. Should be easy for you to cite sources to prove your assertion.

  201. res says:
    @Corvinus
    @notanon

    "elites are generally full of sociopaths"

    Citations needed.

    "but a regular elite wants to maintain a productive society so they can skim 10% off the top in perpetuity"

    What is even this "regular elite", and how do you know they take this fixed amount?

    "the banking mafia are different because their business model (usury and currency debasement) is parasitic and *inevitably* leads to economic collapse"

    Pray tell, what nations have collapsed as a result of these practices?

    Replies: @notanon, @res

    “elites are generally full of sociopaths”

    Citations needed.

    Depends on how you define “full,” but it is definitely a thing.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo

    For some numbers:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace

    Hare reports that about 1 percent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[11] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3–4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[6] A 2011 study of Australian white-collar managers found that 5.76 percent could be classed as psychopathic and another 10.42 percent dysfunctional with psychopathic characteristics.

    I think it is reasonable to speculate that the higher the stakes the higher the proportion.

    P.S. To everyone else, I realize Corvinus isn’t truly interested in a serious conversation, but it is fun to answer him that way sometimes just to see how he reacts. And demonstrate his unseriousness to everyone.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    These studies are extremely flawed; as they are self-reported. The more intelligent and empathetic the person, the more likely they are to rise to become CEO of a company. Those two characteristics are extremely useful for the job.

    Intelligent and empathetic people are also more likely to have the self-awareness to notice their darker impulses and report them.

    Failing to notice your darker impulses makes you much more likely, not less, to engage in psychopathic behaviour.

    Replies: @res

    , @Corvinus
    @res

    I specified "sociopath", not "psychopath". While there are similarities, you do realize there are key differences, right?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201801/the-differences-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths

    The terms sociopath and psychopath generally tend to be bandied about casually. “His boss is a sociopath” or "That politician is a psychopath" comes across not as a judgement or an opinion, but as a definitive fact. However, the closest thing to psychopathy or sociopathy in the DSM5 (which defines every mental illness and its diagnostic criteria) is narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder. Now, one could argue the very nature of the corporation (and therefore capitalism) encourages sociopathic behaviors. That is, the focus on earning profits for the shareholders leads executives to engage in deception and cruelty without compassion. Those in charge may not be psychologically predisposed to be anti-social, but in order to function within the corporate world, they engage in actions that are characterized as anti-social. Of course, business people are but one type of elites. What about the other types typically referred to as elites, like university professors, politicians, and media/entertainment moguls? Where do they fit in statistically?

    Now, from the Forbes article...

    In their ground-breaking 2006 book “Snakes in Suits,” Paul Babiak and Robert Hare were among the first to attempt to quantify the presence of corporate psychopaths in the C-suite. They estimated the rate of psychopathy in the executive suite to be 3.9%. Since the release of the book there has been much disagreement over the extent of the presence of psychopaths in corporate America with most other estimates landing between 8% and 12%. Landay says that over the course of her research she has found that there is no conclusive evidence indicating that a large percentage of CEOs are psychopaths. Her work did find, however, that people with psychopathic tendencies were slightly more likely to become leaders...“Clinical psychopathy is a personality disorder and that is something that is diagnosed by a medical doctor,” Landay says. “That is not what we are talking about when we are looking at psychopathic CEOs. We are just talking about people who have really, really crappy personalities,” who share some of the personality traits of psychopaths, including boldness, meanness and impulsivity. “Lack of empathy is definitely a hallmark trait,” she says.
     

    Regarding Richard Hare and his checklist for psychopathy...

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


    Among laypersons and professionals, there is much confusion about the meanings and differences between psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and the ICD-10 diagnosis, dissocial personality disorder. Hare takes the stance that psychopathy as a syndrome should be considered distinct from the DSM-V's antisocial personality disorder construct, although the DSM states ASPD has been referred to as or includes the disorder of psychopathy. However, those who created the DSM-V felt that there was too much room for subjectivity on the part of clinicians when identifying things like remorse and guilt; therefore, the DSM-V panel decided to stick to observable behavior, namely socially deviant behaviors...Hare wants the DSM-V to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying psychopathy has no precise equivalent in either the DSM-V-TR, where it is most strongly correlated with the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, or the ICD-10, which has a similar diagnosis called dissocial personality disorder. Both organizations state their diagnoses have been referred to as or include the disorder of psychopathy. But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders."
     
    "P.S. To everyone else, I realize Corvinus isn’t truly interested in a serious conversation, but it is fun to answer him that way sometimes just to see how he reacts. And demonstrate his unseriousness to everyone."

    False conclusion on your part, which only tells me I am indeed on the right path to truth. Thanks for your support even if you dare not admit it externally!

    Replies: @res

  202. @notanon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Losing suggests inherent flaws.
     
    yes

    1. not understanding the nature of money

    2. not being shameless

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    If your root assumption, for why the world rejects you, is because you’re too good/intelligent and they’re too bad/stupid; you’ll be wrong 9 times out of 10.

    It is the habit of people who are narcissistically deluded.

  203. @res
    @Corvinus


    “elites are generally full of sociopaths”

    Citations needed.
     
    Depends on how you define "full," but it is definitely a thing.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo

    For some numbers:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace

    Hare reports that about 1 percent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[11] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3–4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[6] A 2011 study of Australian white-collar managers found that 5.76 percent could be classed as psychopathic and another 10.42 percent dysfunctional with psychopathic characteristics.
     
    I think it is reasonable to speculate that the higher the stakes the higher the proportion.

    P.S. To everyone else, I realize Corvinus isn't truly interested in a serious conversation, but it is fun to answer him that way sometimes just to see how he reacts. And demonstrate his unseriousness to everyone.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Corvinus

    These studies are extremely flawed; as they are self-reported. The more intelligent and empathetic the person, the more likely they are to rise to become CEO of a company. Those two characteristics are extremely useful for the job.

    Intelligent and empathetic people are also more likely to have the self-awareness to notice their darker impulses and report them.

    Failing to notice your darker impulses makes you much more likely, not less, to engage in psychopathic behaviour.

    • Replies: @res
    @Triteleia Laxa


    These studies are extremely flawed; as they are self-reported.
     
    That would be better with references to the text. Which studies do you mean?

    One of the researchers quoted in that Forbes article is a bit less positive about the idea.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30321033/

    Of the Wikipedia references, one is this article which references multiple studies.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-saft-idUSKBN19C2Y0
    I was unable to find the 2011 Australian study so many web pages talk about.

    The other is Hare's book.

    The more intelligent and empathetic the person, the more likely they are to rise to become CEO of a company. Those two characteristics are extremely useful for the job.
     
    Consider the possibility that a variety of traits are extremely useful for the job, and still more might incline someone to pursue the job.

    After wasting some time searching around, it is clear there are many breathless articles with few if any solid citations.

    P.S. If you don't want the disingenuous troll club to look like a collaboration it might be good to take care when intervening on each other's behalf.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  204. If your root assumption, for why the world rejects you, is because you’re too good/intelligent and they’re too bad/stupid; you’ll be wrong 9 times out of 10.

    or even 109 times out of 110

  205. @Corvinus
    @notanon

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    “(i accept that not everyone knows about the extreme levels of anti-white gang violence in white minority schools because the media covers it up)”

    I imagine you have several instances at your disposal that proves your assertion, so please share with the fine audience at this opinion webzine.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @notanon

    Must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”?

    some potential answers to the extreme levels of inter-racial sexual violence inflicted on white females:

    1. white people should just put up with it

    2. re-segregation

    3. people from the ethnic groups responsible say “hey guys maybe we should do something about this”

    black people who choose option 1 because they don’t want to be re-segregated and they personally aren’t responsible for the sexual violence aren’t the good guys.

    they’re not even good guys from the black pov as the levels of black-on-black sexual violence in gang-ruled neighborhoods has been at Congo levels for generations.

  206. res says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    These studies are extremely flawed; as they are self-reported. The more intelligent and empathetic the person, the more likely they are to rise to become CEO of a company. Those two characteristics are extremely useful for the job.

    Intelligent and empathetic people are also more likely to have the self-awareness to notice their darker impulses and report them.

    Failing to notice your darker impulses makes you much more likely, not less, to engage in psychopathic behaviour.

    Replies: @res

    These studies are extremely flawed; as they are self-reported.

    That would be better with references to the text. Which studies do you mean?

    One of the researchers quoted in that Forbes article is a bit less positive about the idea.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30321033/

    Of the Wikipedia references, one is this article which references multiple studies.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-saft-idUSKBN19C2Y0
    I was unable to find the 2011 Australian study so many web pages talk about.

    The other is Hare’s book.

    The more intelligent and empathetic the person, the more likely they are to rise to become CEO of a company. Those two characteristics are extremely useful for the job.

    Consider the possibility that a variety of traits are extremely useful for the job, and still more might incline someone to pursue the job.

    After wasting some time searching around, it is clear there are many breathless articles with few if any solid citations.

    P.S. If you don’t want the disingenuous troll club to look like a collaboration it might be good to take care when intervening on each other’s behalf.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res


    That would be better with references to the text. Which studies do you mean?
     
    Surveys are self-reported. They would be even more flawed if taken from people at work's peer group.

    After wasting some time searching around, it is clear there are many breathless articles with few if any solid citations.
     
    Yes.

    If you don’t want the disingenuous troll club to look like a collaboration
     
    It isn't my fault that you spent time looking up pseudo-science. I tried to warn you. Sorry you wasted your time, but don't take out your frustration on me.

    Replies: @res

  207. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa


    These studies are extremely flawed; as they are self-reported.
     
    That would be better with references to the text. Which studies do you mean?

    One of the researchers quoted in that Forbes article is a bit less positive about the idea.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30321033/

    Of the Wikipedia references, one is this article which references multiple studies.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-saft-idUSKBN19C2Y0
    I was unable to find the 2011 Australian study so many web pages talk about.

    The other is Hare's book.

    The more intelligent and empathetic the person, the more likely they are to rise to become CEO of a company. Those two characteristics are extremely useful for the job.
     
    Consider the possibility that a variety of traits are extremely useful for the job, and still more might incline someone to pursue the job.

    After wasting some time searching around, it is clear there are many breathless articles with few if any solid citations.

    P.S. If you don't want the disingenuous troll club to look like a collaboration it might be good to take care when intervening on each other's behalf.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    That would be better with references to the text. Which studies do you mean?

    Surveys are self-reported. They would be even more flawed if taken from people at work’s peer group.

    After wasting some time searching around, it is clear there are many breathless articles with few if any solid citations.

    Yes.

    If you don’t want the disingenuous troll club to look like a collaboration

    It isn’t my fault that you spent time looking up pseudo-science. I tried to warn you. Sorry you wasted your time, but don’t take out your frustration on me.

    • Replies: @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    If you want me to take you seriously then call out the specific study(ies) you have an issue with. Ideally with a quote making your point.

    Unwillingness to do that sort of thing = troll in my book.

    You might be right on this one (I'm still not sure, neither side of the debate I see online is impressing me when I look closely). But please do your share of the work and try engaging with what I cited in a useful fashion. (Hint: their are many studies embedded in the links I gave)

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  208. @Corvinus
    @anon

    "So, must every white person adhere to your beliefs, lest they automatically be labeled “anti-white”? Not at all."

    Great! That's a start. So, what does "anti-white" exactly mean to you?

    Replies: @anon

    Great! That’s a start.

    Do you often quote yourself like this?

    So, what does “anti-white” exactly mean to you?

    Those are your words you quoted. So what does “anti-white” mean to you?

    Please consider having a long and detailed dialog with yourself over these things.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "So, what does “anti-white” exactly mean to you?"

    I get it. You have no idea like myself.

    Replies: @anon

  209. @res
    @Corvinus


    “elites are generally full of sociopaths”

    Citations needed.
     
    Depends on how you define "full," but it is definitely a thing.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo

    For some numbers:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace

    Hare reports that about 1 percent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[11] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3–4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[6] A 2011 study of Australian white-collar managers found that 5.76 percent could be classed as psychopathic and another 10.42 percent dysfunctional with psychopathic characteristics.
     
    I think it is reasonable to speculate that the higher the stakes the higher the proportion.

    P.S. To everyone else, I realize Corvinus isn't truly interested in a serious conversation, but it is fun to answer him that way sometimes just to see how he reacts. And demonstrate his unseriousness to everyone.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Corvinus

    I specified “sociopath”, not “psychopath”. While there are similarities, you do realize there are key differences, right?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201801/the-differences-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths

    The terms sociopath and psychopath generally tend to be bandied about casually. “His boss is a sociopath” or “That politician is a psychopath” comes across not as a judgement or an opinion, but as a definitive fact. However, the closest thing to psychopathy or sociopathy in the DSM5 (which defines every mental illness and its diagnostic criteria) is narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder. Now, one could argue the very nature of the corporation (and therefore capitalism) encourages sociopathic behaviors. That is, the focus on earning profits for the shareholders leads executives to engage in deception and cruelty without compassion. Those in charge may not be psychologically predisposed to be anti-social, but in order to function within the corporate world, they engage in actions that are characterized as anti-social. Of course, business people are but one type of elites. What about the other types typically referred to as elites, like university professors, politicians, and media/entertainment moguls? Where do they fit in statistically?

    Now, from the Forbes article…

    In their ground-breaking 2006 book “Snakes in Suits,” Paul Babiak and Robert Hare were among the first to attempt to quantify the presence of corporate psychopaths in the C-suite. They estimated the rate of psychopathy in the executive suite to be 3.9%. Since the release of the book there has been much disagreement over the extent of the presence of psychopaths in corporate America with most other estimates landing between 8% and 12%. Landay says that over the course of her research she has found that there is no conclusive evidence indicating that a large percentage of CEOs are psychopaths. Her work did find, however, that people with psychopathic tendencies were slightly more likely to become leaders…“Clinical psychopathy is a personality disorder and that is something that is diagnosed by a medical doctor,” Landay says. “That is not what we are talking about when we are looking at psychopathic CEOs. We are just talking about people who have really, really crappy personalities,” who share some of the personality traits of psychopaths, including boldness, meanness and impulsivity. “Lack of empathy is definitely a hallmark trait,” she says.

    Regarding Richard Hare and his checklist for psychopathy…

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

    Among laypersons and professionals, there is much confusion about the meanings and differences between psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and the ICD-10 diagnosis, dissocial personality disorder. Hare takes the stance that psychopathy as a syndrome should be considered distinct from the DSM-V’s antisocial personality disorder construct, although the DSM states ASPD has been referred to as or includes the disorder of psychopathy. However, those who created the DSM-V felt that there was too much room for subjectivity on the part of clinicians when identifying things like remorse and guilt; therefore, the DSM-V panel decided to stick to observable behavior, namely socially deviant behaviors…Hare wants the DSM-V to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying psychopathy has no precise equivalent in either the DSM-V-TR, where it is most strongly correlated with the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, or the ICD-10, which has a similar diagnosis called dissocial personality disorder. Both organizations state their diagnoses have been referred to as or include the disorder of psychopathy. But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders.”

    “P.S. To everyone else, I realize Corvinus isn’t truly interested in a serious conversation, but it is fun to answer him that way sometimes just to see how he reacts. And demonstrate his unseriousness to everyone.”

    False conclusion on your part, which only tells me I am indeed on the right path to truth. Thanks for your support even if you dare not admit it externally!

    • Replies: @res
    @Corvinus


    I specified “sociopath”, not “psychopath”. While there are similarities, you do realize there are key differences, right?
     
    Yes, differences, but not sure how key they are at the level most of this discussion involves (even in the studies).

    Of course, business people are but one type of elites. What about the other types typically referred to as elites, like university professors, politicians, and media/entertainment moguls? Where do they fit in statistically?
     
    Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. I was simply going where data exists.

    I kind of liked the part of your Forbes quote which you did not bold, but at least included: 'Lack of empathy is definitely a hallmark trait,” she says.'

    The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): "But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders."

    So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare's profile, but it is OK since they are not violent.

    Definitional issues/games aside it seems clear their is an issue with a pretty nasty collection of personality traits being overrepresented at high levels in society. That seems like an important observation.

    False conclusion on your part, which only tells me I am indeed on the right path to truth. Thanks for your support even if you dare not admit it externally!
     
    LOL. At least you are trying. Just don't confuse comments like that with reality. You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  210. @anon
    @Corvinus

    Great! That’s a start.

    Do you often quote yourself like this?

    So, what does “anti-white” exactly mean to you?

    Those are your words you quoted. So what does "anti-white" mean to you?

    Please consider having a long and detailed dialog with yourself over these things.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “So, what does “anti-white” exactly mean to you?”

    I get it. You have no idea like myself.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    I get it. You have no idea like myself.

    Why not just answer the question? I mean, you're the one who asked...

    Please consider having a long and detailed dialog with yourself over these things.

  211. @notanon
    @Corvinus


    Pray tell, what nations have collapsed as a result of these practices?
     
    all the big empires imo from Sumer to USA via Rome, Persians, Ottomans etc.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “all the big empires imo from Sumer to USA via Rome, Persians, Ottomans etc.“

    Really? There was a “ banking mafia” in all or most of those empires? And they engaged in usury and currency debasement? That’s news to me. Should be easy for you to cite sources to prove your assertion.

  212. @Corvinus
    @anon

    "So, what does “anti-white” exactly mean to you?"

    I get it. You have no idea like myself.

    Replies: @anon

    I get it. You have no idea like myself.

    Why not just answer the question? I mean, you’re the one who asked…

    Please consider having a long and detailed dialog with yourself over these things.

  213. res says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @res


    That would be better with references to the text. Which studies do you mean?
     
    Surveys are self-reported. They would be even more flawed if taken from people at work's peer group.

    After wasting some time searching around, it is clear there are many breathless articles with few if any solid citations.
     
    Yes.

    If you don’t want the disingenuous troll club to look like a collaboration
     
    It isn't my fault that you spent time looking up pseudo-science. I tried to warn you. Sorry you wasted your time, but don't take out your frustration on me.

    Replies: @res

    If you want me to take you seriously then call out the specific study(ies) you have an issue with. Ideally with a quote making your point.

    Unwillingness to do that sort of thing = troll in my book.

    You might be right on this one (I’m still not sure, neither side of the debate I see online is impressing me when I look closely). But please do your share of the work and try engaging with what I cited in a useful fashion. (Hint: their are many studies embedded in the links I gave)

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    I don't care about some internet curmudgeon taking me seriously on a pseudo-science topic. I tried to warn you, that is all. Did my part.

    Replies: @res

  214. res says:
    @Corvinus
    @res

    I specified "sociopath", not "psychopath". While there are similarities, you do realize there are key differences, right?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201801/the-differences-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths

    The terms sociopath and psychopath generally tend to be bandied about casually. “His boss is a sociopath” or "That politician is a psychopath" comes across not as a judgement or an opinion, but as a definitive fact. However, the closest thing to psychopathy or sociopathy in the DSM5 (which defines every mental illness and its diagnostic criteria) is narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder. Now, one could argue the very nature of the corporation (and therefore capitalism) encourages sociopathic behaviors. That is, the focus on earning profits for the shareholders leads executives to engage in deception and cruelty without compassion. Those in charge may not be psychologically predisposed to be anti-social, but in order to function within the corporate world, they engage in actions that are characterized as anti-social. Of course, business people are but one type of elites. What about the other types typically referred to as elites, like university professors, politicians, and media/entertainment moguls? Where do they fit in statistically?

    Now, from the Forbes article...

    In their ground-breaking 2006 book “Snakes in Suits,” Paul Babiak and Robert Hare were among the first to attempt to quantify the presence of corporate psychopaths in the C-suite. They estimated the rate of psychopathy in the executive suite to be 3.9%. Since the release of the book there has been much disagreement over the extent of the presence of psychopaths in corporate America with most other estimates landing between 8% and 12%. Landay says that over the course of her research she has found that there is no conclusive evidence indicating that a large percentage of CEOs are psychopaths. Her work did find, however, that people with psychopathic tendencies were slightly more likely to become leaders...“Clinical psychopathy is a personality disorder and that is something that is diagnosed by a medical doctor,” Landay says. “That is not what we are talking about when we are looking at psychopathic CEOs. We are just talking about people who have really, really crappy personalities,” who share some of the personality traits of psychopaths, including boldness, meanness and impulsivity. “Lack of empathy is definitely a hallmark trait,” she says.
     

    Regarding Richard Hare and his checklist for psychopathy...

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


    Among laypersons and professionals, there is much confusion about the meanings and differences between psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and the ICD-10 diagnosis, dissocial personality disorder. Hare takes the stance that psychopathy as a syndrome should be considered distinct from the DSM-V's antisocial personality disorder construct, although the DSM states ASPD has been referred to as or includes the disorder of psychopathy. However, those who created the DSM-V felt that there was too much room for subjectivity on the part of clinicians when identifying things like remorse and guilt; therefore, the DSM-V panel decided to stick to observable behavior, namely socially deviant behaviors...Hare wants the DSM-V to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying psychopathy has no precise equivalent in either the DSM-V-TR, where it is most strongly correlated with the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, or the ICD-10, which has a similar diagnosis called dissocial personality disorder. Both organizations state their diagnoses have been referred to as or include the disorder of psychopathy. But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders."
     
    "P.S. To everyone else, I realize Corvinus isn’t truly interested in a serious conversation, but it is fun to answer him that way sometimes just to see how he reacts. And demonstrate his unseriousness to everyone."

    False conclusion on your part, which only tells me I am indeed on the right path to truth. Thanks for your support even if you dare not admit it externally!

    Replies: @res

    I specified “sociopath”, not “psychopath”. While there are similarities, you do realize there are key differences, right?

    Yes, differences, but not sure how key they are at the level most of this discussion involves (even in the studies).

    Of course, business people are but one type of elites. What about the other types typically referred to as elites, like university professors, politicians, and media/entertainment moguls? Where do they fit in statistically?

    Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. I was simply going where data exists.

    I kind of liked the part of your Forbes quote which you did not bold, but at least included: ‘Lack of empathy is definitely a hallmark trait,” she says.’

    The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): “But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders.”

    So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare’s profile, but it is OK since they are not violent.

    Definitional issues/games aside it seems clear their is an issue with a pretty nasty collection of personality traits being overrepresented at high levels in society. That seems like an important observation.

    False conclusion on your part, which only tells me I am indeed on the right path to truth. Thanks for your support even if you dare not admit it externally!

    LOL. At least you are trying. Just don’t confuse comments like that with reality. You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @res

    "Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. "

    Depends upon the person and circumstances.

    https://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html


    The Psychopathy Checklist consists of a set of forms and a manual that describes in detail how to score a subject in twenty categories that define psychopathy. Is he (or, more rarely, she) glib and superficially charming, callous and without empathy? Does he have a grandiose sense of self worth, shallow emotions, a lack of remorse or guilt? Is he impulsive, irresponsible, promiscuous? Did he have behavioural problems early in life? The information for each category must be carefully drawn from documents such as court transcripts, police reports, psychologists' reports, and victim-impact statements, and not solely from an interview, since psychopaths are superb liars ("pathological lying" and "conning/manipulative" are PCL-R categories). A prisoner may claim to love his family, for example, while his records show no visits or phone calls.

    ...

    It's also found practical applications in police-squad rooms. Soon after he delivered a keynote speech at a conference for homicide detectives and prosecuting attorneys in Seattle three years ago, Hare got a letter thanking him for helping solve a series of homicides. The police had a suspect nailed for a couple of murders, but believed he was responsible for others. They were using the usual strategy to get a confession, telling him, 'Think how much better you'll feel, think of the families left behind,' and so on. After they'd heard Hare speak they realized they were dealing with a psychopath, someone who could feel neither guilt nor sorrow. They changed their interrogation tactic to, "So you murdered a couple of prostitutes. That's minor-league compared to Bundy or Gacy." The appeal to the psychopath's grandiosity worked. He didn't just confess to his other crimes, he bragged about them.

    ...

    How can you tell if your boss is a psychopath? It's not easy, says Babiak. "They have traits similar to ideal leaders. You would expect an ideal leader to be narcissistic, self-centred, dominant, very assertive, maybe to the point of being aggressive. Those things can easily be mistaken for the aggression and bullying that a psychopath would demonstrate. The ability to get people to follow you is a leadership trait, but being charismatic to the point of manipulating people is a psychopathic trait. They can sometimes be confused."
     
    "The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): “But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders. "So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare’s profile, but it is OK since they are not violent."

    There you go again making a charge of a particular fallacy without offering a full explanation. How exactly did you draw that conclusion?

    Let's dig deeper here regarding psychopathy and violence.

    https://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

    The most startling finding to emerge from Hare's work is that the popular image of the psychopath as a remorseless, smiling killer -- Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson, John Wayne Gacy -- while not wrong, is incomplete. Yes, almost all serial killers, and most of Canada's dangerous offenders, are psychopaths, but violent criminals are just a tiny fraction of the psychopaths around us. Hare estimates that 1 percent of the population -- 300,000 people in Canada -- are psychopaths.

    He calls them "subclinical" psychopaths. They're the charming predators who, unable to form real emotional bonds, find and use vulnerable women for sex and money (and inevitably abandon them). They're the con men like Christophe Rocancourt, and they're the stockbrokers and promoters who caused Forbes magazine to call the Vancouver Stock Exchange (now part of the Canadian Venture Exchange) the scam capital of the world. (Hare has said that if he couldn't study psychopaths in prisons, the Vancouver Stock Exchange would have been his second choice.) A significant proportion of persistent wife beaters, and people who have unprotected sex despite carrying the AIDS virus, are psychopaths. Psychopaths can be found in legislatures, hospitals, and used-car lots. They're your neighbour, your boss, and your blind date. Because they have no conscience, they're natural predators. If you didn't have a conscience, you'd be one too.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978196/

    According to the author of the PCL-R, psychopaths are “intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their selfish needs” (Hare, 1996, p. 26). Although this description certainly holds for some psychopathic individuals, there is little evidence that those with high PCL-R scores are at risk for violence chiefly because they are cold-hearted, callous, or emotionally detached. The PCL-R consists of two basic scales that can be subdivided into four subscales: the Factor 1 Interpersonal-Affective (Hare, 2003) scale assesses core features of psychopathy, or the “selfish, callous, and remorseless use of others” (Hare et al., 1990, p. 745), whereas the Factor 2 Social Deviance (Hare, 2003) scale assesses a “chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyle” (Hare et al., 1990, p. 745). Research robustly indicates that the relation between the PCL-R and violence is largely attributable to its Social Deviance scale (Skeem & Mulvey, 2001; Walters, 2003) and Antisocial subscale (Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008). This may be partly because of Meehl's maxim that past behavior is typically the best predictor of future similar behavior (Gendreau et al., 2003) and partly because the scale taps broad traits like antagonism, anger, and impulsivity that are not specific to psychopathy, but place people at risk for involvement in violence (Skeem, Miller, Mulvey, Tiemann, & Monahan, 2005). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis indicated that the utility of Social Deviance in predicting violence did not vary as a function of Interpersonal-Affective traits (or vice versa; Kennealy, Skeem, Walters, & Camp, 2010). This challenges the view (see Hare & Neumann, 2008) that specific psychopathic traits combine with antisocial behavior in a manner that is informative beyond the simple sum of parts.
     
    "You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth."

    Doubling down on your false assertion only provides additional evidence that I am indeed serious about finding truth and engaging in discourse. Thanks again!

    Replies: @res

  215. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    If you want me to take you seriously then call out the specific study(ies) you have an issue with. Ideally with a quote making your point.

    Unwillingness to do that sort of thing = troll in my book.

    You might be right on this one (I'm still not sure, neither side of the debate I see online is impressing me when I look closely). But please do your share of the work and try engaging with what I cited in a useful fashion. (Hint: their are many studies embedded in the links I gave)

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I don’t care about some internet curmudgeon taking me seriously on a pseudo-science topic. I tried to warn you, that is all. Did my part.

    • Replies: @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    OK. But it's not just me. If you want to convince anyone else (which I do think you care about, much more so than warning me IMO) you would do well to follow my advice. Because I will continue calling you out when you fail to back up what you say.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @anon

  216. res says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    I don't care about some internet curmudgeon taking me seriously on a pseudo-science topic. I tried to warn you, that is all. Did my part.

    Replies: @res

    OK. But it’s not just me. If you want to convince anyone else (which I do think you care about, much more so than warning me IMO) you would do well to follow my advice. Because I will continue calling you out when you fail to back up what you say.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    I don't care about convincing them of anything political. I could give you many good reasons why trying to do so would be a completely irrational waste of time, but, really, I'm just not that person.

    I am interested in ideas. I am particularly interested in developing my own; as I love learning new things, but I learn intuitively and through putting myself in the perspective of others. This makes some subjects very difficult to learn about in ordinary life - like politics.

    I am also interested in people. Why they think like they do, and how it serves them. The more extreme the people; the more likely I will find them interesting.

    Primarily, I don't come here to give, I come here to take. If I can offer a few kind personal insights, or straighten up some basic misconceptions on a particular topic, then that's a bonus.

    Please continue to think whatever you want about the preponderance of psychopathic traits among CEOs. Everyone wants to think that people who are more successful than them only got there by some evil or fluke. It isn't surprising that there is an entire cottage industry out there dedicating to provide people with such validation. I only ask: how could any study ever be designed and run to prove their thesis? It can't. It is an epistemological impossibility.

    Replies: @res

    , @anon
    @res

    You are aware that this particular account has at least two, and possibly three, distinct personalities? The handle all by itself is a giveaway, as she / they pointed out earlier here at AE.

    Replies: @res

  217. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    OK. But it's not just me. If you want to convince anyone else (which I do think you care about, much more so than warning me IMO) you would do well to follow my advice. Because I will continue calling you out when you fail to back up what you say.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @anon

    I don’t care about convincing them of anything political. I could give you many good reasons why trying to do so would be a completely irrational waste of time, but, really, I’m just not that person.

    [MORE]

    I am interested in ideas. I am particularly interested in developing my own; as I love learning new things, but I learn intuitively and through putting myself in the perspective of others. This makes some subjects very difficult to learn about in ordinary life – like politics.

    I am also interested in people. Why they think like they do, and how it serves them. The more extreme the people; the more likely I will find them interesting.

    Primarily, I don’t come here to give, I come here to take. If I can offer a few kind personal insights, or straighten up some basic misconceptions on a particular topic, then that’s a bonus.

    Please continue to think whatever you want about the preponderance of psychopathic traits among CEOs. Everyone wants to think that people who are more successful than them only got there by some evil or fluke. It isn’t surprising that there is an entire cottage industry out there dedicating to provide people with such validation. I only ask: how could any study ever be designed and run to prove their thesis? It can’t. It is an epistemological impossibility.

    • Replies: @res
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Primarily, I don’t come here to give, I come here to take.
     
    Fair enough. Just consider the possibility that by giving to people who are willing to give back you just might end up getting more than you give. Especially when multiple others are involved.

    P.S. It will be interesting to watch how your future comments match up with your description of Triteleia Laxa. Thanks.
  218. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    OK. But it's not just me. If you want to convince anyone else (which I do think you care about, much more so than warning me IMO) you would do well to follow my advice. Because I will continue calling you out when you fail to back up what you say.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @anon

    You are aware that this particular account has at least two, and possibly three, distinct personalities? The handle all by itself is a giveaway, as she / they pointed out earlier here at AE.

    • Replies: @res
    @anon

    I somehow missed your comment the first time. Saw it when pulling a quote from the comment above it.


    You are aware that this particular account has at least two, and possibly three, distinct personalities?
     
    I was aware of that, but had been assuming it was one person with some hot buttons. I prefer to take people at face value unless I have good reason not to (since provided in TL's case).

    The handle all by itself is a giveaway, as she / they pointed out earlier here at AE.
     
    Understood about the handle, but I can't find that comment. Do you have a link?
  219. res says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    I don't care about convincing them of anything political. I could give you many good reasons why trying to do so would be a completely irrational waste of time, but, really, I'm just not that person.

    I am interested in ideas. I am particularly interested in developing my own; as I love learning new things, but I learn intuitively and through putting myself in the perspective of others. This makes some subjects very difficult to learn about in ordinary life - like politics.

    I am also interested in people. Why they think like they do, and how it serves them. The more extreme the people; the more likely I will find them interesting.

    Primarily, I don't come here to give, I come here to take. If I can offer a few kind personal insights, or straighten up some basic misconceptions on a particular topic, then that's a bonus.

    Please continue to think whatever you want about the preponderance of psychopathic traits among CEOs. Everyone wants to think that people who are more successful than them only got there by some evil or fluke. It isn't surprising that there is an entire cottage industry out there dedicating to provide people with such validation. I only ask: how could any study ever be designed and run to prove their thesis? It can't. It is an epistemological impossibility.

    Replies: @res

    Primarily, I don’t come here to give, I come here to take.

    Fair enough. Just consider the possibility that by giving to people who are willing to give back you just might end up getting more than you give. Especially when multiple others are involved.

    P.S. It will be interesting to watch how your future comments match up with your description of Triteleia Laxa. Thanks.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
  220. @eaweblog
    "But while the fertility and outmarriage rates of liberal whites and white Trump supporters are roughly similar..."

    You sure about that, chief?

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage

    Replies: @Alden

    Conservatives do have more children. But at age 5 the children enter the liberal brain washing machine known as the school system. Private and religious schools are just as liberal. It’s the same books by the same publishers and the same basic school curriculum.

    As far as mawkish destructive charity is destructive to conservative values. The religious schools are worse than the public schools. SW states like California Texas have sister parishes across the border. Parishioners and kids in the school are constantly sending clothes toys furniture across the border to help the Mexicans. And they also preach welcome the stranger.As in, open the borders and let the world invade.

    In the SE states, the Protestant churches sponsor adoption of Haitian babies and Haitian immigrants. And the men spend their vacation time on missions to Haiti building homes.

    The catholic; and the Protestant schools that call themselves “Christian” rather that Protestant do teach that abortion is the sin of homicide. And are not pro homosexual trans etc. but that’s about it. Otherwise they are ultra liberal. Christian charity and forgiveness you know.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Alden

    Strange but true:


    The religious schools are worse than the public schools.... And they also preach welcome the stranger. As in, open the borders and let the world invade.
     
    I have observed the same. I have no explanation for it.

    On paper, the religious schools are no worse, perhaps, but where I have lived the public schools are mostly taught by normal persons with normal sensibilites, who use their classroom authority to blunt the hard edge of an aggressively progressive curriculum. Religious-school faculties by contrast seem to include more fanatics.

    It is almost as though religious-school teachers were motivated by every cause except a desire to teach a straightforward, sturdy, moderate rendition of their own religion. Odd, that.

    However, I have not lived in a large number of places since my children reached school age, so I might merely be describing the area in which I happen to live. Also, I am not old enough to remember the nun-faculty. Maybe it was different then.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

  221. @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Thanks. (No reacts left.)

    Can we have more? Like a few times more? They don't seem to be clogging up the page at the moment and are conducive to considerate and efficient dialogue.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Can we have more? Like a few times more? They don’t seem to be clogging up the page at the moment and are conducive to considerate and efficient dialogue.

    Opinions can differ, but for myself, I like it as it is. The fewness of available reacts protects me from inadvertently insulting someone by failure to react. I don’t feel as though I had to react to every comment I read and find interesting.

    Besides, upvote/downvote systems seem to turn thoughtful fora into echo chambers.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Dissident
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The fewness of available reacts protects me from inadvertently insulting someone by failure to react. I don’t feel as though I had to react to every comment I read and find interesting.
     
    That is an interesting way of looking at it. Certainly, the concern you have articulated is quite valid.

    On the other hand, I have long been bothered by the practical inability to acknowledge at all any more than what are often but a few out of many worthy and commendable comments that deserve acknowledgement. And, in often wishing for some idea of how a given comment of mine may have been received, or even how widely read it was, I would surely not be alone.


    Besides, upvote/downvote systems seem to turn thoughtful fora into echo chambers.
     
    True, and/but even without such a feedback mechanism, the echo chamber phenomenon can be all-too-real and all-too-common. (This particular blog would appear to largely be an exception.[1]) Perhaps the worst effect of upvote/downvote systems is that of encouraging and facilitating an adolescent popularity contest/ gang-up on the unpopular, alienated, out-of-sync kids type of atmosphere.

    That said, I believe a feedback system along the lines of the following could be quite interesting and even useful.

    For two distinct categories, a twenty point scale, from -10 to 10, with zero being neutral:

    Agree/disagree (independent of any inherent qualities or merits of the comment)
    -10 = Vehemently and unequivocally disagree, completely, with entire comment.
    0 = Neutral; neither agree nor disagree.
    +10= Emphatically and unequivocally agree, completely, with entire comment.

    Contributes/detracts (independent of agreement with any of the views expressed in the comment)
    -10 = "The comment contributes nothing useful or desirable to the thread, and emphatically detracts from it."
    0 = Neutral; "The comment neither contributes to nor detracts from the thread."
    +10 = The comment, in its entirety, is a welcome, positive contribution to the thread.

    Additional, specific criteria for rating the writing quality, and the strength of argument made, etc., could be useful.

    [1] The one other section of this site, The Unz Review, that I have more than only occasionally spent any considerable amount of time at is Steve Sailer's blog. For all its strengths and commending aspects, a distinct weakness it has, at least for the comment sections, is how often they can resemble little more than an orgy of smug, self-satisfied individuals massaging each other's already-inflated egos; circularly confirming each other's simplistic, often ignorant, often bigoted biases, prejudices and prior convictions.

    Regular Unz commenters utu and Intelligent Dasein have written scathing attacks upon iSteve. The ones that I recall reading, while easily more than a tad overwrought and perhaps even completely off on at least some counts, were nonetheless (at least so far as the commentariat is concerned) not without validity and insight.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  222. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Can we have more? Like a few times more? They don’t seem to be clogging up the page at the moment and are conducive to considerate and efficient dialogue.
     
    Opinions can differ, but for myself, I like it as it is. The fewness of available reacts protects me from inadvertently insulting someone by failure to react. I don't feel as though I had to react to every comment I read and find interesting.

    Besides, upvote/downvote systems seem to turn thoughtful fora into echo chambers.

    Replies: @Dissident

    The fewness of available reacts protects me from inadvertently insulting someone by failure to react. I don’t feel as though I had to react to every comment I read and find interesting.

    That is an interesting way of looking at it. Certainly, the concern you have articulated is quite valid.

    On the other hand, I have long been bothered by the practical inability to acknowledge at all any more than what are often but a few out of many worthy and commendable comments that deserve acknowledgement.

    [MORE]
    And, in often wishing for some idea of how a given comment of mine may have been received, or even how widely read it was, I would surely not be alone.

    Besides, upvote/downvote systems seem to turn thoughtful fora into echo chambers.

    True, and/but even without such a feedback mechanism, the echo chamber phenomenon can be all-too-real and all-too-common. (This particular blog would appear to largely be an exception.[1]) Perhaps the worst effect of upvote/downvote systems is that of encouraging and facilitating an adolescent popularity contest/ gang-up on the unpopular, alienated, out-of-sync kids type of atmosphere.

    That said, I believe a feedback system along the lines of the following could be quite interesting and even useful.

    For two distinct categories, a twenty point scale, from 10 to 10, with zero being neutral:

    Agree/disagree (independent of any inherent qualities or merits of the comment)
    -10 = Vehemently and unequivocally disagree, completely, with entire comment.
    0 = Neutral; neither agree nor disagree.
    +10= Emphatically and unequivocally agree, completely, with entire comment.

    Contributes/detracts (independent of agreement with any of the views expressed in the comment)
    -10 = “The comment contributes nothing useful or desirable to the thread, and emphatically detracts from it.”
    0 = Neutral; “The comment neither contributes to nor detracts from the thread.
    +10 = The comment, in its entirety, is a welcome, positive contribution to the thread.

    Additional, specific criteria for rating the writing quality, and the strength of argument made, etc., could be useful.

    [1] The one other section of this site, The Unz Review, that I have more than only occasionally spent any considerable amount of time at is Steve Sailer’s blog. For all its strengths and commending aspects, a distinct weakness it has, at least for the comment sections, is how often they can resemble little more than an orgy of smug, self-satisfied individuals massaging each other’s already-inflated egos; circularly confirming each other’s simplistic, often ignorant, often bigoted biases, prejudices and prior convictions.

    Regular Unz commenters utu and Intelligent Dasein have written scathing attacks upon iSteve. The ones that I recall reading, while easily more than a tad overwrought and perhaps even completely off on at least some counts, were nonetheless (at least so far as the commentariat is concerned) not without validity and insight.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dissident


    Perhaps the worst effect of upvote/downvote systems is that of encouraging and facilitating an adolescent popularity contest/ gang-up on the unpopular, alienated, out-of-sync kids type of atmosphere.
     
    I agree. I'd hate to see any any kind of upvote/downvote system for that reason.

    I'd like to see the Troll button eliminated. On Unz Review it's almost invariably used as the equivalent of five-year-olds in the schoolyard calling each other poopy-heads. It isn't used to identify actual trolls but merely as an insult that people hurl, usually when they're losing an argument.

    It isn't a huge problem on this particular blog but it's ludicrously misused on UR as a whole.

    I'd like to see the Disagree button eliminated as well because it's pointless. Merely indicating that you disagree with a comment serves no purpose unless you explain why you disagree.

    And, in often wishing for some idea of how a given comment of mine may have been received, or even how widely read it was, I would surely not be alone.
     
    Yes, I agree with that. The answer is probably to allow people to use the Agree button more freely.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Dissident

  223. @Dissident
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The fewness of available reacts protects me from inadvertently insulting someone by failure to react. I don’t feel as though I had to react to every comment I read and find interesting.
     
    That is an interesting way of looking at it. Certainly, the concern you have articulated is quite valid.

    On the other hand, I have long been bothered by the practical inability to acknowledge at all any more than what are often but a few out of many worthy and commendable comments that deserve acknowledgement. And, in often wishing for some idea of how a given comment of mine may have been received, or even how widely read it was, I would surely not be alone.


    Besides, upvote/downvote systems seem to turn thoughtful fora into echo chambers.
     
    True, and/but even without such a feedback mechanism, the echo chamber phenomenon can be all-too-real and all-too-common. (This particular blog would appear to largely be an exception.[1]) Perhaps the worst effect of upvote/downvote systems is that of encouraging and facilitating an adolescent popularity contest/ gang-up on the unpopular, alienated, out-of-sync kids type of atmosphere.

    That said, I believe a feedback system along the lines of the following could be quite interesting and even useful.

    For two distinct categories, a twenty point scale, from -10 to 10, with zero being neutral:

    Agree/disagree (independent of any inherent qualities or merits of the comment)
    -10 = Vehemently and unequivocally disagree, completely, with entire comment.
    0 = Neutral; neither agree nor disagree.
    +10= Emphatically and unequivocally agree, completely, with entire comment.

    Contributes/detracts (independent of agreement with any of the views expressed in the comment)
    -10 = "The comment contributes nothing useful or desirable to the thread, and emphatically detracts from it."
    0 = Neutral; "The comment neither contributes to nor detracts from the thread."
    +10 = The comment, in its entirety, is a welcome, positive contribution to the thread.

    Additional, specific criteria for rating the writing quality, and the strength of argument made, etc., could be useful.

    [1] The one other section of this site, The Unz Review, that I have more than only occasionally spent any considerable amount of time at is Steve Sailer's blog. For all its strengths and commending aspects, a distinct weakness it has, at least for the comment sections, is how often they can resemble little more than an orgy of smug, self-satisfied individuals massaging each other's already-inflated egos; circularly confirming each other's simplistic, often ignorant, often bigoted biases, prejudices and prior convictions.

    Regular Unz commenters utu and Intelligent Dasein have written scathing attacks upon iSteve. The ones that I recall reading, while easily more than a tad overwrought and perhaps even completely off on at least some counts, were nonetheless (at least so far as the commentariat is concerned) not without validity and insight.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Perhaps the worst effect of upvote/downvote systems is that of encouraging and facilitating an adolescent popularity contest/ gang-up on the unpopular, alienated, out-of-sync kids type of atmosphere.

    I agree. I’d hate to see any any kind of upvote/downvote system for that reason.

    I’d like to see the Troll button eliminated. On Unz Review it’s almost invariably used as the equivalent of five-year-olds in the schoolyard calling each other poopy-heads. It isn’t used to identify actual trolls but merely as an insult that people hurl, usually when they’re losing an argument.

    It isn’t a huge problem on this particular blog but it’s ludicrously misused on UR as a whole.

    I’d like to see the Disagree button eliminated as well because it’s pointless. Merely indicating that you disagree with a comment serves no purpose unless you explain why you disagree.

    And, in often wishing for some idea of how a given comment of mine may have been received, or even how widely read it was, I would surely not be alone.

    Yes, I agree with that. The answer is probably to allow people to use the Agree button more freely.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @dfordoom

    I like the "disagree" button. It allows people to leave a conversation that isn't going anywhere, while simply registering where they are at.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Dissident
    @dfordoom


    I’d like to see the Troll button eliminated. On Unz Review it’s almost invariably used as the equivalent of five-year-olds in the schoolyard calling each other poopy-heads.
     
    Absolutely. Below, beyond the break, I present a modified adaptation from part of a comment that I had posted in November 2019 to one of Ron Unz's Announcement threads, in which I offered several arguments against the very concept of a "TROLL" button.[1]

    Merely indicating that you disagree with a comment serves no purpose unless you explain why you disagree.
     
    Not always. There can be value in merely indicating disagreement. Triteleia Laxa cited the case of "a conversation that isn’t going anywhere". I would add cases where a detailed response could very well be useful, even ideal, but one simply lacks the necessary time or perhaps even motivation and interest to compose one.

    The answer is probably to allow people to use the Agree button more freely.
     
    Or Thanks, which is useful for those cases in which one does not necessarily agree with all or even any of a given comment, but nonetheless wishes to acknowledge and perhaps commend it. Such a case can be that of wishing to thank someone for a reply he had taken the time and trouble to make, or simply to express appreciation for the general contribution that was made by a given comment.


    [1] I have always found the "TROLL" button to be silly, childish, easily prone to abuse, and utterly gratuitous.* Even in a case where one is sincerely convinced that a given comment is truly and properly an instance of trolling (i.e., made only to incite, offend or disrupt), just what does merely branding it as such accomplish? Isn't the very act of so conspicuously registering a response -- any response at all-- to a comment that one has deemed a troll not an inherent contradiction; not a violation the of the most basic rule about trolls: not to feed them?

    Ron Unz tells us "All the Troll button does is warn other commenters." I would ask Mr. Unz why he thinks those who comment at this site would need such a warning. Does he not regard us as sufficiently intelligent, mature, wise, and independent to judge and decide for ourselves how best to respond (or to not respond) to any given comment?

    *I cannot claim, once the option already exists, to have never succumbed to the temptation of resorting to its application.

    To encourage people to dismiss or ignore a comment based on something so subjective, so utterly arbitrary and capricious, and so liable to be driven by the pettiest of motivations? Doesn't the ability to simply label any given comment as "TROLL" enable and encourage the very type of mob-like behavior that Mr. Unz cites wishing to avoid as a prime reason for limiting the total number of times-per-hour that any user may invoke any "reaction" function?

    Moreover, even if it were to be known with certainty that a given substantive comment had been posted solely with the intent to incite or disrupt, would that a priori preclude the possibility that there could be value in responding to it?

    I say scrap the "TROLL" button entirely. Replace it, perhaps, with a DISAVOW or CONDEMN button or something similar for use when mere disagreement is insufficient. Let's encourage people to focus on ideas and substance over personalities.
  224. @dfordoom
    @Dissident


    Perhaps the worst effect of upvote/downvote systems is that of encouraging and facilitating an adolescent popularity contest/ gang-up on the unpopular, alienated, out-of-sync kids type of atmosphere.
     
    I agree. I'd hate to see any any kind of upvote/downvote system for that reason.

    I'd like to see the Troll button eliminated. On Unz Review it's almost invariably used as the equivalent of five-year-olds in the schoolyard calling each other poopy-heads. It isn't used to identify actual trolls but merely as an insult that people hurl, usually when they're losing an argument.

    It isn't a huge problem on this particular blog but it's ludicrously misused on UR as a whole.

    I'd like to see the Disagree button eliminated as well because it's pointless. Merely indicating that you disagree with a comment serves no purpose unless you explain why you disagree.

    And, in often wishing for some idea of how a given comment of mine may have been received, or even how widely read it was, I would surely not be alone.
     
    Yes, I agree with that. The answer is probably to allow people to use the Agree button more freely.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Dissident

    I like the “disagree” button. It allows people to leave a conversation that isn’t going anywhere, while simply registering where they are at.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I like the “disagree” button. It allows people to leave a conversation that isn’t going anywhere, while simply registering where they are at.
     
    That's true. There are arguments for and against all these features. Except for the Troll button. I can't see any arguments in favour of that one. It just adds an extra layer of nastiness to arguments that are getting heated.
  225. @Alden
    @eaweblog

    Conservatives do have more children. But at age 5 the children enter the liberal brain washing machine known as the school system. Private and religious schools are just as liberal. It’s the same books by the same publishers and the same basic school curriculum.

    As far as mawkish destructive charity is destructive to conservative values. The religious schools are worse than the public schools. SW states like California Texas have sister parishes across the border. Parishioners and kids in the school are constantly sending clothes toys furniture across the border to help the Mexicans. And they also preach welcome the stranger.As in, open the borders and let the world invade.

    In the SE states, the Protestant churches sponsor adoption of Haitian babies and Haitian immigrants. And the men spend their vacation time on missions to Haiti building homes.

    The catholic; and the Protestant schools that call themselves “Christian” rather that Protestant do teach that abortion is the sin of homicide. And are not pro homosexual trans etc. but that’s about it. Otherwise they are ultra liberal. Christian charity and forgiveness you know.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Strange but true:

    The religious schools are worse than the public schools…. And they also preach welcome the stranger. As in, open the borders and let the world invade.

    I have observed the same. I have no explanation for it.

    On paper, the religious schools are no worse, perhaps, but where I have lived the public schools are mostly taught by normal persons with normal sensibilites, who use their classroom authority to blunt the hard edge of an aggressively progressive curriculum. Religious-school faculties by contrast seem to include more fanatics.

    It is almost as though religious-school teachers were motivated by every cause except a desire to teach a straightforward, sturdy, moderate rendition of their own religion. Odd, that.

    However, I have not lived in a large number of places since my children reached school age, so I might merely be describing the area in which I happen to live. Also, I am not old enough to remember the nun-faculty. Maybe it was different then.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Religious-school faculties by contrast seem to include more fanatics.
     
    My impression is that religious schools are mostly very firmly in the hands of liberal Christians. And liberal Christians can be a great deal worse than secular liberals. I'm not sure if there's any way that conservative Christians could regain control of religious schools.
    , @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Is "religious schools" here meant to largely imply Catholic schools?

    I will say that Catholic schools have a particularly acute problem caused by the existence of nominal or "cultural" Catholics among alums, students (and their parents), donors, and teachers. My old Catholic HS has a very liberal local businessman and alum on the board -- for him, that school is sort of a generational, ethnic thing, and the actual Catholic moral teaching is basically all nonsense, and yet he's one of the school's chief benefactors.

    This is one of those things about Catholicism that leaves me ambivalent -- the faith continues to have a certain call and appeal, even among those who have essentially rejected it. In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it would seem the main effect of this appeal is that a lot more wolves in sheep's clothing end up involved in Catholic institutions.

    There's not really such a thing as "cultural Protestants" much anymore, and I don't know to what degree there ever was. Protestant school alums who grow up to hate Protestant teaching normally disavow themselves of their old denomination entirely, and Christianity as well, and seldom end up sending their kids and donating large sums of money to Protestant schools they once attended. Protestant colleges have had a tendency to liberalize since at least the 18th century, but the difference is they normally eventually break their denominational ties and cease to be explicitly Christian schools.

    I found this report interesting, which argues for Catholic primary/secondary schools offering better life outcomes than public schools, and Protestant schools offering better outcomes than either. Though it only speaks to things like marriage stability, and not leftist indoctrination.

    https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FINAL-IFS-ProtestantFamilyEthicReport-1.pdf?x91208

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Intelligent Dasein

  226. @res
    @Corvinus


    I specified “sociopath”, not “psychopath”. While there are similarities, you do realize there are key differences, right?
     
    Yes, differences, but not sure how key they are at the level most of this discussion involves (even in the studies).

    Of course, business people are but one type of elites. What about the other types typically referred to as elites, like university professors, politicians, and media/entertainment moguls? Where do they fit in statistically?
     
    Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. I was simply going where data exists.

    I kind of liked the part of your Forbes quote which you did not bold, but at least included: 'Lack of empathy is definitely a hallmark trait,” she says.'

    The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): "But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders."

    So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare's profile, but it is OK since they are not violent.

    Definitional issues/games aside it seems clear their is an issue with a pretty nasty collection of personality traits being overrepresented at high levels in society. That seems like an important observation.

    False conclusion on your part, which only tells me I am indeed on the right path to truth. Thanks for your support even if you dare not admit it externally!
     
    LOL. At least you are trying. Just don't confuse comments like that with reality. You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. ”

    Depends upon the person and circumstances.

    https://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

    The Psychopathy Checklist consists of a set of forms and a manual that describes in detail how to score a subject in twenty categories that define psychopathy. Is he (or, more rarely, she) glib and superficially charming, callous and without empathy? Does he have a grandiose sense of self worth, shallow emotions, a lack of remorse or guilt? Is he impulsive, irresponsible, promiscuous? Did he have behavioural problems early in life? The information for each category must be carefully drawn from documents such as court transcripts, police reports, psychologists’ reports, and victim-impact statements, and not solely from an interview, since psychopaths are superb liars (“pathological lying” and “conning/manipulative” are PCL-R categories). A prisoner may claim to love his family, for example, while his records show no visits or phone calls.

    It’s also found practical applications in police-squad rooms. Soon after he delivered a keynote speech at a conference for homicide detectives and prosecuting attorneys in Seattle three years ago, Hare got a letter thanking him for helping solve a series of homicides. The police had a suspect nailed for a couple of murders, but believed he was responsible for others. They were using the usual strategy to get a confession, telling him, ‘Think how much better you’ll feel, think of the families left behind,’ and so on. After they’d heard Hare speak they realized they were dealing with a psychopath, someone who could feel neither guilt nor sorrow. They changed their interrogation tactic to, “So you murdered a couple of prostitutes. That’s minor-league compared to Bundy or Gacy.” The appeal to the psychopath’s grandiosity worked. He didn’t just confess to his other crimes, he bragged about them.

    How can you tell if your boss is a psychopath? It’s not easy, says Babiak. “They have traits similar to ideal leaders. You would expect an ideal leader to be narcissistic, self-centred, dominant, very assertive, maybe to the point of being aggressive. Those things can easily be mistaken for the aggression and bullying that a psychopath would demonstrate. The ability to get people to follow you is a leadership trait, but being charismatic to the point of manipulating people is a psychopathic trait. They can sometimes be confused.”

    “The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): “But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders. “So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare’s profile, but it is OK since they are not violent.”

    There you go again making a charge of a particular fallacy without offering a full explanation. How exactly did you draw that conclusion?

    Let’s dig deeper here regarding psychopathy and violence.

    https://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

    The most startling finding to emerge from Hare’s work is that the popular image of the psychopath as a remorseless, smiling killer — Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson, John Wayne Gacy — while not wrong, is incomplete. Yes, almost all serial killers, and most of Canada’s dangerous offenders, are psychopaths, but violent criminals are just a tiny fraction of the psychopaths around us. Hare estimates that 1 percent of the population — 300,000 people in Canada — are psychopaths.

    He calls them “subclinical” psychopaths. They’re the charming predators who, unable to form real emotional bonds, find and use vulnerable women for sex and money (and inevitably abandon them). They’re the con men like Christophe Rocancourt, and they’re the stockbrokers and promoters who caused Forbes magazine to call the Vancouver Stock Exchange (now part of the Canadian Venture Exchange) the scam capital of the world. (Hare has said that if he couldn’t study psychopaths in prisons, the Vancouver Stock Exchange would have been his second choice.) A significant proportion of persistent wife beaters, and people who have unprotected sex despite carrying the AIDS virus, are psychopaths. Psychopaths can be found in legislatures, hospitals, and used-car lots. They’re your neighbour, your boss, and your blind date. Because they have no conscience, they’re natural predators. If you didn’t have a conscience, you’d be one too.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978196/

    According to the author of the PCL-R, psychopaths are “intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their selfish needs” (Hare, 1996, p. 26). Although this description certainly holds for some psychopathic individuals, there is little evidence that those with high PCL-R scores are at risk for violence chiefly because they are cold-hearted, callous, or emotionally detached. The PCL-R consists of two basic scales that can be subdivided into four subscales: the Factor 1 Interpersonal-Affective (Hare, 2003) scale assesses core features of psychopathy, or the “selfish, callous, and remorseless use of others” (Hare et al., 1990, p. 745), whereas the Factor 2 Social Deviance (Hare, 2003) scale assesses a “chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyle” (Hare et al., 1990, p. 745). Research robustly indicates that the relation between the PCL-R and violence is largely attributable to its Social Deviance scale (Skeem & Mulvey, 2001; Walters, 2003) and Antisocial subscale (Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008). This may be partly because of Meehl’s maxim that past behavior is typically the best predictor of future similar behavior (Gendreau et al., 2003) and partly because the scale taps broad traits like antagonism, anger, and impulsivity that are not specific to psychopathy, but place people at risk for involvement in violence (Skeem, Miller, Mulvey, Tiemann, & Monahan, 2005). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis indicated that the utility of Social Deviance in predicting violence did not vary as a function of Interpersonal-Affective traits (or vice versa; Kennealy, Skeem, Walters, & Camp, 2010). This challenges the view (see Hare & Neumann, 2008) that specific psychopathic traits combine with antisocial behavior in a manner that is informative beyond the simple sum of parts.

    “You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth.”

    Doubling down on your false assertion only provides additional evidence that I am indeed serious about finding truth and engaging in discourse. Thanks again!

    • Replies: @res
    @Corvinus


    “Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. ”

    Depends upon the person and circumstances.
     
    Of course, but I doubt that refutes my point.

    “The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): “But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders. “So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare’s profile, but it is OK since they are not violent.”

    There you go again making a charge of a particular fallacy without offering a full explanation. How exactly did you draw that conclusion?
     
    Seriously? It should be obvious, but since I am dealing with you...
    You are redefining things so the only relevant psychopaths are also violent offenders. So you are attempting to imply that non-violent offender psychopaths are the only psychopaths who matter and since they are only a small portion of people in institutions (LOL, as if that was the relevant metric) there is no need to worry about that small number (which is simply wrong, BTW).

    Put another way, you seem to be saying non-violent psychopaths are not truly psychopaths. If you can't see how that falls under No True Scotsman I don't think I can help you.

    You do realize that your second quote just affirms my point about the problems caused by Hare's non-violent psychopaths, right? This business of you including long quotes which don't actually answer my points is an interesting trend on your part.

    “You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth.”

    Doubling down on your false assertion only provides additional evidence that I am indeed serious about finding truth and engaging in discourse. Thanks again!
     
    Just keep on believing that. It is easy enough for any thoughtful observer to see otherwise.

    P.S. You do realize that my goal here is to expose how shoddy your reasoning is to others, right? I don't really care what you think about my responses.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  227. @Dumbo
    In a sense, Orthodox Jews are viewed more like Muslims, an "alien" group with outlandish habits that doesn't really fit. I think even secular Jews see them like that, even in Israel.

    This is good.

    I am no great fan of the Orthodox Jews and their strange religion, but at least they are easily identifiable - in that sense, better than the subversive "fellow white guys" type of Jews who pretend to be something they are not.

    Howevet, it must be noted that secular Jews descend from Orthodox Jews (2 or three generations down the line), so secular Jews are not going to "disappear". Unless there's another Holocaust or something. But the last one failed, and now Jews are stronger than ever. "What doesn't kill you make you stronger"?

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Audacious Epigone

    What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger

    That’s such a bad aphorism. There are plenty of things–like being maimed–that will not kill you but do not make you stronger, either.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  228. @UNIT472
    That Jews still even exist I suppose is because of the Orthodox extremists. Jeffrey Epstein left no heirs and Harvey Weinstein's kids are the children of Georgina Chapman. How many big shot Jews marry outside the faith or go queer. Yet over time, holocausts and geography this odd tribe persists. I mean how many Iroqouis Indians do you see today save for those who have casino licenses even though a mere ten generations ago they were more numerous in the Eastern US than negroes.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Jews used to have a lot of kids and mostly marry other Jews. A generation ago, 90% of American Jews were married to other Jews. Now fewer than half are. This is a big change in a relatively short period of time.

  229. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Priss Factor


    Indeed, think of how much thing could change if people named the Jew.
     
    Unfortunately, it took me literally decades to figure this out.

    Perplexingly, I rather like the Jews I know on an individual basis—nor is this a mere sign of tolerance on my part, for several Jews I know have treated me with significant individual kindness—so for the first 50 years of my life I'd accept any rationalization to afford Jewry the benefit of the doubt. I finally ran out of excuses, though. You are exactly and precisely right.

    (A123 wants me to say, “élite Jews.” I am not really sure how that helps, but I'll say it if he likes.)

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

    How about saying “elites”? An earnest request: Name an elite or three who are on your side. It’s easy to name a Jew or three who are, but it’s exceedingly difficult to name an elite who is, Jewish or otherwise.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Audacious Epigone


    Name an elite or three who are on your side.
     
    Hrm.

    Do Tucker Carlson and Ron Unz count? They have no actual power. Perhaps they do not count, but as long as the Murdoch family employs Carlson, the Murdochs are on my side to some extent.

    Thomas Massie? He has little more power than Steve King had as far as I know.

    Probably a number of Republican congressmen are on my side, but there is so much hypocrisy in Congress, it is hard to tell how many or how few.

    Mitt Romney tries to be on my side. It's not working and he doesn't really get it, but he tries.

    Steve Sailer has a degree of unacknowledged influence, but if he were elite, then he would hardly be running panhandling drives to replace his wife's old washing machine.

    Donald J. Trump is on my side as far as I know.

    I suspect that some elites fear in the present environment to admit that they are on my side. I conjecture with little proof that these might include CEOs of a few large corporations, but if they are silent, then it is hard to tell.

    The department head who first hired me at the university must have known that I led a markedly non-Woke life and would have protected me ten years later had he not been promoted during the interim out of my chain of command. His salary (which is public information because he is a public employee in the state's managerial ranks) is ridiculously high. He is surely an elite in my local context.

    I do not really know what the answer is. If the definition of elite is, “faceless person with money and connections whom I do not know well, but who has contempt for the interests of me and my family,” then the definition is self-fulfilling, isn't it?

    However, my favorite elite who is on my side is one Audacious Epigone, and for selfish reasons I am sorry to see him retire. He is not really elite, of course (more's the pity), but surely on my side. He will be missed.

    Happy sailing, friend.
  230. res says:
    @Corvinus
    @res

    "Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. "

    Depends upon the person and circumstances.

    https://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html


    The Psychopathy Checklist consists of a set of forms and a manual that describes in detail how to score a subject in twenty categories that define psychopathy. Is he (or, more rarely, she) glib and superficially charming, callous and without empathy? Does he have a grandiose sense of self worth, shallow emotions, a lack of remorse or guilt? Is he impulsive, irresponsible, promiscuous? Did he have behavioural problems early in life? The information for each category must be carefully drawn from documents such as court transcripts, police reports, psychologists' reports, and victim-impact statements, and not solely from an interview, since psychopaths are superb liars ("pathological lying" and "conning/manipulative" are PCL-R categories). A prisoner may claim to love his family, for example, while his records show no visits or phone calls.

    ...

    It's also found practical applications in police-squad rooms. Soon after he delivered a keynote speech at a conference for homicide detectives and prosecuting attorneys in Seattle three years ago, Hare got a letter thanking him for helping solve a series of homicides. The police had a suspect nailed for a couple of murders, but believed he was responsible for others. They were using the usual strategy to get a confession, telling him, 'Think how much better you'll feel, think of the families left behind,' and so on. After they'd heard Hare speak they realized they were dealing with a psychopath, someone who could feel neither guilt nor sorrow. They changed their interrogation tactic to, "So you murdered a couple of prostitutes. That's minor-league compared to Bundy or Gacy." The appeal to the psychopath's grandiosity worked. He didn't just confess to his other crimes, he bragged about them.

    ...

    How can you tell if your boss is a psychopath? It's not easy, says Babiak. "They have traits similar to ideal leaders. You would expect an ideal leader to be narcissistic, self-centred, dominant, very assertive, maybe to the point of being aggressive. Those things can easily be mistaken for the aggression and bullying that a psychopath would demonstrate. The ability to get people to follow you is a leadership trait, but being charismatic to the point of manipulating people is a psychopathic trait. They can sometimes be confused."
     
    "The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): “But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders. "So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare’s profile, but it is OK since they are not violent."

    There you go again making a charge of a particular fallacy without offering a full explanation. How exactly did you draw that conclusion?

    Let's dig deeper here regarding psychopathy and violence.

    https://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

    The most startling finding to emerge from Hare's work is that the popular image of the psychopath as a remorseless, smiling killer -- Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson, John Wayne Gacy -- while not wrong, is incomplete. Yes, almost all serial killers, and most of Canada's dangerous offenders, are psychopaths, but violent criminals are just a tiny fraction of the psychopaths around us. Hare estimates that 1 percent of the population -- 300,000 people in Canada -- are psychopaths.

    He calls them "subclinical" psychopaths. They're the charming predators who, unable to form real emotional bonds, find and use vulnerable women for sex and money (and inevitably abandon them). They're the con men like Christophe Rocancourt, and they're the stockbrokers and promoters who caused Forbes magazine to call the Vancouver Stock Exchange (now part of the Canadian Venture Exchange) the scam capital of the world. (Hare has said that if he couldn't study psychopaths in prisons, the Vancouver Stock Exchange would have been his second choice.) A significant proportion of persistent wife beaters, and people who have unprotected sex despite carrying the AIDS virus, are psychopaths. Psychopaths can be found in legislatures, hospitals, and used-car lots. They're your neighbour, your boss, and your blind date. Because they have no conscience, they're natural predators. If you didn't have a conscience, you'd be one too.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978196/

    According to the author of the PCL-R, psychopaths are “intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their selfish needs” (Hare, 1996, p. 26). Although this description certainly holds for some psychopathic individuals, there is little evidence that those with high PCL-R scores are at risk for violence chiefly because they are cold-hearted, callous, or emotionally detached. The PCL-R consists of two basic scales that can be subdivided into four subscales: the Factor 1 Interpersonal-Affective (Hare, 2003) scale assesses core features of psychopathy, or the “selfish, callous, and remorseless use of others” (Hare et al., 1990, p. 745), whereas the Factor 2 Social Deviance (Hare, 2003) scale assesses a “chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyle” (Hare et al., 1990, p. 745). Research robustly indicates that the relation between the PCL-R and violence is largely attributable to its Social Deviance scale (Skeem & Mulvey, 2001; Walters, 2003) and Antisocial subscale (Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008). This may be partly because of Meehl's maxim that past behavior is typically the best predictor of future similar behavior (Gendreau et al., 2003) and partly because the scale taps broad traits like antagonism, anger, and impulsivity that are not specific to psychopathy, but place people at risk for involvement in violence (Skeem, Miller, Mulvey, Tiemann, & Monahan, 2005). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis indicated that the utility of Social Deviance in predicting violence did not vary as a function of Interpersonal-Affective traits (or vice versa; Kennealy, Skeem, Walters, & Camp, 2010). This challenges the view (see Hare & Neumann, 2008) that specific psychopathic traits combine with antisocial behavior in a manner that is informative beyond the simple sum of parts.
     
    "You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth."

    Doubling down on your false assertion only provides additional evidence that I am indeed serious about finding truth and engaging in discourse. Thanks again!

    Replies: @res

    “Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. ”

    Depends upon the person and circumstances.

    Of course, but I doubt that refutes my point.

    “The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): “But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders. “So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare’s profile, but it is OK since they are not violent.”

    There you go again making a charge of a particular fallacy without offering a full explanation. How exactly did you draw that conclusion?

    Seriously? It should be obvious, but since I am dealing with you…
    You are redefining things so the only relevant psychopaths are also violent offenders. So you are attempting to imply that non-violent offender psychopaths are the only psychopaths who matter and since they are only a small portion of people in institutions (LOL, as if that was the relevant metric) there is no need to worry about that small number (which is simply wrong, BTW).

    Put another way, you seem to be saying non-violent psychopaths are not truly psychopaths. If you can’t see how that falls under No True Scotsman I don’t think I can help you.

    You do realize that your second quote just affirms my point about the problems caused by Hare’s non-violent psychopaths, right? This business of you including long quotes which don’t actually answer my points is an interesting trend on your part.

    “You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth.”

    Doubling down on your false assertion only provides additional evidence that I am indeed serious about finding truth and engaging in discourse. Thanks again!

    Just keep on believing that. It is easy enough for any thoughtful observer to see otherwise.

    P.S. You do realize that my goal here is to expose how shoddy your reasoning is to others, right? I don’t really care what you think about my responses.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @res

    "You are redefining things so the only relevant psychopaths are also violent offenders. So you are attempting to imply that non-violent offender psychopaths are the only psychopaths who matter and since they are only a small portion of people in institutions (LOL, as if that was the relevant metric) there is no need to worry about that small number (which is simply wrong, BTW)."

    You are creating a strawman, I nor Hare made that contention. Rather, Hare is stating that psychopaths need not be violent. Despite the necessary distinction between anti-social personality disorder and psychopathy as assessed by Hare, antisocial behavior and aggression remain among the most visible traits of psychopathy. Hare underscores that psychopathy is widely recognized as a risk factor for violent behavior. Yet, there are psychopaths who refrain from antisocial or criminal acts because they are more cognizant to regulate their own impulses.

    https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fper0000421

    "Put another way, you seem to be saying non-violent psychopaths are not truly psychopaths."

    No, that would be YOU making that assumption. A psychopath is clearly a mentally unstable person who may or may not employ violence or engage in criminal activities, but are demonstrably unable to show remorse for their conduct or be empathetic.

    "This business of you including long quotes which don’t actually answer my points is an interesting trend on your part"

    It's called context.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a-nonviolent-psychopath/282271


    For people who have the fundamental biology—the genetics, the brain patterns, and that early existence of trauma—first of all, if they're abused they're going to be pissed off and have a sense of revenge: I don't care what happens to the world because I'm getting even. But a real, primary psychopath doesn't need that. They're just predators who don’t need to be angry at all; they do these things because of some fundamental lack of connection with the human race, and with individuals, and so on.

    Someone who has money, and sex, and rock and roll, and everything they want may still be psychopathic—but they may just manipulate people, or use people, and not kill them. They may hurt others, but not in a violent way. Most people care about violence—that's the thing. People may say, "Oh, this very bad investment counselor was a psychopath"—but the essential difference in criminality between that and murder is something we all hate and we all fear. It just isn't known if there is some ultimate trigger.
     
    "P.S. You do realize that my goal here is to expose how shoddy your reasoning is to others, right? I don’t really care what you think about my responses."

    A rather shallow approach on your part. Regardless, I am much obliged for you tacitly acknowledging I am on the right path to truth.
  231. @Triteleia Laxa
    @dfordoom

    I like the "disagree" button. It allows people to leave a conversation that isn't going anywhere, while simply registering where they are at.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I like the “disagree” button. It allows people to leave a conversation that isn’t going anywhere, while simply registering where they are at.

    That’s true. There are arguments for and against all these features. Except for the Troll button. I can’t see any arguments in favour of that one. It just adds an extra layer of nastiness to arguments that are getting heated.

  232. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Alden

    Strange but true:


    The religious schools are worse than the public schools.... And they also preach welcome the stranger. As in, open the borders and let the world invade.
     
    I have observed the same. I have no explanation for it.

    On paper, the religious schools are no worse, perhaps, but where I have lived the public schools are mostly taught by normal persons with normal sensibilites, who use their classroom authority to blunt the hard edge of an aggressively progressive curriculum. Religious-school faculties by contrast seem to include more fanatics.

    It is almost as though religious-school teachers were motivated by every cause except a desire to teach a straightforward, sturdy, moderate rendition of their own religion. Odd, that.

    However, I have not lived in a large number of places since my children reached school age, so I might merely be describing the area in which I happen to live. Also, I am not old enough to remember the nun-faculty. Maybe it was different then.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    Religious-school faculties by contrast seem to include more fanatics.

    My impression is that religious schools are mostly very firmly in the hands of liberal Christians. And liberal Christians can be a great deal worse than secular liberals. I’m not sure if there’s any way that conservative Christians could regain control of religious schools.

  233. @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    How about saying "elites"? An earnest request: Name an elite or three who are on your side. It's easy to name a Jew or three who are, but it's exceedingly difficult to name an elite who is, Jewish or otherwise.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Name an elite or three who are on your side.

    Hrm.

    Do Tucker Carlson and Ron Unz count? They have no actual power. Perhaps they do not count, but as long as the Murdoch family employs Carlson, the Murdochs are on my side to some extent.

    Thomas Massie? He has little more power than Steve King had as far as I know.

    Probably a number of Republican congressmen are on my side, but there is so much hypocrisy in Congress, it is hard to tell how many or how few.

    Mitt Romney tries to be on my side. It’s not working and he doesn’t really get it, but he tries.

    Steve Sailer has a degree of unacknowledged influence, but if he were elite, then he would hardly be running panhandling drives to replace his wife’s old washing machine.

    Donald J. Trump is on my side as far as I know.

    I suspect that some elites fear in the present environment to admit that they are on my side. I conjecture with little proof that these might include CEOs of a few large corporations, but if they are silent, then it is hard to tell.

    The department head who first hired me at the university must have known that I led a markedly non-Woke life and would have protected me ten years later had he not been promoted during the interim out of my chain of command. His salary (which is public information because he is a public employee in the state’s managerial ranks) is ridiculously high. He is surely an elite in my local context.

    I do not really know what the answer is. If the definition of elite is, “faceless person with money and connections whom I do not know well, but who has contempt for the interests of me and my family,” then the definition is self-fulfilling, isn’t it?

    However, my favorite elite who is on my side is one Audacious Epigone, and for selfish reasons I am sorry to see him retire. He is not really elite, of course (more’s the pity), but surely on my side. He will be missed.

    Happy sailing, friend.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  234. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Alden

    Strange but true:


    The religious schools are worse than the public schools.... And they also preach welcome the stranger. As in, open the borders and let the world invade.
     
    I have observed the same. I have no explanation for it.

    On paper, the religious schools are no worse, perhaps, but where I have lived the public schools are mostly taught by normal persons with normal sensibilites, who use their classroom authority to blunt the hard edge of an aggressively progressive curriculum. Religious-school faculties by contrast seem to include more fanatics.

    It is almost as though religious-school teachers were motivated by every cause except a desire to teach a straightforward, sturdy, moderate rendition of their own religion. Odd, that.

    However, I have not lived in a large number of places since my children reached school age, so I might merely be describing the area in which I happen to live. Also, I am not old enough to remember the nun-faculty. Maybe it was different then.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    Is “religious schools” here meant to largely imply Catholic schools?

    I will say that Catholic schools have a particularly acute problem caused by the existence of nominal or “cultural” Catholics among alums, students (and their parents), donors, and teachers. My old Catholic HS has a very liberal local businessman and alum on the board — for him, that school is sort of a generational, ethnic thing, and the actual Catholic moral teaching is basically all nonsense, and yet he’s one of the school’s chief benefactors.

    This is one of those things about Catholicism that leaves me ambivalent — the faith continues to have a certain call and appeal, even among those who have essentially rejected it. In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it would seem the main effect of this appeal is that a lot more wolves in sheep’s clothing end up involved in Catholic institutions.

    There’s not really such a thing as “cultural Protestants” much anymore, and I don’t know to what degree there ever was. Protestant school alums who grow up to hate Protestant teaching normally disavow themselves of their old denomination entirely, and Christianity as well, and seldom end up sending their kids and donating large sums of money to Protestant schools they once attended. Protestant colleges have had a tendency to liberalize since at least the 18th century, but the difference is they normally eventually break their denominational ties and cease to be explicitly Christian schools.

    I found this report interesting, which argues for Catholic primary/secondary schools offering better life outcomes than public schools, and Protestant schools offering better outcomes than either. Though it only speaks to things like marriage stability, and not leftist indoctrination.

    https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FINAL-IFS-ProtestantFamilyEthicReport-1.pdf?x91208

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency


    Is “religious schools” here meant to largely imply Catholic schools?
     
    No, but post-nun-era Catholic schools are the kind with which I happen to be most familiar. Your correction regarding Protestants is accepted and appreciated.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @Wency


    There’s not really such a thing as “cultural Protestants” much anymore, and I don’t know to what degree there ever was.
     
    The West's current moral decadence is cultural Protestantism.

    We're all cultural Protestants now.
  235. @dfordoom
    @Dissident


    Perhaps the worst effect of upvote/downvote systems is that of encouraging and facilitating an adolescent popularity contest/ gang-up on the unpopular, alienated, out-of-sync kids type of atmosphere.
     
    I agree. I'd hate to see any any kind of upvote/downvote system for that reason.

    I'd like to see the Troll button eliminated. On Unz Review it's almost invariably used as the equivalent of five-year-olds in the schoolyard calling each other poopy-heads. It isn't used to identify actual trolls but merely as an insult that people hurl, usually when they're losing an argument.

    It isn't a huge problem on this particular blog but it's ludicrously misused on UR as a whole.

    I'd like to see the Disagree button eliminated as well because it's pointless. Merely indicating that you disagree with a comment serves no purpose unless you explain why you disagree.

    And, in often wishing for some idea of how a given comment of mine may have been received, or even how widely read it was, I would surely not be alone.
     
    Yes, I agree with that. The answer is probably to allow people to use the Agree button more freely.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Dissident

    I’d like to see the Troll button eliminated. On Unz Review it’s almost invariably used as the equivalent of five-year-olds in the schoolyard calling each other poopy-heads.

    Absolutely. Below, beyond the break, I present a modified adaptation from part of a comment that I had posted in November 2019 to one of Ron Unz’s Announcement threads, in which I offered several arguments against the very concept of a “TROLL” button.[1]

    Merely indicating that you disagree with a comment serves no purpose unless you explain why you disagree.

    Not always. There can be value in merely indicating disagreement. Triteleia Laxa cited the case of “a conversation that isn’t going anywhere”. I would add cases where a detailed response could very well be useful, even ideal, but one simply lacks the necessary time or perhaps even motivation and interest to compose one.

    The answer is probably to allow people to use the Agree button more freely.

    Or Thanks, which is useful for those cases in which one does not necessarily agree with all or even any of a given comment, but nonetheless wishes to acknowledge and perhaps commend it. Such a case can be that of wishing to thank someone for a reply he had taken the time and trouble to make, or simply to express appreciation for the general contribution that was made by a given comment.

    [MORE]

    [1] I have always found the “TROLL” button to be silly, childish, easily prone to abuse, and utterly gratuitous.* Even in a case where one is sincerely convinced that a given comment is truly and properly an instance of trolling (i.e., made only to incite, offend or disrupt), just what does merely branding it as such accomplish? Isn’t the very act of so conspicuously registering a response — any response at all– to a comment that one has deemed a troll not an inherent contradiction; not a violation the of the most basic rule about trolls: not to feed them?

    Ron Unz tells us “All the Troll button does is warn other commenters.” I would ask Mr. Unz why he thinks those who comment at this site would need such a warning. Does he not regard us as sufficiently intelligent, mature, wise, and independent to judge and decide for ourselves how best to respond (or to not respond) to any given comment?

    *I cannot claim, once the option already exists, to have never succumbed to the temptation of resorting to its application.

    To encourage people to dismiss or ignore a comment based on something so subjective, so utterly arbitrary and capricious, and so liable to be driven by the pettiest of motivations? Doesn’t the ability to simply label any given comment as “TROLL” enable and encourage the very type of mob-like behavior that Mr. Unz cites wishing to avoid as a prime reason for limiting the total number of times-per-hour that any user may invoke any “reaction” function?

    Moreover, even if it were to be known with certainty that a given substantive comment had been posted solely with the intent to incite or disrupt, would that a priori preclude the possibility that there could be value in responding to it?

    I say scrap the “TROLL” button entirely. Replace it, perhaps, with a DISAVOW or CONDEMN button or something similar for use when mere disagreement is insufficient. Let’s encourage people to focus on ideas and substance over personalities.

  236. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Is "religious schools" here meant to largely imply Catholic schools?

    I will say that Catholic schools have a particularly acute problem caused by the existence of nominal or "cultural" Catholics among alums, students (and their parents), donors, and teachers. My old Catholic HS has a very liberal local businessman and alum on the board -- for him, that school is sort of a generational, ethnic thing, and the actual Catholic moral teaching is basically all nonsense, and yet he's one of the school's chief benefactors.

    This is one of those things about Catholicism that leaves me ambivalent -- the faith continues to have a certain call and appeal, even among those who have essentially rejected it. In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it would seem the main effect of this appeal is that a lot more wolves in sheep's clothing end up involved in Catholic institutions.

    There's not really such a thing as "cultural Protestants" much anymore, and I don't know to what degree there ever was. Protestant school alums who grow up to hate Protestant teaching normally disavow themselves of their old denomination entirely, and Christianity as well, and seldom end up sending their kids and donating large sums of money to Protestant schools they once attended. Protestant colleges have had a tendency to liberalize since at least the 18th century, but the difference is they normally eventually break their denominational ties and cease to be explicitly Christian schools.

    I found this report interesting, which argues for Catholic primary/secondary schools offering better life outcomes than public schools, and Protestant schools offering better outcomes than either. Though it only speaks to things like marriage stability, and not leftist indoctrination.

    https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FINAL-IFS-ProtestantFamilyEthicReport-1.pdf?x91208

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Intelligent Dasein

    Is “religious schools” here meant to largely imply Catholic schools?

    No, but post-nun-era Catholic schools are the kind with which I happen to be most familiar. Your correction regarding Protestants is accepted and appreciated.

  237. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Is "religious schools" here meant to largely imply Catholic schools?

    I will say that Catholic schools have a particularly acute problem caused by the existence of nominal or "cultural" Catholics among alums, students (and their parents), donors, and teachers. My old Catholic HS has a very liberal local businessman and alum on the board -- for him, that school is sort of a generational, ethnic thing, and the actual Catholic moral teaching is basically all nonsense, and yet he's one of the school's chief benefactors.

    This is one of those things about Catholicism that leaves me ambivalent -- the faith continues to have a certain call and appeal, even among those who have essentially rejected it. In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it would seem the main effect of this appeal is that a lot more wolves in sheep's clothing end up involved in Catholic institutions.

    There's not really such a thing as "cultural Protestants" much anymore, and I don't know to what degree there ever was. Protestant school alums who grow up to hate Protestant teaching normally disavow themselves of their old denomination entirely, and Christianity as well, and seldom end up sending their kids and donating large sums of money to Protestant schools they once attended. Protestant colleges have had a tendency to liberalize since at least the 18th century, but the difference is they normally eventually break their denominational ties and cease to be explicitly Christian schools.

    I found this report interesting, which argues for Catholic primary/secondary schools offering better life outcomes than public schools, and Protestant schools offering better outcomes than either. Though it only speaks to things like marriage stability, and not leftist indoctrination.

    https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FINAL-IFS-ProtestantFamilyEthicReport-1.pdf?x91208

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Intelligent Dasein

    There’s not really such a thing as “cultural Protestants” much anymore, and I don’t know to what degree there ever was.

    The West’s current moral decadence is cultural Protestantism.

    We’re all cultural Protestants now.

  238. res says:
    @anon
    @res

    You are aware that this particular account has at least two, and possibly three, distinct personalities? The handle all by itself is a giveaway, as she / they pointed out earlier here at AE.

    Replies: @res

    I somehow missed your comment the first time. Saw it when pulling a quote from the comment above it.

    You are aware that this particular account has at least two, and possibly three, distinct personalities?

    I was aware of that, but had been assuming it was one person with some hot buttons. I prefer to take people at face value unless I have good reason not to (since provided in TL’s case).

    The handle all by itself is a giveaway, as she / they pointed out earlier here at AE.

    Understood about the handle, but I can’t find that comment. Do you have a link?

  239. @res
    @Corvinus


    “Seems likely that most areas that involve climbing the career pyramid will be similar. ”

    Depends upon the person and circumstances.
     
    Of course, but I doubt that refutes my point.

    “The last bit of your second quote seemed like a good example of No True Psychopath (Scotsman): “But only a minority of those in institutions whom Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths are violent offenders. “So we have a significant number of people in institutions who match Hare’s profile, but it is OK since they are not violent.”

    There you go again making a charge of a particular fallacy without offering a full explanation. How exactly did you draw that conclusion?
     
    Seriously? It should be obvious, but since I am dealing with you...
    You are redefining things so the only relevant psychopaths are also violent offenders. So you are attempting to imply that non-violent offender psychopaths are the only psychopaths who matter and since they are only a small portion of people in institutions (LOL, as if that was the relevant metric) there is no need to worry about that small number (which is simply wrong, BTW).

    Put another way, you seem to be saying non-violent psychopaths are not truly psychopaths. If you can't see how that falls under No True Scotsman I don't think I can help you.

    You do realize that your second quote just affirms my point about the problems caused by Hare's non-violent psychopaths, right? This business of you including long quotes which don't actually answer my points is an interesting trend on your part.

    “You have made it quite clear in the past here that you are not about seeking truth.”

    Doubling down on your false assertion only provides additional evidence that I am indeed serious about finding truth and engaging in discourse. Thanks again!
     
    Just keep on believing that. It is easy enough for any thoughtful observer to see otherwise.

    P.S. You do realize that my goal here is to expose how shoddy your reasoning is to others, right? I don't really care what you think about my responses.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “You are redefining things so the only relevant psychopaths are also violent offenders. So you are attempting to imply that non-violent offender psychopaths are the only psychopaths who matter and since they are only a small portion of people in institutions (LOL, as if that was the relevant metric) there is no need to worry about that small number (which is simply wrong, BTW).”

    You are creating a strawman, I nor Hare made that contention. Rather, Hare is stating that psychopaths need not be violent. Despite the necessary distinction between anti-social personality disorder and psychopathy as assessed by Hare, antisocial behavior and aggression remain among the most visible traits of psychopathy. Hare underscores that psychopathy is widely recognized as a risk factor for violent behavior. Yet, there are psychopaths who refrain from antisocial or criminal acts because they are more cognizant to regulate their own impulses.

    https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fper0000421

    “Put another way, you seem to be saying non-violent psychopaths are not truly psychopaths.”

    No, that would be YOU making that assumption. A psychopath is clearly a mentally unstable person who may or may not employ violence or engage in criminal activities, but are demonstrably unable to show remorse for their conduct or be empathetic.

    “This business of you including long quotes which don’t actually answer my points is an interesting trend on your part”

    It’s called context.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a-nonviolent-psychopath/282271

    For people who have the fundamental biology—the genetics, the brain patterns, and that early existence of trauma—first of all, if they’re abused they’re going to be pissed off and have a sense of revenge: I don’t care what happens to the world because I’m getting even. But a real, primary psychopath doesn’t need that. They’re just predators who don’t need to be angry at all; they do these things because of some fundamental lack of connection with the human race, and with individuals, and so on.

    Someone who has money, and sex, and rock and roll, and everything they want may still be psychopathic—but they may just manipulate people, or use people, and not kill them. They may hurt others, but not in a violent way. Most people care about violence—that’s the thing. People may say, “Oh, this very bad investment counselor was a psychopath”—but the essential difference in criminality between that and murder is something we all hate and we all fear. It just isn’t known if there is some ultimate trigger.

    “P.S. You do realize that my goal here is to expose how shoddy your reasoning is to others, right? I don’t really care what you think about my responses.”

    A rather shallow approach on your part. Regardless, I am much obliged for you tacitly acknowledging I am on the right path to truth.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS