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
Support for Israel and Palestine by Demographic
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

The following graph shows net sympathy for Israelis or for Palestinians by various demographic characteristics. Figures are arrived at by taking the percentages of respondents in a subgroup partial to Israelis and subtracting from it the percentages of respondents partial to Palestinians:

America’s demographic transformation, disproportionately supported by Jews, has undermined American support for Israel in the Jewish state’s perennial dispute with the Palestinians of the Levant. Younger, less white Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian situation through a different lens than older, whiter Americans do. PLM maps fairly well onto BLM and the younger, darker cohorts support both for similar reasons. Reap what you sow, I guess.

 
Hide 133 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tangentially related: Via David Shor I learned about the Jewish Data Bank and thought you might be interested in it. I haven’t had the chance to look at yet.

    https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  2. With a certain level of hubris, dare I say “chutzpah”, some people thought they could have their challah bread and eat it, too.

  3. Most interesting is the low support for Israel among Democrats.
    There’s a lot of attention, especially around here, on Jewish influence in the US via political donations, media etc.
    In all the excitement, some forget that Jews are declining demographically while others are rising. The day may come when Chinese, Indian and other minority donations hold sway over policy.
    Further, media propaganda of the sort we are used to might bounce off New Americans harmlessly, especially Hispanics. It’s only designed to pull at the heartstrings of WEIRD whites, not normal people.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Jews are not declining demographically. High Haredi birthrates backstop less fertile seculars. (This is why most seculars haven't been secular for many generations.)

    That said, Jewish influence (and consequent support for Israel) has never depended much on demographics, but rather on capital, media, the academy, theory/ideology and other forms of soft power.

    Replies: @songbird, @silviosilver, @dfordoom

  4. How about a rational lens? We have no dog in the Israel/Palestine fight and should butt out (which means no more aid or weapons to either side).

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
  5. As far as I can tell, the Congressional Black Caucus seems to broadly support Israel, with at least one exception: Omar. But their domestic views seem to align completely and Omar joined the Congressional Caucus on Black-Jewish Relations, which is an interesting organization, when one considers that Jews seem to have been reluctant to form their own official caucus, on a national level. (They do have one in NYC and in CA)

    I don’t think public opinion really matters. Maybe, if the US was brimming with Arabs, to the same degree as France.

    IMO, what matters more is capacity – the US is definitely losing its capacity to get directly involved in the Middle East. But probably not to send money and weapons, unless we lose our capacity to develop new weapons. I think we would still be sending cash, if there was hyperinflation, so I guess it is more a question of what the dollar buys.

  6. 25 years ago I was taking some post college engineering course at City College New York City. I noticed in the cafeteria the easy simpatico between the Arab tables and the Latino tables. One would have thought that the Keffiyeh scarf was a Latino fashion statement seeing that it was so common amongst Latinos at the school.

    Brown likes brown, doesn’t necessarily mean that either like black though.

    Israel can counter by an outreach to Latinos, discover lost Marrano communities. But that will open up another whole can of worms.

  7. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:

    Go Blacks! BGOM! Black Geopolitical Opinions Matter!

    Blacks have good BS detectors (nurtured in
    ghetto culture).

    So disappointed in my fellow college-educated white males.

  8. My guess is hardly any Jews realize there is a massive 63 point Republican over Democrat support gap for Israel.

  9. I’ve been pointing this out for years, that there seems to exist in the Jewish genome a self-destructive gene. How else can one explain a group that inevitably (((every single time))) manages to make itself reviled and then expelled? How else can you explain planting your new nation smack in the center of a billion hostile religious opponents and then proceeding to goad and abuse them more? There’s something as wrong with them as there is with the evangelicals fomenting their armageddon.

    In any case, I don’t know whether I should now support BLM or just quietly enjoy the schadenfreude.

    • Replies: @anonymouseperson
    @Stan D Mute

    You make some good points.

  10. Between the evil people (Democrats) and the stupid (Republicans), the stupid is by far the worse. At least the evil side knows what they want and ultimately get it, the Republicans on the other fawn over Israel and what they get in return is ethnic cleansing of white people (and will still be hated by the jews).

  11. It would be interesting sometimes to see these graphs broken down by other factors that might be confounding age. For example, young people are famously living in their parents’ basements these days. I wonder what would happen if you broke down the 30-44 demographic by those who are gainfully employed vs not.

    My guess is that except for the Muslims and other anti-Semitic types that frequent Unz Review, most of the Palestinian support comes from “destitute” types who identify with Palestine as part of their rage against the world.

  12. Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib are the future of the DNC, and the definitive “Voice of Islam” in America. They speak directly to the most anti-Jewish factions on the chart, Blacks and Democrats. Their vision of SJW Islamic Globalism supports violent movements across the globe, including:

    • Iranian Hamas in the Middle East
    • Open Muslim Borders migration in Europe
    • Islamic BLM here in the U.S.

    Ilhan Omar’s Pro-Terrorist, SJW Islamic vision is so extreme, it may spark a nasty schism within the DNC.

    PEACE 😇

  13. While the rise in anti-israeli sentiment is laudible, its ineffectual as well. If the past 12 years have taught us anything its that the people’s opinion matter less than a used toilet paper.

    They pushed through Wall street bailouts, Gay marriage, trannies, drag queen story hour, the woke revolution, COVID-19 lockdown ensured bankruptcies, gave crumbs to main street while showering 7 trillion on wall street during the pandemic, the BLM terror campaign and police refusal to stop it, the election fraud, the Bidani Jihad on American oil, no investigation into Epstein’s death or his lolita express attendees…. the list is exhaustive.

    The fact of the matter is that Americans for all their bluster about muh guns, fuck around and find out and muh bible, are the most obsequoeus, cowardly and cuckolded people on earth. There’s no amount of depredation that the American will resist.

    All his “Resistance” amounts to posting on twitter about how “CIVIL WAR 2.0” is coming and they have all the guns and voting for the closet homosexuals of the GOP.

    After all what’s the difference between the GOP and the democrats?

    The Republicans are closet pederasts and democrats are loud and proud transsexuals. Both are unwavering in their loyalty to Zionism and Wall street(not much of a difference between these two but well…)

    Americans are simply too lazy, fat and above all individualistic to do anything about it. They whine, they yell and a week later they move onto the next outrage on twitter. The only way to achieve anything politically is group action and Americans for whatever reason are loathe to organize for anything other than dog rescue or going to Africa to feed some Somalians.

    Other Euros like Poles, Hungarians, Russians, French, Italians and even scandis are more organzied. Even the infamous king of cuckery, Sweden has organized patrols by white swedish men and the Nordic Resistance movement is one of the largest white nationalist groups around. Even in ultra white guilt Germany there are militias and groups.

    In America? Zlich. A few million blacks and antifa terrorized the supposedly alpha chad anglo saxon race into submission during 6 months of riots.

    Why this is the case I have no idea. Are Englishmen just naturally more obedient and slavish due to subjugation by Normans? Is it libertarian brain worm? Is it individualistic frontier culture? Are they just too fat and consequently low T? Is it owed to hyper capitalism and lack of unions and an “every goy for himself” attidute? Is it just a status obsessed society that will do anything to stay in the corporate ladder?

    Who knows…the point is that nothing ever comes out of these public outrages. The left also has wanted socialism, free healthcare and debt relief for ages. Even MSM pays lip service to these demands. Yet, in the last 20 years of ultra wokeism, the opposite of all these things have happened.

    Student and household debt has skyrocketed, health costs have gone through the roof, inequality is the largest in history and the rich are richer than ever before. Just during the pandemic the US billionaire class gained 1 TRILLION dollars in wealth.

    So, if these issues which are publicly supported by MSM don’t get done, there’s zero chance of anti-Zionism becoming a thing policy wise. The MSM is and will continue to remain firmly pro-zionism.

    • Agree: BlackFlag
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Caspar von Everec

    Most people quite like their lives in both America and Europe. You argue that's because they're defective, but that's your issue.

    I enjoy people with views far out of the mainstream, but not so much if they think everyone else is a complete idiot for not agreeing.

    The lack of empathy is tangible.

  14. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    Most interesting is the low support for Israel among Democrats.
    There's a lot of attention, especially around here, on Jewish influence in the US via political donations, media etc.
    In all the excitement, some forget that Jews are declining demographically while others are rising. The day may come when Chinese, Indian and other minority donations hold sway over policy.
    Further, media propaganda of the sort we are used to might bounce off New Americans harmlessly, especially Hispanics. It's only designed to pull at the heartstrings of WEIRD whites, not normal people.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Jews are not declining demographically. High Haredi birthrates backstop less fertile seculars. (This is why most seculars haven’t been secular for many generations.)

    That said, Jewish influence (and consequent support for Israel) has never depended much on demographics, but rather on capital, media, the academy, theory/ideology and other forms of soft power.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Almost Missouri

    I wonder whether Jews in more traditional clothing would be able to be elected to Congress in the same numbers.

    , @silviosilver
    @Almost Missouri

    Demographics still matters for Jews. There will always be a core of non-ultra-orthodox, who command vast resources and maintain a willingness to deploy them in support of Israel, but as the number of non-ultra-orthodox Jews dwindles, the ability of organized Jewry to “put bums in seats” – ie have Jews occupy important positions in society – can be expected to markedly decrease, and with it, the ability of Jews to influence sociopolitical trends in their favor. I don’t want to get my hopes up, but demographics is one reason I think they heyday of Jewish influence may well have passed.

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @dfordoom
    @Almost Missouri

    The support for Israel thing is, I'm sad to say, a bit of a Boomer thing. Boomers still believe the "plucky little Israel" idea, the idea that Israel is a poor defenceless little nation facing an existential threat from its neighbours. It's an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s (in the Anglosphere at least) and they've never seriously questioned that idea.

    It wasn't true, even in the 60s. It was Israel's neighbours that were under threat from Israel. But you'll never convince Boomers to question the Plucky Little Israel idea.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @nebulafox

  15. Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, i never saw those people in favour of Jews at all(recall that scene from the Borat film in a Arizona bar of that song about throwing the Jew in the well) or the march in Charlottesville where thousands of Republicans were chanting “Jews shall not replace us”

    • Replies: @anon
    @oliver elkington

    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel

    The Boomer Republicans are extremely supportive of the state of Israel.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @oliver elkington


    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, I never saw those people in favour of Jews at all....
     
    Perhaps I am better acquainted with the whites of the remote rural areas of the U.S. Midlands or South than you happen to be. Such whites encounter few if any Jews in daily life. Moreover, they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York. Alexander Hamilton was a New Yorker, after all, so how bad can a Goldman or Cohen be, really? Donald Trump is a New Yorker, too.

    Some of the eastern Askenazi names sound Russian to white Gentile ears. If such Russians are behaving badly, they tend to suppose that it's Putler's fault—except that Russian collusion is a hoax, which implies that the eastern Askenazi must be good, patriotic MAGA Trump voters, after all.

    Many younger U.S. whites are learning the distinctions perforce, unfortunately. Older whites who know a little more than their neighbors do may be aware that Dennis Prager and Mark Levin are Jewish, but not Alejandro Mayorkas or David Cicilline.

    Meanwhile, the whites in question (especially the older ones) simply accept [a] the false media narrative of Jews as victims and [b] the distorted media narrative of Muslims/Saracens/Arabs/Berbers/Egyptians/Bedouins/Turks/Persians/towelheads/terrorists/Sikhs/Hindus (between which many of the whites in question cannot very clearly distinguish) as violent, angry, crazed, suicide-bombing, embassy-seizing lunatics. Many of the whites in question also believe that God will bless those that bless Israel.

    I do not denigrate or ridicule such whites, incidentally. An American ought to distinguish between a Mohican and a Mexican, not between a Saracen and a Sikh! Damn our leaders who have done this to us.

    @dfordoom has wisely observed that people (probably including you and me) seldom know a lot beyond work and home.

    Replies: @Wency, @A123

    , @Jay Fink
    @oliver elkington

    I am not surprised at all. First of all many Republicans are evangelical, a group who strongly supports Israel. Also a lot of Republicans are anti-Muslim so by default support Israel.

    The alt right that you see online are a tiny sliver of Republicans and many stopped voting Republican, if they ever did.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @DanHessinMD
    @oliver elkington

    "Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel"

    I think for a big subset of Republicans it is very simple.

    Most Republicans are Christian. Christians really don't want to see their holy land in Muslim hands. Under Israel, the Christian holy lands are protected. Under Islamic control, the Christian holy lands would probably not be protected and might well be destroyed. Protecting the Christian holy lands is kind of a big deal: it is why all those Crusades happened. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and basically all of Jesus' life and the Last Supper and Jesus' crucifixion were centered around Jerusalem. And you also have the Jordan River where Jesus was baptized and the Sea of Galilee where he did miracles gathered disciples from among the fishermen.

    So the idea that Republicans are a bunch of chumps for supporting Israel isn't right. They get something really big in return. Guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not cucks for supporting Israel -- they are protecting their own holy land, the Christian one.

    And honestly this is perhaps the best possible arrangement for that. The Israeli Jews are probably much more tough and well suited for holding that territory than Christians. If Pope Francis held that land, how long before it would be lost? A week?

    But American politicians can't actually say this without sounding like theocrats. And so it goes unsaid and young right wingers often don't get it.

    Replies: @Lucia Chiara

  16. @Almost Missouri
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Jews are not declining demographically. High Haredi birthrates backstop less fertile seculars. (This is why most seculars haven't been secular for many generations.)

    That said, Jewish influence (and consequent support for Israel) has never depended much on demographics, but rather on capital, media, the academy, theory/ideology and other forms of soft power.

    Replies: @songbird, @silviosilver, @dfordoom

    I wonder whether Jews in more traditional clothing would be able to be elected to Congress in the same numbers.

  17. @oliver elkington
    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, i never saw those people in favour of Jews at all(recall that scene from the Borat film in a Arizona bar of that song about throwing the Jew in the well) or the march in Charlottesville where thousands of Republicans were chanting "Jews shall not replace us"

    Replies: @anon, @V. K. Ovelund, @Jay Fink, @DanHessinMD

    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel

    The Boomer Republicans are extremely supportive of the state of Israel.

  18. anonymous[281] • Disclaimer says:

    Not at all unexpected. Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, violent racism against African refugees within Israel, and discrimination and exclusion against Ethiopian Jews.

  19. Whites Without College Degrees cohort is fun to baloney slice and the support for Israel or lack of support for the Palestinians or the refusal to give a fig about any damn thing in the Mideast besides oil is fun to think about.

    Immigration will destroy support for Israel in the USA and the rancid Republican Party reflexively supports Israel because JEW BILLIONAIRES are a major source of bribes and loot for the treasonous politician whores in the Republican Party.

    The White Women Without College Degrees voter cohort is overlooked just like the German American voter cohort is overlooked and that is a big blunder for any populist political leader. White Men Without College Degrees are more likely to support Israel because of the incessant pro-Israel propaganda and because they want to support an alleged underdog. White Women Without College Degrees are correctly disinterested in the doings of Israel or the Palestinians or the Mideast because they don’t see that fight as their own.

    German American Women Without College Degrees might be the voter cohort that breaks the stranglehold of the ISRAEL FIRST FACTION of the Republican Party.

    Remember the Lady Brazilian Kraut philosopher who brilliantly stated something that seemed almost impossible to conceive of: Her husband cannot both throw the ball and catch the ball.

    The non-European pets in the Democrat Party are biting hard at the treacherous Jews who have been pushing mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and multiculturalism for so long.

    Tweet from 2015:

  20. Krauts in the Great Lakes states and people like me with some colonial American Kraut ancestry might be the voter cohort that puts some patriotic daylight between the American Empire and the Israel First Faction.

    Israel must be cut free from the American Empire and they can go their own way.

    The American Empire has regional and global foreign policy interests that are separate and apart from the foreign policy interests of Israel.

    Israel is free to do what they will and the American Empire must sever any and all contact with the millstone client state of Israel.

    Look at this Kraut, he got booted by the JEW/WASP Ruling Class:

  21. @Almost Missouri
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Jews are not declining demographically. High Haredi birthrates backstop less fertile seculars. (This is why most seculars haven't been secular for many generations.)

    That said, Jewish influence (and consequent support for Israel) has never depended much on demographics, but rather on capital, media, the academy, theory/ideology and other forms of soft power.

    Replies: @songbird, @silviosilver, @dfordoom

    Demographics still matters for Jews. There will always be a core of non-ultra-orthodox, who command vast resources and maintain a willingness to deploy them in support of Israel, but as the number of non-ultra-orthodox Jews dwindles, the ability of organized Jewry to “put bums in seats” – ie have Jews occupy important positions in society – can be expected to markedly decrease, and with it, the ability of Jews to influence sociopolitical trends in their favor. I don’t want to get my hopes up, but demographics is one reason I think they heyday of Jewish influence may well have passed.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @silviosilver

    I can possibly see another side of it. I know half-Jews who identify as Jews, so I could see the secular arm of Judaism gaining a greater ability to camouflage itself, through mixed marriages, while still retaining its power and influence. So, in the future, if you click on "early life", you won't see the identifiers, but they will have the same pro-Jewish biases.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @silviosilver


    I don’t want to get my hopes up, ...
     
    You'd probably better not get them up.

    ... but demographics is one reason I think they heyday of Jewish influence may well have passed.
     
    Unfortunately, Jews are only 0.5 percent of the British population, as compared to 2 percent of the U.S. population. Jews do not seem to lack influence in Britain. Jews are 0.05 percent of the Costa Rican population, but ask a Costa Rican politician about the degree to which he can act without Jewish support.

    Perhaps the Costa Rican concentration is the practical minumum to maintain Jewish influence, but the U.S. concentration is about 40 times that.

    Unfortunately, Jews are really good at what they do. (Not all Jews are like that; white gentiles still have agency; my Jewish dentist is a good dentist; Stephen Miller and Michael Savage are patriots; disclaimer; disclaimer; etc.)

    Replies: @silviosilver

  22. @silviosilver
    @Almost Missouri

    Demographics still matters for Jews. There will always be a core of non-ultra-orthodox, who command vast resources and maintain a willingness to deploy them in support of Israel, but as the number of non-ultra-orthodox Jews dwindles, the ability of organized Jewry to “put bums in seats” – ie have Jews occupy important positions in society – can be expected to markedly decrease, and with it, the ability of Jews to influence sociopolitical trends in their favor. I don’t want to get my hopes up, but demographics is one reason I think they heyday of Jewish influence may well have passed.

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

    I can possibly see another side of it. I know half-Jews who identify as Jews, so I could see the secular arm of Judaism gaining a greater ability to camouflage itself, through mixed marriages, while still retaining its power and influence. So, in the future, if you click on “early life”, you won’t see the identifiers, but they will have the same pro-Jewish biases.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @songbird

    Survey evidence suggests their Jewish identities aren't nearly as strong as those of unmixed Jews. My guess is that would have numerous subtle consequences in their willingness or ability to act as forcefully as more strongly identified Jews in their positions would have.

    Replies: @BlackFlag

  23. The dispossession of whites from America is a karmatic punishment for their unbridled support of disposition of Palestinians from their homeland.

    • Disagree: Yahya K.
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @indocon

    The Swedes, who only ever supported the Palestinians, are "dispossessing" themselves a lot faster than the US. While the Danes, who have been very pro-Israel, are maintaining their ethnic homogeneity quite successfully.

    , @Yahya K.
    @indocon


    The dispossession of whites from America is a karmatic punishment for their unbridled support of disposition of Palestinians from their homeland.

     

    While I am a bit resentful of the dogged American support for Israel, I don't think it's fair to meet out "karmic punishment" to 200 million whites for the dispossession of 10-13 million Palestinians. I think also that "whites" as a racial group, just by virtue of their economic and technological success, are a net boon to mankind (including Arabs/Palestinians). So whatever they do "wrong" should be forgiven.
  24. @oliver elkington
    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, i never saw those people in favour of Jews at all(recall that scene from the Borat film in a Arizona bar of that song about throwing the Jew in the well) or the march in Charlottesville where thousands of Republicans were chanting "Jews shall not replace us"

    Replies: @anon, @V. K. Ovelund, @Jay Fink, @DanHessinMD

    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, I never saw those people in favour of Jews at all….

    Perhaps I am better acquainted with the whites of the remote rural areas of the U.S. Midlands or South than you happen to be. Such whites encounter few if any Jews in daily life. Moreover, they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York. Alexander Hamilton was a New Yorker, after all, so how bad can a Goldman or Cohen be, really? Donald Trump is a New Yorker, too.

    Some of the eastern Askenazi names sound Russian to white Gentile ears. If such Russians are behaving badly, they tend to suppose that it’s Putler’s fault—except that Russian collusion is a hoax, which implies that the eastern Askenazi must be good, patriotic MAGA Trump voters, after all.

    Many younger U.S. whites are learning the distinctions perforce, unfortunately. Older whites who know a little more than their neighbors do may be aware that Dennis Prager and Mark Levin are Jewish, but not Alejandro Mayorkas or David Cicilline.

    Meanwhile, the whites in question (especially the older ones) simply accept [a] the false media narrative of Jews as victims and [b] the distorted media narrative of Muslims/Saracens/Arabs/Berbers/Egyptians/Bedouins/Turks/Persians/towelheads/terrorists/Sikhs/Hindus (between which many of the whites in question cannot very clearly distinguish) as violent, angry, crazed, suicide-bombing, embassy-seizing lunatics. Many of the whites in question also believe that God will bless those that bless Israel.

    I do not denigrate or ridicule such whites, incidentally. An American ought to distinguish between a Mohican and a Mexican, not between a Saracen and a Sikh! Damn our leaders who have done this to us.

    has wisely observed that people (probably including you and me) seldom know a lot beyond work and home.

    • Agree: oliver elkington
    • Replies: @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Such whites encounter few if any Jews in daily life. Moreover, they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish.
     
    Indeed, concur with this fully. As I've observed before here, there is not a Jewish place of worship in my Southern county. When I met my Southern wife, she wasn't even aware of a single stereotype of Jews -- good, bad or indifferent; true, or false. She wouldn't really even recognize a thick Yiddish accent (if anything she would, as you suggest, think of it as a type of New York accent). It doesn't occur to her to think of Jews outside the context of the Bible, or to wonder if any particular person might be Jewish.

    Many of the whites in question also believe that God will bless those that bless Israel.
     
    Despite being a lifelong Evangelical Christian in the South, however, my wife has never given much thought to modern-day Israel. I've never really encountered the radically pro-Israel current of Christianity in real-life, though evidently it is a real thing and not small. I have to think at least one of the churches in my area must be preaching such a message, though I don't know which one.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York.
     
    It is not a lack of recognition. It is all about understanding why Media Elites are a problem:

    #1 they are Elites
    #2 they are Big City Liberals (NYC & Hollywood)
    #3 they oppose traditional Judeo-Christian values
    #4 they lie for anti-American MegaCorporations
    #5 they support violence perpetrated by BLM, Hamas, Antifa, etc.
    #6 they hate national borders, citizen workers, and the associated Populist leaders (e.g. Trump, Netanyahu).

    "SJW Globalism" is the mandatory religion of the Media Elites. To join, those with Christian or Jewish lineage must abandon the beliefs of their forebears. Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.

    -- Non-elite Palestinian Jews support Trump & Netanyahu.
    -- SJW Media Elites (some of whom are former Jews) despise Trump & Netanyahu.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Twinkie, @anon

  25. @silviosilver
    @Almost Missouri

    Demographics still matters for Jews. There will always be a core of non-ultra-orthodox, who command vast resources and maintain a willingness to deploy them in support of Israel, but as the number of non-ultra-orthodox Jews dwindles, the ability of organized Jewry to “put bums in seats” – ie have Jews occupy important positions in society – can be expected to markedly decrease, and with it, the ability of Jews to influence sociopolitical trends in their favor. I don’t want to get my hopes up, but demographics is one reason I think they heyday of Jewish influence may well have passed.

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

    I don’t want to get my hopes up, …

    You’d probably better not get them up.

    … but demographics is one reason I think they heyday of Jewish influence may well have passed.

    Unfortunately, Jews are only 0.5 percent of the British population, as compared to 2 percent of the U.S. population. Jews do not seem to lack influence in Britain. Jews are 0.05 percent of the Costa Rican population, but ask a Costa Rican politician about the degree to which he can act without Jewish support.

    Perhaps the Costa Rican concentration is the practical minumum to maintain Jewish influence, but the U.S. concentration is about 40 times that.

    Unfortunately, Jews are really good at what they do. (Not all Jews are like that; white gentiles still have agency; my Jewish dentist is a good dentist; Stephen Miller and Michael Savage are patriots; disclaimer; disclaimer; etc.)

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yeah, I know, I get all that. But to say that the heyday of their influence has passed is not to suggest it's going to plummet to zero. It may not even perceptibly decline. I just think it's unlikely to grow any stronger than it is (or has been). But who knows...

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok, @Twinkie

  26. Christian Zionists (Evangelicals) are the major supporters of Israel at this point. I remember the guy who wrote an unreadable book that sold massively around 1970. He was a regular on TBN. He seemed to start this weird movement. Please reply with his name and his book.

    BTW, the guy with the American Pie song about a Chevy on a leevee helped with this hysteria. And those rapture books popular with Star Trek oriented “Christians” for a while.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Reverend Goody


    Please reply with his name and his book.
     
    Maybe that one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late,_Great_Planet_Earth
  27. @V. K. Ovelund
    @silviosilver


    I don’t want to get my hopes up, ...
     
    You'd probably better not get them up.

    ... but demographics is one reason I think they heyday of Jewish influence may well have passed.
     
    Unfortunately, Jews are only 0.5 percent of the British population, as compared to 2 percent of the U.S. population. Jews do not seem to lack influence in Britain. Jews are 0.05 percent of the Costa Rican population, but ask a Costa Rican politician about the degree to which he can act without Jewish support.

    Perhaps the Costa Rican concentration is the practical minumum to maintain Jewish influence, but the U.S. concentration is about 40 times that.

    Unfortunately, Jews are really good at what they do. (Not all Jews are like that; white gentiles still have agency; my Jewish dentist is a good dentist; Stephen Miller and Michael Savage are patriots; disclaimer; disclaimer; etc.)

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Yeah, I know, I get all that. But to say that the heyday of their influence has passed is not to suggest it’s going to plummet to zero. It may not even perceptibly decline. I just think it’s unlikely to grow any stronger than it is (or has been). But who knows…

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @silviosilver

    This is the most moderate and intelligent discussion of Jewish influence ever conducted online. Good work, everyone.

    , @Twinkie
    @silviosilver


    But to say that the heyday of their influence has passed is not to suggest it’s going to plummet to zero. It may not even perceptibly decline. I just think it’s unlikely to grow any stronger than it is (or has been). But who knows…
     
    Although Jewish numbers may be declining (or not), their financial and influence (media) dominance shows no sign of abating. One thing to keep in mind is that the mechanism for generating and maintaining influence is not constant. In many ways, ordinary Americans are today squeezed in the middle, and not just economically - on the street (in the physical realm) they are pressured and intimidated by a minority of “activists” (rioters et al.), esp. blacks, and in the digital and media realm, they are misled and coopted by elite “thought” leaders and influencers (including, yes, Jews). The ways that middle America can express its will are ever more constrained and limited now.
  28. @songbird
    @silviosilver

    I can possibly see another side of it. I know half-Jews who identify as Jews, so I could see the secular arm of Judaism gaining a greater ability to camouflage itself, through mixed marriages, while still retaining its power and influence. So, in the future, if you click on "early life", you won't see the identifiers, but they will have the same pro-Jewish biases.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Survey evidence suggests their Jewish identities aren’t nearly as strong as those of unmixed Jews. My guess is that would have numerous subtle consequences in their willingness or ability to act as forcefully as more strongly identified Jews in their positions would have.

    • Replies: @BlackFlag
    @silviosilver

    Yes, half-Jews and quarter-Jews might in some instances identify as Jewish if an advantage is to be gained. But they are not as loyal. You would not expect otherwise given their parents were likely less ethnocentric. Everything is heritable.

    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.

    As for numbers, Orthodox Jews are one of the few healthy sub-groups in the West.

    The question is whether they are still selecting for the traits that allowed them to achieve such influence despite being few. Every other group is dysgenic so the answer might be yes.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  29. @indocon
    The dispossession of whites from America is a karmatic punishment for their unbridled support of disposition of Palestinians from their homeland.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Yahya K.

    The Swedes, who only ever supported the Palestinians, are “dispossessing” themselves a lot faster than the US. While the Danes, who have been very pro-Israel, are maintaining their ethnic homogeneity quite successfully.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
  30. Third Worlders In USA Call Out ISRAEL FIRST FACTION

    Yeah, I know, the ISRAEL FIRST FACTION ain’t a faction; they’re the whole ruling class of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

    Rick Scott and Teddy Cruz and Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio and all other Republican Party US Senators put the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the American Empire, except for maybe Mophead Paul from Kentucky.

    FRACTURES

    SPLINTERS

    DISINTEGRATION

    CLEAVAGES — thank God for warm weather!

    LEGS — same as above

    RUPTURES

    SPLITS

    The ability of the evil and treasonous scum in the Republican Party to use the US military to fight unnecesssary and endless war on behalf of the millstone client state of Israel is waning and lessening.

    George W Bush’s Iraq War debacle and the Afghanistan Occupation misadventure will not be repeated in the future. George W Bush dragged the US military into Iraq and Afghanistan on behalf of the millstone client state of Israel.

    Some war profiteer interventionist in the WSJ is crying about keeping an air base in Afghanistan and he makes it clear to JEW donors that he will do the bidding of a foreign nation even if it harms the foreign policy interests of the American Empire.

  31. I wrote this in March of 2019 and I slightly edited it:

    Somalia US House Rep. Omar is sipping khat tea and using rocket-propelled rhetoric and the “Trope” – A – Dope strategy to grind down the treasonous scum who put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

    This Omar lady has staying power and the ISRAEL FIRST crowd is on the wane in all European Christian nations.

    Attention All Bolshevik Globalizer Jews Who Push Mass Immigration:

    As the United States racially and culturally splinters because of nation-wrecking mass legal immigration, the support for Israel in the USA will evaporate.

    Bolshevik Globalizer Jews in European Christian nations have been using nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and illegal immigration as a demographic weapon to attack and destroy European Christian nations.

    Bolshevik Globalizer Jews who are ISRAEL FIRSTERS will discover that the non-Whites and non-Christians imported into European Christian nations don’t give a fig about Israel.

    https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/ilhan-omars-tropes-are-true/?showcomments#comment-3074906

    Tweet from 2015:

  32. Mass Immigration Multicultural Mayhem vs Support For Zionist Nation

    I wrote this in March of 2019:

    The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire pushes mass legal immigration and illegal immigration and REFUGEE OVERLOAD.

    The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

    Something is going to give when the Third Worlders have enough electoral power to influence the foreign policy of the American Empire.

    Support for Israel will disappear when the Third Worlders imported into the USA have enough political power.

    Trump and the US Congress are bought and paid for whores for the ISRAEL FIRST LOBBY.

    https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/ilhan-omars-tropes-are-true/?showcomments#comment-3075387

    Tweet from 2015:

  33. Yahya K. says:
    @indocon
    The dispossession of whites from America is a karmatic punishment for their unbridled support of disposition of Palestinians from their homeland.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Yahya K.

    The dispossession of whites from America is a karmatic punishment for their unbridled support of disposition of Palestinians from their homeland.

    While I am a bit resentful of the dogged American support for Israel, I don’t think it’s fair to meet out “karmic punishment” to 200 million whites for the dispossession of 10-13 million Palestinians. I think also that “whites” as a racial group, just by virtue of their economic and technological success, are a net boon to mankind (including Arabs/Palestinians). So whatever they do “wrong” should be forgiven.

  34. German_reader says:
    @Reverend Goody
    Christian Zionists (Evangelicals) are the major supporters of Israel at this point. I remember the guy who wrote an unreadable book that sold massively around 1970. He was a regular on TBN. He seemed to start this weird movement. Please reply with his name and his book.

    BTW, the guy with the American Pie song about a Chevy on a leevee helped with this hysteria. And those rapture books popular with Star Trek oriented "Christians" for a while.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Please reply with his name and his book.

    Maybe that one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late,_Great_Planet_Earth

  35. @V. K. Ovelund
    @oliver elkington


    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, I never saw those people in favour of Jews at all....
     
    Perhaps I am better acquainted with the whites of the remote rural areas of the U.S. Midlands or South than you happen to be. Such whites encounter few if any Jews in daily life. Moreover, they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York. Alexander Hamilton was a New Yorker, after all, so how bad can a Goldman or Cohen be, really? Donald Trump is a New Yorker, too.

    Some of the eastern Askenazi names sound Russian to white Gentile ears. If such Russians are behaving badly, they tend to suppose that it's Putler's fault—except that Russian collusion is a hoax, which implies that the eastern Askenazi must be good, patriotic MAGA Trump voters, after all.

    Many younger U.S. whites are learning the distinctions perforce, unfortunately. Older whites who know a little more than their neighbors do may be aware that Dennis Prager and Mark Levin are Jewish, but not Alejandro Mayorkas or David Cicilline.

    Meanwhile, the whites in question (especially the older ones) simply accept [a] the false media narrative of Jews as victims and [b] the distorted media narrative of Muslims/Saracens/Arabs/Berbers/Egyptians/Bedouins/Turks/Persians/towelheads/terrorists/Sikhs/Hindus (between which many of the whites in question cannot very clearly distinguish) as violent, angry, crazed, suicide-bombing, embassy-seizing lunatics. Many of the whites in question also believe that God will bless those that bless Israel.

    I do not denigrate or ridicule such whites, incidentally. An American ought to distinguish between a Mohican and a Mexican, not between a Saracen and a Sikh! Damn our leaders who have done this to us.

    @dfordoom has wisely observed that people (probably including you and me) seldom know a lot beyond work and home.

    Replies: @Wency, @A123

    Such whites encounter few if any Jews in daily life. Moreover, they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish.

    Indeed, concur with this fully. As I’ve observed before here, there is not a Jewish place of worship in my Southern county. When I met my Southern wife, she wasn’t even aware of a single stereotype of Jews — good, bad or indifferent; true, or false. She wouldn’t really even recognize a thick Yiddish accent (if anything she would, as you suggest, think of it as a type of New York accent). It doesn’t occur to her to think of Jews outside the context of the Bible, or to wonder if any particular person might be Jewish.

    Many of the whites in question also believe that God will bless those that bless Israel.

    Despite being a lifelong Evangelical Christian in the South, however, my wife has never given much thought to modern-day Israel. I’ve never really encountered the radically pro-Israel current of Christianity in real-life, though evidently it is a real thing and not small. I have to think at least one of the churches in my area must be preaching such a message, though I don’t know which one.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Wency

    I was thinking further on the matter of my and my wife's failure to personally experience Evangelical Zionism.

    I agree with others saying that it seems to be highly generational -- you don't see the Zionist tendency so much among post-Boomer (and maybe early Xer) Christians.

    In addition, I wonder if the Reformed takeover of Evangelical theology is a factor. This is a phenomenon that is seldom discussed in these circles, I suppose this is because there aren't many other Evangelicals here. I, however, have observed its tangible progress in my lifetime, and Reformed theology still seems to be on the advance among Evangelicals, particularly among the more intellectually or theologically inclined (including, crucially, at Evangelical seminaries).

    As Reformed thinking spreads, it's taking back mindshare from the Dispensationalists, who are the ones arguing that the Covenant with the Jews remains forever intact in spite of their denial of Christ, that Israel still rightfully and forever belongs to them.

    While various Reformed/Calvinist thinkers of past centuries (though not really Calvin or Luther themselves) sometimes engaged in various Hebraizing or Zionist flights of fancy, the three most popular Reformed theologians of recent times -- Sproul, Keller, and Piper -- all affirmed Solus Christus and don't seem to have engaged in any of this. I don't know that Keller has ever commented directly on Zionism or Dispensationalism, but Sproul and Piper have both been explicit in denying Dispensationalist Zionist arguments. Instead, those Jews who reject Christ are given no special favor relative to anyone else who does so -- atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  36. The Jews do not care anything about black or brown people.
    They see them just as slaves promised to them.
    In an unholy book called The Babylonian Talmud.

    These neo-Babylonians are dead either way.
    Either we kill them off or their would be slaves will.
    We can survive. )))They((( are a Death Cult worshipping Satan.

  37. @V. K. Ovelund
    @oliver elkington


    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, I never saw those people in favour of Jews at all....
     
    Perhaps I am better acquainted with the whites of the remote rural areas of the U.S. Midlands or South than you happen to be. Such whites encounter few if any Jews in daily life. Moreover, they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York. Alexander Hamilton was a New Yorker, after all, so how bad can a Goldman or Cohen be, really? Donald Trump is a New Yorker, too.

    Some of the eastern Askenazi names sound Russian to white Gentile ears. If such Russians are behaving badly, they tend to suppose that it's Putler's fault—except that Russian collusion is a hoax, which implies that the eastern Askenazi must be good, patriotic MAGA Trump voters, after all.

    Many younger U.S. whites are learning the distinctions perforce, unfortunately. Older whites who know a little more than their neighbors do may be aware that Dennis Prager and Mark Levin are Jewish, but not Alejandro Mayorkas or David Cicilline.

    Meanwhile, the whites in question (especially the older ones) simply accept [a] the false media narrative of Jews as victims and [b] the distorted media narrative of Muslims/Saracens/Arabs/Berbers/Egyptians/Bedouins/Turks/Persians/towelheads/terrorists/Sikhs/Hindus (between which many of the whites in question cannot very clearly distinguish) as violent, angry, crazed, suicide-bombing, embassy-seizing lunatics. Many of the whites in question also believe that God will bless those that bless Israel.

    I do not denigrate or ridicule such whites, incidentally. An American ought to distinguish between a Mohican and a Mexican, not between a Saracen and a Sikh! Damn our leaders who have done this to us.

    @dfordoom has wisely observed that people (probably including you and me) seldom know a lot beyond work and home.

    Replies: @Wency, @A123

    they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York.

    It is not a lack of recognition. It is all about understanding why Media Elites are a problem:

    #1 they are Elites
    #2 they are Big City Liberals (NYC & Hollywood)
    #3 they oppose traditional Judeo-Christian values
    #4 they lie for anti-American MegaCorporations
    #5 they support violence perpetrated by BLM, Hamas, Antifa, etc.
    #6 they hate national borders, citizen workers, and the associated Populist leaders (e.g. Trump, Netanyahu).

    “SJW Globalism” is the mandatory religion of the Media Elites. To join, those with Christian or Jewish lineage must abandon the beliefs of their forebears. Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.

    — Non-elite Palestinian Jews support Trump & Netanyahu.
    — SJW Media Elites (some of whom are former Jews) despise Trump & Netanyahu.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @A123


    Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.
     
    This is like “equally” blaming violent blacks and violent whites for the crime wave gripping the big cities in the U.S. It is a disingenuous diversion.

    Replies: @A123

    , @anon
    @A123

    3 they oppose traditional Judeo-Christian values

    Once again I ask you to explain what you mean by "Judeo-Christian".

  38. @oliver elkington
    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, i never saw those people in favour of Jews at all(recall that scene from the Borat film in a Arizona bar of that song about throwing the Jew in the well) or the march in Charlottesville where thousands of Republicans were chanting "Jews shall not replace us"

    Replies: @anon, @V. K. Ovelund, @Jay Fink, @DanHessinMD

    I am not surprised at all. First of all many Republicans are evangelical, a group who strongly supports Israel. Also a lot of Republicans are anti-Muslim so by default support Israel.

    The alt right that you see online are a tiny sliver of Republicans and many stopped voting Republican, if they ever did.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jay Fink


    Also a lot of Republicans are anti-Muslim so by default support Israel
     
    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.

    A lot of younger Arab leaders fall into that same camp. As does India and various South American movements. Hungary, Russia and Eastern Europe too. Probably even China is edging there. Certainly ordinary Chinese people's sympathies are with the Israelis.

    People who don't talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

  39. @Caspar von Everec
    While the rise in anti-israeli sentiment is laudible, its ineffectual as well. If the past 12 years have taught us anything its that the people's opinion matter less than a used toilet paper.

    They pushed through Wall street bailouts, Gay marriage, trannies, drag queen story hour, the woke revolution, COVID-19 lockdown ensured bankruptcies, gave crumbs to main street while showering 7 trillion on wall street during the pandemic, the BLM terror campaign and police refusal to stop it, the election fraud, the Bidani Jihad on American oil, no investigation into Epstein's death or his lolita express attendees.... the list is exhaustive.

    The fact of the matter is that Americans for all their bluster about muh guns, fuck around and find out and muh bible, are the most obsequoeus, cowardly and cuckolded people on earth. There's no amount of depredation that the American will resist.

    All his "Resistance" amounts to posting on twitter about how "CIVIL WAR 2.0" is coming and they have all the guns and voting for the closet homosexuals of the GOP.

    After all what's the difference between the GOP and the democrats?

    The Republicans are closet pederasts and democrats are loud and proud transsexuals. Both are unwavering in their loyalty to Zionism and Wall street(not much of a difference between these two but well...)

    Americans are simply too lazy, fat and above all individualistic to do anything about it. They whine, they yell and a week later they move onto the next outrage on twitter. The only way to achieve anything politically is group action and Americans for whatever reason are loathe to organize for anything other than dog rescue or going to Africa to feed some Somalians.

    Other Euros like Poles, Hungarians, Russians, French, Italians and even scandis are more organzied. Even the infamous king of cuckery, Sweden has organized patrols by white swedish men and the Nordic Resistance movement is one of the largest white nationalist groups around. Even in ultra white guilt Germany there are militias and groups.

    In America? Zlich. A few million blacks and antifa terrorized the supposedly alpha chad anglo saxon race into submission during 6 months of riots.

    Why this is the case I have no idea. Are Englishmen just naturally more obedient and slavish due to subjugation by Normans? Is it libertarian brain worm? Is it individualistic frontier culture? Are they just too fat and consequently low T? Is it owed to hyper capitalism and lack of unions and an "every goy for himself" attidute? Is it just a status obsessed society that will do anything to stay in the corporate ladder?

    Who knows...the point is that nothing ever comes out of these public outrages. The left also has wanted socialism, free healthcare and debt relief for ages. Even MSM pays lip service to these demands. Yet, in the last 20 years of ultra wokeism, the opposite of all these things have happened.

    Student and household debt has skyrocketed, health costs have gone through the roof, inequality is the largest in history and the rich are richer than ever before. Just during the pandemic the US billionaire class gained 1 TRILLION dollars in wealth.

    So, if these issues which are publicly supported by MSM don't get done, there's zero chance of anti-Zionism becoming a thing policy wise. The MSM is and will continue to remain firmly pro-zionism.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Most people quite like their lives in both America and Europe. You argue that’s because they’re defective, but that’s your issue.

    I enjoy people with views far out of the mainstream, but not so much if they think everyone else is a complete idiot for not agreeing.

    The lack of empathy is tangible.

  40. @silviosilver
    @songbird

    Survey evidence suggests their Jewish identities aren't nearly as strong as those of unmixed Jews. My guess is that would have numerous subtle consequences in their willingness or ability to act as forcefully as more strongly identified Jews in their positions would have.

    Replies: @BlackFlag

    Yes, half-Jews and quarter-Jews might in some instances identify as Jewish if an advantage is to be gained. But they are not as loyal. You would not expect otherwise given their parents were likely less ethnocentric. Everything is heritable.

    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.

    As for numbers, Orthodox Jews are one of the few healthy sub-groups in the West.

    The question is whether they are still selecting for the traits that allowed them to achieve such influence despite being few. Every other group is dysgenic so the answer might be yes.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @BlackFlag


    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.
     
    It's been that way since time immemorial. The question is whether this is going to make that core even more cohesive and ethnocentric in the future than it is today. Unfortunately, we lack a "cohesiveness index" that we can consult to observe changes throughout history. If history is any guide, we may note that, in the past, there have been Jews with such a fanatical attachment to their Jewishness that they preferred to die than to "convert." I suspect we'd be hard-pressed to find many (any?) such Jews today. So it's quite possible that cohesiveness has a ceiling to it and that Jews may have already reached it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  41. @Jay Fink
    @oliver elkington

    I am not surprised at all. First of all many Republicans are evangelical, a group who strongly supports Israel. Also a lot of Republicans are anti-Muslim so by default support Israel.

    The alt right that you see online are a tiny sliver of Republicans and many stopped voting Republican, if they ever did.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Also a lot of Republicans are anti-Muslim so by default support Israel

    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.

    A lot of younger Arab leaders fall into that same camp. As does India and various South American movements. Hungary, Russia and Eastern Europe too. Probably even China is edging there. Certainly ordinary Chinese people’s sympathies are with the Israelis.

    People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.
     
    The IRA used to support Palestinians. Possibly because there were analogies to be made over Northern Ireland, or because Palestinians voiced support for them. Or possibly because they were a grassroots organization, with a semi-rural base and thus they escaped Jewish involvement and influence.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @oliver elkington

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.
     
    Now that you point it out, it does indeed make a sort of sense.

    I do not buy into it, myself (for I dislike Israel, resist revolution, and am uninterested in Palestine), but I can see how others would buy in.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

  42. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jay Fink


    Also a lot of Republicans are anti-Muslim so by default support Israel
     
    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.

    A lot of younger Arab leaders fall into that same camp. As does India and various South American movements. Hungary, Russia and Eastern Europe too. Probably even China is edging there. Certainly ordinary Chinese people's sympathies are with the Israelis.

    People who don't talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.

    The IRA used to support Palestinians. Possibly because there were analogies to be made over Northern Ireland, or because Palestinians voiced support for them. Or possibly because they were a grassroots organization, with a semi-rural base and thus they escaped Jewish involvement and influence.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @songbird

    The IRA were drenched in Marxism. They talked about "revolution" a lot. Naturally they gravitated towards the Palestinian side. Almost none of it has anything to do with "Jewish influence" or a lack of it.

    "People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it."

    Replies: @songbird

    , @oliver elkington
    @songbird

    I think the IRA supported Palestine because the British supported Israel so they sort of saw the British as the conquerors of the Arab world, you know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also they benefitted from Arab weapon shipments curtesy of Ghadaffy so there were at least two reasons as to why they were such staunch supporters of Palestine and the Arab cause.

    Replies: @songbird

  43. @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.
     
    The IRA used to support Palestinians. Possibly because there were analogies to be made over Northern Ireland, or because Palestinians voiced support for them. Or possibly because they were a grassroots organization, with a semi-rural base and thus they escaped Jewish involvement and influence.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @oliver elkington

    The IRA were drenched in Marxism. They talked about “revolution” a lot. Naturally they gravitated towards the Palestinian side. Almost none of it has anything to do with “Jewish influence” or a lack of it.

    “People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.”

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Almost none of it has anything to do with “Jewish influence” or a lack of it.
     
    Ireland did not recognize Israel until 1963.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  44. @silviosilver
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yeah, I know, I get all that. But to say that the heyday of their influence has passed is not to suggest it's going to plummet to zero. It may not even perceptibly decline. I just think it's unlikely to grow any stronger than it is (or has been). But who knows...

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok, @Twinkie

    This is the most moderate and intelligent discussion of Jewish influence ever conducted online. Good work, everyone.

  45. @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.
     
    The IRA used to support Palestinians. Possibly because there were analogies to be made over Northern Ireland, or because Palestinians voiced support for them. Or possibly because they were a grassroots organization, with a semi-rural base and thus they escaped Jewish involvement and influence.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @oliver elkington

    I think the IRA supported Palestine because the British supported Israel so they sort of saw the British as the conquerors of the Arab world, you know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also they benefitted from Arab weapon shipments curtesy of Ghadaffy so there were at least two reasons as to why they were such staunch supporters of Palestine and the Arab cause.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @oliver elkington


    I think the IRA supported Palestine because the British supported Israel
     
    There seems to be a strange mirror of this in India.

    Also they benefitted from Arab weapon shipments curtesy of Ghadaffy
     
    True, but I would suppose his hatred of the British was probably sufficient motivation.
  46. @Triteleia Laxa
    @songbird

    The IRA were drenched in Marxism. They talked about "revolution" a lot. Naturally they gravitated towards the Palestinian side. Almost none of it has anything to do with "Jewish influence" or a lack of it.

    "People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it."

    Replies: @songbird

    Almost none of it has anything to do with “Jewish influence” or a lack of it.

    Ireland did not recognize Israel until 1963.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @songbird

    I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago. I suppose I didn't make that clear.

    Replies: @songbird

  47. @oliver elkington
    @songbird

    I think the IRA supported Palestine because the British supported Israel so they sort of saw the British as the conquerors of the Arab world, you know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also they benefitted from Arab weapon shipments curtesy of Ghadaffy so there were at least two reasons as to why they were such staunch supporters of Palestine and the Arab cause.

    Replies: @songbird

    I think the IRA supported Palestine because the British supported Israel

    There seems to be a strange mirror of this in India.

    Also they benefitted from Arab weapon shipments curtesy of Ghadaffy

    True, but I would suppose his hatred of the British was probably sufficient motivation.

  48. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York.
     
    It is not a lack of recognition. It is all about understanding why Media Elites are a problem:

    #1 they are Elites
    #2 they are Big City Liberals (NYC & Hollywood)
    #3 they oppose traditional Judeo-Christian values
    #4 they lie for anti-American MegaCorporations
    #5 they support violence perpetrated by BLM, Hamas, Antifa, etc.
    #6 they hate national borders, citizen workers, and the associated Populist leaders (e.g. Trump, Netanyahu).

    "SJW Globalism" is the mandatory religion of the Media Elites. To join, those with Christian or Jewish lineage must abandon the beliefs of their forebears. Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.

    -- Non-elite Palestinian Jews support Trump & Netanyahu.
    -- SJW Media Elites (some of whom are former Jews) despise Trump & Netanyahu.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Twinkie, @anon

    Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.

    This is like “equally” blaming violent blacks and violent whites for the crime wave gripping the big cities in the U.S. It is a disingenuous diversion.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Twinkie



    Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.
     
    This is like “equally” blaming violent blacks and violent whites for the crime wave gripping the big cities in the U.S. It is a disingenuous diversion.
     
    I am have difficulty following your analogy.

    Are you suggesting that Elite Media Blacks and Elite Media Whites are nearly identical? And, both are responsible for fanning the flames that create inner city violence?

    The most straightforward option is to stop at "Media Elites" when defining category. Elite Media Whites, Elite Media Christians, Elite Media Jews, and Elite Media Blacks are a fairly homogeneous group worshiping at the Woke Altar of SJW Globalism.

    PEACE 😇

  49. @silviosilver
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yeah, I know, I get all that. But to say that the heyday of their influence has passed is not to suggest it's going to plummet to zero. It may not even perceptibly decline. I just think it's unlikely to grow any stronger than it is (or has been). But who knows...

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok, @Twinkie

    But to say that the heyday of their influence has passed is not to suggest it’s going to plummet to zero. It may not even perceptibly decline. I just think it’s unlikely to grow any stronger than it is (or has been). But who knows…

    Although Jewish numbers may be declining (or not), their financial and influence (media) dominance shows no sign of abating. One thing to keep in mind is that the mechanism for generating and maintaining influence is not constant. In many ways, ordinary Americans are today squeezed in the middle, and not just economically – on the street (in the physical realm) they are pressured and intimidated by a minority of “activists” (rioters et al.), esp. blacks, and in the digital and media realm, they are misled and coopted by elite “thought” leaders and influencers (including, yes, Jews). The ways that middle America can express its will are ever more constrained and limited now.

  50. @oliver elkington
    Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel, while aware that a lot of wealthier Repubs support Israel that was always imo going to be the minority of Republicans as their main base seems to have moved away from the wealthier suburbs and rural areas of the east coast especially and towards the more remote rural areas and ex industrial regions of the Midlands and South, i never saw those people in favour of Jews at all(recall that scene from the Borat film in a Arizona bar of that song about throwing the Jew in the well) or the march in Charlottesville where thousands of Republicans were chanting "Jews shall not replace us"

    Replies: @anon, @V. K. Ovelund, @Jay Fink, @DanHessinMD

    “Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel”

    I think for a big subset of Republicans it is very simple.

    Most Republicans are Christian. Christians really don’t want to see their holy land in Muslim hands. Under Israel, the Christian holy lands are protected. Under Islamic control, the Christian holy lands would probably not be protected and might well be destroyed. Protecting the Christian holy lands is kind of a big deal: it is why all those Crusades happened. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and basically all of Jesus’ life and the Last Supper and Jesus’ crucifixion were centered around Jerusalem. And you also have the Jordan River where Jesus was baptized and the Sea of Galilee where he did miracles gathered disciples from among the fishermen.

    So the idea that Republicans are a bunch of chumps for supporting Israel isn’t right. They get something really big in return. Guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not cucks for supporting Israel — they are protecting their own holy land, the Christian one.

    And honestly this is perhaps the best possible arrangement for that. The Israeli Jews are probably much more tough and well suited for holding that territory than Christians. If Pope Francis held that land, how long before it would be lost? A week?

    But American politicians can’t actually say this without sounding like theocrats. And so it goes unsaid and young right wingers often don’t get it.

    • Agree: Hermes
    • Replies: @Lucia Chiara
    @DanHessinMD

    Ironically-"vulnerable" Christian and other holy sites in the Holy Land have been well protected since the 1700s (ergo long before the modern state of Israel) by the "Status Quo" agreement drawn up when the area was still under Ottoman moslem control.

    The fact that historically-ignorant US politicos imagine, say, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is safest in a zionist Jerusalem, absent copious US financial incentives for sites to remain unmolested? Ha!

  51. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish. A name that ends in -berg, -man, -stein or -witz sounds to them more or less like a random name from New York.
     
    It is not a lack of recognition. It is all about understanding why Media Elites are a problem:

    #1 they are Elites
    #2 they are Big City Liberals (NYC & Hollywood)
    #3 they oppose traditional Judeo-Christian values
    #4 they lie for anti-American MegaCorporations
    #5 they support violence perpetrated by BLM, Hamas, Antifa, etc.
    #6 they hate national borders, citizen workers, and the associated Populist leaders (e.g. Trump, Netanyahu).

    "SJW Globalism" is the mandatory religion of the Media Elites. To join, those with Christian or Jewish lineage must abandon the beliefs of their forebears. Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.

    -- Non-elite Palestinian Jews support Trump & Netanyahu.
    -- SJW Media Elites (some of whom are former Jews) despise Trump & Netanyahu.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Twinkie, @anon

    3 they oppose traditional Judeo-Christian values

    Once again I ask you to explain what you mean by “Judeo-Christian”.

  52. I would be interested in refining “partial to” so as to get a quantitative measure. The question might be: “If you had 100 points of support to give, how many points would you give to the Israeli position, and how many to the Palestinian position.”

    I have a feeling that what might emerge is that, below the surface of what appears to be intense disagreement, most people are actually close to the 50-50 level. That is, they very much sympathize with the positions of both sides.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @SafeNow


    I have a feeling that what might emerge is that, below the surface of what appears to be intense disagreement, most people are actually close to the 50-50 level. That is, they very much sympathize with the positions of both sides.
     
    An excellent point.

    If you asked me to identify myself as either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian I'd reply that I'm pro-Palestinian. But if you pushed me for further details you'd find that it would be more true to say that I'm about 65% pro-Palestinian and 35% pro-Israel. I have no problems with the existence of the state of Israel. I would love to see Israel a happy prosperous thriving nation. It's just that I'd prefer it to be a happy prosperous thriving nation living within its pre-1967 frontiers and living in peace with its neighbours, and I'd prefer to see Palestine also being a happy prosperous thriving nation.

    I can see rights and wrongs on both sides. I think Israel is on balance more wrong, but not entirely wrong.
  53. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jay Fink


    Also a lot of Republicans are anti-Muslim so by default support Israel
     
    Republicans are also increasingly nationalist, and Israel has become a mascot for right of centre nationalism, as sandwiched between revolutionary Islam and revolutionary progressivism.

    A lot of younger Arab leaders fall into that same camp. As does India and various South American movements. Hungary, Russia and Eastern Europe too. Probably even China is edging there. Certainly ordinary Chinese people's sympathies are with the Israelis.

    People who don't talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

    People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.

    Now that you point it out, it does indeed make a sort of sense.

    I do not buy into it, myself (for I dislike Israel, resist revolution, and am uninterested in Palestine), but I can see how others would buy in.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not buy into it, myself (for I dislike Israel, resist revolution, and am uninterested in Palestine), but I can see how others would buy in.
     
    I agree. I'm very very suspicious of revolutions. But overall I'm more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel.
    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Your disinterest in Palestine would have you labelled a Zio-Nazi in discussion with most resentment-fueled wannabe revolutionaries.

  54. America’s demographic transformation, supported by Jews has undermined American support for Israel.

    In other words Jews have been hoisted on their own petard. Serves them right. What goes around, comes around.

    I never could understand why Jews thought it was such a wonderful idea to flood the west with black and brown people, many of them Muslims, who dislike them intensely.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @anonymouseperson


    I never could understand why Jews thought it was such a wonderful idea to flood the west with black and brown people, many of them Muslims, who dislike them intensely.
     
    For reasons of threat assessment. A resurgence of "nazism" was considered a far bigger threat to their interests and the only effective way to neutralize it was demographically. You have to remember, going back to the 50s and 60s, no one really knew how successful attempts to make society "anti-racist" would actually be. It's only in hindsight that we can say those efforts were so wildly successful that demographically swamping whites with non-whites appears not to have been necessary at all.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  55. @Stan D Mute
    I’ve been pointing this out for years, that there seems to exist in the Jewish genome a self-destructive gene. How else can one explain a group that inevitably (((every single time))) manages to make itself reviled and then expelled? How else can you explain planting your new nation smack in the center of a billion hostile religious opponents and then proceeding to goad and abuse them more? There’s something as wrong with them as there is with the evangelicals fomenting their armageddon.

    In any case, I don’t know whether I should now support BLM or just quietly enjoy the schadenfreude.

    Replies: @anonymouseperson

    You make some good points.

  56. @Almost Missouri
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Jews are not declining demographically. High Haredi birthrates backstop less fertile seculars. (This is why most seculars haven't been secular for many generations.)

    That said, Jewish influence (and consequent support for Israel) has never depended much on demographics, but rather on capital, media, the academy, theory/ideology and other forms of soft power.

    Replies: @songbird, @silviosilver, @dfordoom

    The support for Israel thing is, I’m sad to say, a bit of a Boomer thing. Boomers still believe the “plucky little Israel” idea, the idea that Israel is a poor defenceless little nation facing an existential threat from its neighbours. It’s an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s (in the Anglosphere at least) and they’ve never seriously questioned that idea.

    It wasn’t true, even in the 60s. It was Israel’s neighbours that were under threat from Israel. But you’ll never convince Boomers to question the Plucky Little Israel idea.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    It’s an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s
     
    It also trickled down somewhat to the older X-ers. In the halcyon post-Cold War pre-9/11 days, I was discussing with a Gen-X Army officer friend whether the US military was ever likely to face a serious nation-state in set-piece battles again. His immediate response was, "Well, if someone invades Israel..."

    "How is that our problem?" I thought. But then I thought that his senior officers (Boomers) probably trained him to think that.

    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult. Maybe they decided that the younger, more dispossessed generations don't matter much, or maybe they're just as lacking in foresight as everyone else nowadays:

    Importing Muslims into US leads to backlash against Jews. Who could have foreseen it?

    https://twitter.com/michaldivon/status/1395145296741650437

    Replies: @neutral, @dfordoom, @A123

    , @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    Part of the explanation is that there's a lingering notion that Israel is a "Western" country on Capitol Hill. This relies off demographics that are nearly a half century out of date. When Israel acts like the ME Jewish nation-state that a majority of its people believe it is rather than the outpost of Europe that seems to linger on in their imaginations, cognitive dissonance results, especially among older Democrats like Biden or Schumer.

    >It was Israel’s neighbours that were under threat from Israel.

    Nasser's comments about driving people into the sea, regardless of his actual intent in policy, elicited what should have been a predictable reaction from a government then mostly staffed with genocide survivors: get them before there's even a chance that they get you. And have nukes.

    No such thing as innocents, not in that part of the world... nothing good comes from there. The less the US has to do with the damned region, the better.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  57. @SafeNow
    I would be interested in refining “partial to” so as to get a quantitative measure. The question might be: “If you had 100 points of support to give, how many points would you give to the Israeli position, and how many to the Palestinian position.”

    I have a feeling that what might emerge is that, below the surface of what appears to be intense disagreement, most people are actually close to the 50-50 level. That is, they very much sympathize with the positions of both sides.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I have a feeling that what might emerge is that, below the surface of what appears to be intense disagreement, most people are actually close to the 50-50 level. That is, they very much sympathize with the positions of both sides.

    An excellent point.

    If you asked me to identify myself as either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian I’d reply that I’m pro-Palestinian. But if you pushed me for further details you’d find that it would be more true to say that I’m about 65% pro-Palestinian and 35% pro-Israel. I have no problems with the existence of the state of Israel. I would love to see Israel a happy prosperous thriving nation. It’s just that I’d prefer it to be a happy prosperous thriving nation living within its pre-1967 frontiers and living in peace with its neighbours, and I’d prefer to see Palestine also being a happy prosperous thriving nation.

    I can see rights and wrongs on both sides. I think Israel is on balance more wrong, but not entirely wrong.

    • Thanks: SafeNow
  58. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.
     
    Now that you point it out, it does indeed make a sort of sense.

    I do not buy into it, myself (for I dislike Israel, resist revolution, and am uninterested in Palestine), but I can see how others would buy in.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    I do not buy into it, myself (for I dislike Israel, resist revolution, and am uninterested in Palestine), but I can see how others would buy in.

    I agree. I’m very very suspicious of revolutions. But overall I’m more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel.

  59. @dfordoom
    @Almost Missouri

    The support for Israel thing is, I'm sad to say, a bit of a Boomer thing. Boomers still believe the "plucky little Israel" idea, the idea that Israel is a poor defenceless little nation facing an existential threat from its neighbours. It's an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s (in the Anglosphere at least) and they've never seriously questioned that idea.

    It wasn't true, even in the 60s. It was Israel's neighbours that were under threat from Israel. But you'll never convince Boomers to question the Plucky Little Israel idea.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @nebulafox

    It’s an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s

    It also trickled down somewhat to the older X-ers. In the halcyon post-Cold War pre-9/11 days, I was discussing with a Gen-X Army officer friend whether the US military was ever likely to face a serious nation-state in set-piece battles again. His immediate response was, “Well, if someone invades Israel…”

    “How is that our problem?” I thought. But then I thought that his senior officers (Boomers) probably trained him to think that.

    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult. Maybe they decided that the younger, more dispossessed generations don’t matter much, or maybe they’re just as lacking in foresight as everyone else nowadays:

    Importing Muslims into US leads to backlash against Jews. Who could have foreseen it?

    • Replies: @neutral
    @Almost Missouri

    Always good to see jews being attacked. I just hope that instead of just these lowly street fights that elite jews such as Soros, Schumer, Zuckerberg, etc, also start getting punched in the face by their pet Muslims.

    , @dfordoom
    @Almost Missouri


    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult.
     
    The problem they have is that it's increasingly difficult to persuade anyone that Israel is actually in any real danger. Even younger secular American Jews seem to be sceptical about Israel's need to be protected. Israel seems to be perfectly capable of defending itself.

    And it's becoming increasingly difficult to sell the idea of Israel as a victim of aggression.

    There's also the problem that the Holocaust is no longer something that happened within living memory. It's now a distant historical event. And people today don't know anything about history. I've met Millennials who don't know which countries were involved in World War 2, don't know what that war was about and don't know when it happened. And they have absolutely no idea that there was a First World War. Even the most horrifying events eventually fade into the mists of time.

    Even when you have a perfectly legitimate victim card to play you eventually reach a point when it can no longer be played effectively.

    It's important to recognise just how non-existent most young people's knowledge of history is. I also know a Millennial who thought television was invented in the 1980s.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @A123
    @Almost Missouri


    Importing Muslims into US leads to backlash against Jews. Who could have foreseen it?
     
    Why do non-Jews like Angela Merkel and Pope Francis advocate for the importation of Muslims?

    Every nation that has imported Muslims suffers from the mistake:

    • Muslims (Rohingyas) create problems for Buddhists in Myanmar
    • Muslims (Uighurs) create problems for the Han in China
    • Muslims create problems for Hindus in India
    • Muslims create problems for Jews in Palestine
    • Muslims create problems for Christians in Germany, France, the U.S., etc.

    Whatever the goal... the concept of Open Borders pushed by Angela Merkel and Pope Francis is an incredibly awful plan. Once a violent Muslim minority is present, all Infidels are targets. Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu lands all need to undergo de-Islamification to protect their native "Infidel" citizens.

    As long as Muslims are an existential threat to Jews and Christians, the Judeo-Christian link between the U.S. and Israel will remain strong.

    PEACE 😇
  60. I don’t like it, last time Israeli PR was this bad they nuked the World Trade Centre

  61. @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Almost none of it has anything to do with “Jewish influence” or a lack of it.
     
    Ireland did not recognize Israel until 1963.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I’m sorry, I don’t understand your point.

    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago. I suppose I didn’t make that clear.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, I can understand your point, that people like the Red Army Faction were natural supporters of Palestine, but, overall, historically, I think it had more to do with systems than revolutionary tendencies. Revolutionaries are, by definition, against the systems they live in.

    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine. Primarily, I would not describe them as revolutionaries - they certainly were not within their own countries. Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel - of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists. In the case of Ireland, I think there was a lot of reluctance to recognize Israel for two reasons: firstly, there was the analogy of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there were religious questions about the city of Jerusalem, which many wanted to be an international city, open to pilgrims.


    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago.
     
    Fair enough. I think, by now, it is safe to say that everything is colored by race.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

  62. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine. It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.
     
    Now that you point it out, it does indeed make a sort of sense.

    I do not buy into it, myself (for I dislike Israel, resist revolution, and am uninterested in Palestine), but I can see how others would buy in.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa

    Your disinterest in Palestine would have you labelled a Zio-Nazi in discussion with most resentment-fueled wannabe revolutionaries.

  63. @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    It’s an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s
     
    It also trickled down somewhat to the older X-ers. In the halcyon post-Cold War pre-9/11 days, I was discussing with a Gen-X Army officer friend whether the US military was ever likely to face a serious nation-state in set-piece battles again. His immediate response was, "Well, if someone invades Israel..."

    "How is that our problem?" I thought. But then I thought that his senior officers (Boomers) probably trained him to think that.

    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult. Maybe they decided that the younger, more dispossessed generations don't matter much, or maybe they're just as lacking in foresight as everyone else nowadays:

    Importing Muslims into US leads to backlash against Jews. Who could have foreseen it?

    https://twitter.com/michaldivon/status/1395145296741650437

    Replies: @neutral, @dfordoom, @A123

    Always good to see jews being attacked. I just hope that instead of just these lowly street fights that elite jews such as Soros, Schumer, Zuckerberg, etc, also start getting punched in the face by their pet Muslims.

  64. @BlackFlag
    @silviosilver

    Yes, half-Jews and quarter-Jews might in some instances identify as Jewish if an advantage is to be gained. But they are not as loyal. You would not expect otherwise given their parents were likely less ethnocentric. Everything is heritable.

    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.

    As for numbers, Orthodox Jews are one of the few healthy sub-groups in the West.

    The question is whether they are still selecting for the traits that allowed them to achieve such influence despite being few. Every other group is dysgenic so the answer might be yes.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.

    It’s been that way since time immemorial. The question is whether this is going to make that core even more cohesive and ethnocentric in the future than it is today. Unfortunately, we lack a “cohesiveness index” that we can consult to observe changes throughout history. If history is any guide, we may note that, in the past, there have been Jews with such a fanatical attachment to their Jewishness that they preferred to die than to “convert.” I suspect we’d be hard-pressed to find many (any?) such Jews today. So it’s quite possible that cohesiveness has a ceiling to it and that Jews may have already reached it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @silviosilver



    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.
     
    It’s been that way since time immemorial. The question is whether this is going to make that core even more cohesive and ethnocentric in the future than it is today.
     
    Keeping the faith and maintaining high levels of ethnocentrism is easy when you're a victim of persecution and you have a clearly defined enemy. The Irish were able to maintain high levels of ethnocentrism when they still had legitimate grievances against the English. They no longer have any such grievances and Irish ethnocentrism seems to have collapsed.

    The problem for American Jews is that they've done so well in America that it's not going to be easy to convince younger Jews (especially if they're secular and they're only part-Jewish) to think of themselves as an oppressed minority. They no longer need to keep their faith and their traditions and their sense of ethnocentrism as defence mechanisms.
  65. @anonymouseperson
    America's demographic transformation, supported by Jews has undermined American support for Israel.


    In other words Jews have been hoisted on their own petard. Serves them right. What goes around, comes around.

    I never could understand why Jews thought it was such a wonderful idea to flood the west with black and brown people, many of them Muslims, who dislike them intensely.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I never could understand why Jews thought it was such a wonderful idea to flood the west with black and brown people, many of them Muslims, who dislike them intensely.

    For reasons of threat assessment. A resurgence of “nazism” was considered a far bigger threat to their interests and the only effective way to neutralize it was demographically. You have to remember, going back to the 50s and 60s, no one really knew how successful attempts to make society “anti-racist” would actually be. It’s only in hindsight that we can say those efforts were so wildly successful that demographically swamping whites with non-whites appears not to have been necessary at all.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    For reasons of threat assessment. A resurgence of “nazism” was considered a far bigger threat to their interests and the only effective way to neutralize it was demographically. You have to remember, going back to the 50s and 60s, no one really knew how successful attempts to make society “anti-racist” would actually be.
     
    Yes.

    It's easy to forget that Nazism was still considered to be a huge threat in the 1960s. Watch some old movies and some old TV shows and you'll see countless stories about conspiracies by ageing Nazis to rebuild the Third Reich. People really truly believed that it might happen. Remember, in the 1960s there were plenty of ex-Nazis still alive. The idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.

    Replies: @iffen

  66. @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    It’s an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s
     
    It also trickled down somewhat to the older X-ers. In the halcyon post-Cold War pre-9/11 days, I was discussing with a Gen-X Army officer friend whether the US military was ever likely to face a serious nation-state in set-piece battles again. His immediate response was, "Well, if someone invades Israel..."

    "How is that our problem?" I thought. But then I thought that his senior officers (Boomers) probably trained him to think that.

    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult. Maybe they decided that the younger, more dispossessed generations don't matter much, or maybe they're just as lacking in foresight as everyone else nowadays:

    Importing Muslims into US leads to backlash against Jews. Who could have foreseen it?

    https://twitter.com/michaldivon/status/1395145296741650437

    Replies: @neutral, @dfordoom, @A123

    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult.

    The problem they have is that it’s increasingly difficult to persuade anyone that Israel is actually in any real danger. Even younger secular American Jews seem to be sceptical about Israel’s need to be protected. Israel seems to be perfectly capable of defending itself.

    And it’s becoming increasingly difficult to sell the idea of Israel as a victim of aggression.

    There’s also the problem that the Holocaust is no longer something that happened within living memory. It’s now a distant historical event. And people today don’t know anything about history. I’ve met Millennials who don’t know which countries were involved in World War 2, don’t know what that war was about and don’t know when it happened. And they have absolutely no idea that there was a First World War. Even the most horrifying events eventually fade into the mists of time.

    Even when you have a perfectly legitimate victim card to play you eventually reach a point when it can no longer be played effectively.

    It’s important to recognise just how non-existent most young people’s knowledge of history is. I also know a Millennial who thought television was invented in the 1980s.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @dfordoom

    You can always find outliers. Your anecdotes prove nothing.

    The "Nazi bad, Jew good" paradigm is perhaps stronger than ever now. If anything, they can lie even more shamelessly now that the generation who remembers the war is ancient and 95% dead.

  67. @silviosilver
    @BlackFlag


    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.
     
    It's been that way since time immemorial. The question is whether this is going to make that core even more cohesive and ethnocentric in the future than it is today. Unfortunately, we lack a "cohesiveness index" that we can consult to observe changes throughout history. If history is any guide, we may note that, in the past, there have been Jews with such a fanatical attachment to their Jewishness that they preferred to die than to "convert." I suspect we'd be hard-pressed to find many (any?) such Jews today. So it's quite possible that cohesiveness has a ceiling to it and that Jews may have already reached it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    On the other hand, those Jews who keep the faith and the traditions in spite of the challenges of modernity are likely higher in ethnocentrism. So the Jewish community continues to become more cohesive.

    It’s been that way since time immemorial. The question is whether this is going to make that core even more cohesive and ethnocentric in the future than it is today.

    Keeping the faith and maintaining high levels of ethnocentrism is easy when you’re a victim of persecution and you have a clearly defined enemy. The Irish were able to maintain high levels of ethnocentrism when they still had legitimate grievances against the English. They no longer have any such grievances and Irish ethnocentrism seems to have collapsed.

    The problem for American Jews is that they’ve done so well in America that it’s not going to be easy to convince younger Jews (especially if they’re secular and they’re only part-Jewish) to think of themselves as an oppressed minority. They no longer need to keep their faith and their traditions and their sense of ethnocentrism as defence mechanisms.

  68. @silviosilver
    @anonymouseperson


    I never could understand why Jews thought it was such a wonderful idea to flood the west with black and brown people, many of them Muslims, who dislike them intensely.
     
    For reasons of threat assessment. A resurgence of "nazism" was considered a far bigger threat to their interests and the only effective way to neutralize it was demographically. You have to remember, going back to the 50s and 60s, no one really knew how successful attempts to make society "anti-racist" would actually be. It's only in hindsight that we can say those efforts were so wildly successful that demographically swamping whites with non-whites appears not to have been necessary at all.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    For reasons of threat assessment. A resurgence of “nazism” was considered a far bigger threat to their interests and the only effective way to neutralize it was demographically. You have to remember, going back to the 50s and 60s, no one really knew how successful attempts to make society “anti-racist” would actually be.

    Yes.

    It’s easy to forget that Nazism was still considered to be a huge threat in the 1960s. Watch some old movies and some old TV shows and you’ll see countless stories about conspiracies by ageing Nazis to rebuild the Third Reich. People really truly believed that it might happen. Remember, in the 1960s there were plenty of ex-Nazis still alive. The idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.

    Since most Western countries have "hate speech" laws, and the US has de facto censorship, why do you say that it seems silly then, but not now?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  69. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Such whites encounter few if any Jews in daily life. Moreover, they usually fail to recognize media Jews as Jewish.
     
    Indeed, concur with this fully. As I've observed before here, there is not a Jewish place of worship in my Southern county. When I met my Southern wife, she wasn't even aware of a single stereotype of Jews -- good, bad or indifferent; true, or false. She wouldn't really even recognize a thick Yiddish accent (if anything she would, as you suggest, think of it as a type of New York accent). It doesn't occur to her to think of Jews outside the context of the Bible, or to wonder if any particular person might be Jewish.

    Many of the whites in question also believe that God will bless those that bless Israel.
     
    Despite being a lifelong Evangelical Christian in the South, however, my wife has never given much thought to modern-day Israel. I've never really encountered the radically pro-Israel current of Christianity in real-life, though evidently it is a real thing and not small. I have to think at least one of the churches in my area must be preaching such a message, though I don't know which one.

    Replies: @Wency

    I was thinking further on the matter of my and my wife’s failure to personally experience Evangelical Zionism.

    I agree with others saying that it seems to be highly generational — you don’t see the Zionist tendency so much among post-Boomer (and maybe early Xer) Christians.

    In addition, I wonder if the Reformed takeover of Evangelical theology is a factor. This is a phenomenon that is seldom discussed in these circles, I suppose this is because there aren’t many other Evangelicals here. I, however, have observed its tangible progress in my lifetime, and Reformed theology still seems to be on the advance among Evangelicals, particularly among the more intellectually or theologically inclined (including, crucially, at Evangelical seminaries).

    As Reformed thinking spreads, it’s taking back mindshare from the Dispensationalists, who are the ones arguing that the Covenant with the Jews remains forever intact in spite of their denial of Christ, that Israel still rightfully and forever belongs to them.

    While various Reformed/Calvinist thinkers of past centuries (though not really Calvin or Luther themselves) sometimes engaged in various Hebraizing or Zionist flights of fancy, the three most popular Reformed theologians of recent times — Sproul, Keller, and Piper — all affirmed Solus Christus and don’t seem to have engaged in any of this. I don’t know that Keller has ever commented directly on Zionism or Dispensationalism, but Sproul and Piper have both been explicit in denying Dispensationalist Zionist arguments. Instead, those Jews who reject Christ are given no special favor relative to anyone else who does so — atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.

    • Thanks: dfordoom
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency

    That's interesting. I admit I know very little about the theological details of Evangelicalism.

    If what you say is true it has huge implications for Zionism. Without Evangelical support they're going to have major problems maintaining unthinking US support for Israel.

    An interesting question - is this a problem that the Zionists are aware of? I imagine they probably have very little interest in the actual theology of Evangelicalism.

    Replies: @Wency

  70. @Wency
    @Wency

    I was thinking further on the matter of my and my wife's failure to personally experience Evangelical Zionism.

    I agree with others saying that it seems to be highly generational -- you don't see the Zionist tendency so much among post-Boomer (and maybe early Xer) Christians.

    In addition, I wonder if the Reformed takeover of Evangelical theology is a factor. This is a phenomenon that is seldom discussed in these circles, I suppose this is because there aren't many other Evangelicals here. I, however, have observed its tangible progress in my lifetime, and Reformed theology still seems to be on the advance among Evangelicals, particularly among the more intellectually or theologically inclined (including, crucially, at Evangelical seminaries).

    As Reformed thinking spreads, it's taking back mindshare from the Dispensationalists, who are the ones arguing that the Covenant with the Jews remains forever intact in spite of their denial of Christ, that Israel still rightfully and forever belongs to them.

    While various Reformed/Calvinist thinkers of past centuries (though not really Calvin or Luther themselves) sometimes engaged in various Hebraizing or Zionist flights of fancy, the three most popular Reformed theologians of recent times -- Sproul, Keller, and Piper -- all affirmed Solus Christus and don't seem to have engaged in any of this. I don't know that Keller has ever commented directly on Zionism or Dispensationalism, but Sproul and Piper have both been explicit in denying Dispensationalist Zionist arguments. Instead, those Jews who reject Christ are given no special favor relative to anyone else who does so -- atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    That’s interesting. I admit I know very little about the theological details of Evangelicalism.

    If what you say is true it has huge implications for Zionism. Without Evangelical support they’re going to have major problems maintaining unthinking US support for Israel.

    An interesting question – is this a problem that the Zionists are aware of? I imagine they probably have very little interest in the actual theology of Evangelicalism.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Well, I don't want to oversell the argument I was making -- it's mainly speculative how much influence theology has on this matter. The resurgence of Reformed theology is real (specifically, among Baptists and quasi-Baptist non-denoms, which are the largest part of the US "Evangelical" church but not the whole of it) and it has been commented on and observed by many people other than me for years. But Zionism and the fate of the modern-day Jew are really very minor concerns of Reformed theology -- it's not so much that Reformed theology is anti-Zionist as that it's incompatible with the strongly pro-Zionist Dispensationalist theology.

    But let's also keep in mind that US conservatism has some very strong pro-Israeli tendencies independent of religious reasons, and that there is a secular component to so-called "Evangelical support".

    If you take my father, a mildly religious United Methodist (not Evangelical) Reaganite, he strongly favored Israel over the Arabs for entirely secular reasons. Building on a comment V.K. made earlier, I would say that my father's opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.

    In his view the Israelis were, well, Jews, which is to say not our people, but they're still essentially civilized and somewhat European and we thus favor them in their struggle against Arab barbarians, just as we might favor French or Japanese or even Mexicans if they were caught up in a struggle for national survival against Arabs.

    Replies: @anon, @silviosilver, @Wency

  71. A123 says:
    @Twinkie
    @A123


    Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.
     
    This is like “equally” blaming violent blacks and violent whites for the crime wave gripping the big cities in the U.S. It is a disingenuous diversion.

    Replies: @A123

    Media Elites who abandoned Christian values are nearly identical to Media Elites who abandoned Jewish values.

    This is like “equally” blaming violent blacks and violent whites for the crime wave gripping the big cities in the U.S. It is a disingenuous diversion.

    I am have difficulty following your analogy.

    Are you suggesting that Elite Media Blacks and Elite Media Whites are nearly identical? And, both are responsible for fanning the flames that create inner city violence?

    The most straightforward option is to stop at “Media Elites” when defining category. Elite Media Whites, Elite Media Christians, Elite Media Jews, and Elite Media Blacks are a fairly homogeneous group worshiping at the Woke Altar of SJW Globalism.

    PEACE 😇

  72. Pro-Israel means different things in America and elsewhere.

    In Europe, it simply means not wanting your countries to sanction, invade or engage in other imperialism against Israel. It doesn’t even mean reducing the substantial financial transfers to the Palestinian’s representatives.

    It basically means treating Israel like any other country in the world.

    Indeed, places like France are happy to have it condemned in their name at the UN for less than France is doing in Mali for the last 8 years and in Libya before that. Some people would call that pro-Israel, but in factual terms, it seems mildly pro-Palestinian.

    In the US this is different. Those in charge make their case that Israel is a US ally and “strong horse” of the region for ensuring US dominance. People here may say that those people are lying, but it still means that being pro-Israel in the US means treating them like a subsidised outpost of the US military.

    Being pro-Palestinian in Europe means seeking imperialist-style intervention again Israel while claiming to be anti-imperialist. This is why pro-Palestinian protestors cannot get what they want. It is incoherent.

    Those who think Jews control the world/the US/etcetera and other self-styled “counter-Semites” will be unable to acknowledge the above. Israel is but one piece of a huge plan of which every piece must be deleted. If you’re one of those people, please understand that I don’t buy into your one explanation to fit them all theory, and so I am just writing as people actually see it.

  73. @Triteleia Laxa
    @songbird

    I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago. I suppose I didn't make that clear.

    Replies: @songbird

    Well, I can understand your point, that people like the Red Army Faction were natural supporters of Palestine, but, overall, historically, I think it had more to do with systems than revolutionary tendencies. Revolutionaries are, by definition, against the systems they live in.

    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine. Primarily, I would not describe them as revolutionaries – they certainly were not within their own countries. Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel – of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists. In the case of Ireland, I think there was a lot of reluctance to recognize Israel for two reasons: firstly, there was the analogy of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there were religious questions about the city of Jerusalem, which many wanted to be an international city, open to pilgrims.

    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago.

    Fair enough. I think, by now, it is safe to say that everything is colored by race.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @songbird


    Fair enough. I think, by now, it is safe to say that everything is colored by race
     
    Race is becoming a proxy for Apollonian versus Cthonian.

    The problem for Palestinians is that they're always trying to run before they can walk; while the Israelis look cold in their steady competence.

    Israel can't excite, while Palestinians can't get anything done.

    Switch in white and black in the US to this analogy and you have equal accuracy.

    Conflicts like these do not resolve easily, but I like balance and so I support Cthonian Israelis and Apollonian Palestinians.

    , @nebulafox
    @songbird

    >Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel – of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists.

    I never thought that was fair. Portugal's alliance with the UK-the oldest in Europe-stood firm when there were seemingly no advantages in doing so. That was a lot more than most Western European countries did. Really, the much ballyhooed "Resistance" aside, most of Europe was content to keep quiet under German occupation or alliance until it was clear that the Third Reich would lose. This isn't to ignore stuff like the famines in occupied Greece, but the way you read literature today, you'd think the Germans were forced out everywhere by brave resisters, dealing with partisan warfare every day. That's just not what happened in most of Europe. The only exceptions were the places where the Nazis viewed the locals as subhumans to be someday ethnically cleansed (Poland and the occupied parts of the USSR) or where simmering communal tensions boiled over a la Iraq in 2003 upon the invasion (Yugoslavia).

    As for Spain, Franco inherited a nation that had just been leveled by a brutal three year civil war, in which his side received non-trivial levels of Italian and German aid. He was in no position to court Hitler's outright enmity, whatever his private feelings were. He made the best of a bad situation by allowing Spanish volunteers to go exclusively to the Eastern Front for the crusade against Bolshevism. That way, he simultaneously could keep Hitler off his back, keep himself in Churchill's good graces enough to secure his future should the Reich collapse, and at home put in a much needed filtering of the fascist hotheads who were chafing under his traditionalism. It was a win-win for everybody except for the aforementioned Bolsheviks, and well, who cares about them?

    Replies: @songbird

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @songbird


    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine.
     
    Early Stalin was no anti-Semite as far as I know, but late Stalin was. After Stalin and his gentile retainers had wrested the Soviet project from Jewish control, Jews seem to have grown less keen.

    Six million Jews had killed millions of Soviets.

    To conjecture that the two phenomena were related seems reasonable. It would tend to explain the Jewish-controlled Anglospheric media's persistent anti-Russian hysteria, at any rate. It would also tend to explain the old Soviet block's lean toward Palestine.

    Replies: @songbird

  74. @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, I can understand your point, that people like the Red Army Faction were natural supporters of Palestine, but, overall, historically, I think it had more to do with systems than revolutionary tendencies. Revolutionaries are, by definition, against the systems they live in.

    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine. Primarily, I would not describe them as revolutionaries - they certainly were not within their own countries. Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel - of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists. In the case of Ireland, I think there was a lot of reluctance to recognize Israel for two reasons: firstly, there was the analogy of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there were religious questions about the city of Jerusalem, which many wanted to be an international city, open to pilgrims.


    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago.
     
    Fair enough. I think, by now, it is safe to say that everything is colored by race.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    Fair enough. I think, by now, it is safe to say that everything is colored by race

    Race is becoming a proxy for Apollonian versus Cthonian.

    The problem for Palestinians is that they’re always trying to run before they can walk; while the Israelis look cold in their steady competence.

    Israel can’t excite, while Palestinians can’t get anything done.

    Switch in white and black in the US to this analogy and you have equal accuracy.

    Conflicts like these do not resolve easily, but I like balance and so I support Cthonian Israelis and Apollonian Palestinians.

  75. @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, I can understand your point, that people like the Red Army Faction were natural supporters of Palestine, but, overall, historically, I think it had more to do with systems than revolutionary tendencies. Revolutionaries are, by definition, against the systems they live in.

    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine. Primarily, I would not describe them as revolutionaries - they certainly were not within their own countries. Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel - of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists. In the case of Ireland, I think there was a lot of reluctance to recognize Israel for two reasons: firstly, there was the analogy of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there were religious questions about the city of Jerusalem, which many wanted to be an international city, open to pilgrims.


    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago.
     
    Fair enough. I think, by now, it is safe to say that everything is colored by race.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    >Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel – of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists.

    I never thought that was fair. Portugal’s alliance with the UK-the oldest in Europe-stood firm when there were seemingly no advantages in doing so. That was a lot more than most Western European countries did. Really, the much ballyhooed “Resistance” aside, most of Europe was content to keep quiet under German occupation or alliance until it was clear that the Third Reich would lose. This isn’t to ignore stuff like the famines in occupied Greece, but the way you read literature today, you’d think the Germans were forced out everywhere by brave resisters, dealing with partisan warfare every day. That’s just not what happened in most of Europe. The only exceptions were the places where the Nazis viewed the locals as subhumans to be someday ethnically cleansed (Poland and the occupied parts of the USSR) or where simmering communal tensions boiled over a la Iraq in 2003 upon the invasion (Yugoslavia).

    As for Spain, Franco inherited a nation that had just been leveled by a brutal three year civil war, in which his side received non-trivial levels of Italian and German aid. He was in no position to court Hitler’s outright enmity, whatever his private feelings were. He made the best of a bad situation by allowing Spanish volunteers to go exclusively to the Eastern Front for the crusade against Bolshevism. That way, he simultaneously could keep Hitler off his back, keep himself in Churchill’s good graces enough to secure his future should the Reich collapse, and at home put in a much needed filtering of the fascist hotheads who were chafing under his traditionalism. It was a win-win for everybody except for the aforementioned Bolsheviks, and well, who cares about them?

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa, Twinkie
    • Replies: @songbird
    @nebulafox

    I think that liberalism just has a low tolerance for any system outside of it, except for communism, for which they have at least some sympathy.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  76. @dfordoom
    @Almost Missouri

    The support for Israel thing is, I'm sad to say, a bit of a Boomer thing. Boomers still believe the "plucky little Israel" idea, the idea that Israel is a poor defenceless little nation facing an existential threat from its neighbours. It's an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s (in the Anglosphere at least) and they've never seriously questioned that idea.

    It wasn't true, even in the 60s. It was Israel's neighbours that were under threat from Israel. But you'll never convince Boomers to question the Plucky Little Israel idea.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @nebulafox

    Part of the explanation is that there’s a lingering notion that Israel is a “Western” country on Capitol Hill. This relies off demographics that are nearly a half century out of date. When Israel acts like the ME Jewish nation-state that a majority of its people believe it is rather than the outpost of Europe that seems to linger on in their imaginations, cognitive dissonance results, especially among older Democrats like Biden or Schumer.

    >It was Israel’s neighbours that were under threat from Israel.

    Nasser’s comments about driving people into the sea, regardless of his actual intent in policy, elicited what should have been a predictable reaction from a government then mostly staffed with genocide survivors: get them before there’s even a chance that they get you. And have nukes.

    No such thing as innocents, not in that part of the world… nothing good comes from there. The less the US has to do with the damned region, the better.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Part of the explanation is that there’s a lingering notion that Israel is a “Western” country on Capitol Hill.
     
    Yes. I think there's a tendency to think that Israel is kind of like New York, full of sophisticated art-loving liberal Jews.

    The less the US has to do with the damned region, the better.
     
    I totally agree with that.

    But Israel is one of the main justifications for US imperialism, and one of the main justifications for the insanely high level of US "defence" spending. So Zionism is very convenient for a lot of rich powerful white American gentiles.

    The US should also not be meddling in eastern Europe and east Asia, but again this meddling is very much in the interests of powerful groups in the US. The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America's business. But this meddling makes defence contractors rich.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

  77. A123 says:
    @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    It’s an idea that captured the imagination of Boomers and Silents back in the 60s
     
    It also trickled down somewhat to the older X-ers. In the halcyon post-Cold War pre-9/11 days, I was discussing with a Gen-X Army officer friend whether the US military was ever likely to face a serious nation-state in set-piece battles again. His immediate response was, "Well, if someone invades Israel..."

    "How is that our problem?" I thought. But then I thought that his senior officers (Boomers) probably trained him to think that.

    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult. Maybe they decided that the younger, more dispossessed generations don't matter much, or maybe they're just as lacking in foresight as everyone else nowadays:

    Importing Muslims into US leads to backlash against Jews. Who could have foreseen it?

    https://twitter.com/michaldivon/status/1395145296741650437

    Replies: @neutral, @dfordoom, @A123

    Importing Muslims into US leads to backlash against Jews. Who could have foreseen it?

    Why do non-Jews like Angela Merkel and Pope Francis advocate for the importation of Muslims?

    Every nation that has imported Muslims suffers from the mistake:

    • Muslims (Rohingyas) create problems for Buddhists in Myanmar
    • Muslims (Uighurs) create problems for the Han in China
    • Muslims create problems for Hindus in India
    • Muslims create problems for Jews in Palestine
    • Muslims create problems for Christians in Germany, France, the U.S., etc.

    Whatever the goal… the concept of Open Borders pushed by Angela Merkel and Pope Francis is an incredibly awful plan. Once a violent Muslim minority is present, all Infidels are targets. Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu lands all need to undergo de-Islamification to protect their native “Infidel” citizens.

    As long as Muslims are an existential threat to Jews and Christians, the Judeo-Christian link between the U.S. and Israel will remain strong.

    PEACE 😇

  78. @songbird
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, I can understand your point, that people like the Red Army Faction were natural supporters of Palestine, but, overall, historically, I think it had more to do with systems than revolutionary tendencies. Revolutionaries are, by definition, against the systems they live in.

    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine. Primarily, I would not describe them as revolutionaries - they certainly were not within their own countries. Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel - of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists. In the case of Ireland, I think there was a lot of reluctance to recognize Israel for two reasons: firstly, there was the analogy of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there were religious questions about the city of Jerusalem, which many wanted to be an international city, open to pilgrims.


    My point was also about now, rather than decades and decades ago.
     
    Fair enough. I think, by now, it is safe to say that everything is colored by race.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine.

    Early Stalin was no anti-Semite as far as I know, but late Stalin was. After Stalin and his gentile retainers had wrested the Soviet project from Jewish control, Jews seem to have grown less keen.

    Six million Jews had killed millions of Soviets.

    To conjecture that the two phenomena were related seems reasonable. It would tend to explain the Jewish-controlled Anglospheric media’s persistent anti-Russian hysteria, at any rate. It would also tend to explain the old Soviet block’s lean toward Palestine.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'm not sure Stalin was ethnocentric enough to be a genuine antisemite. A lot of the killings were done by his orders. I don't think he really loved Russians, as a people, and I don't know if he loved Georgians, his own folks.

    I believe the Soviet relationship with Arabs was one of opportunism rather than antipathy to Jews. It was the best fit for an anti-colonial narrative. Not to mention, Arabs had a strategic location and resources.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  79. @dfordoom
    @Wency

    That's interesting. I admit I know very little about the theological details of Evangelicalism.

    If what you say is true it has huge implications for Zionism. Without Evangelical support they're going to have major problems maintaining unthinking US support for Israel.

    An interesting question - is this a problem that the Zionists are aware of? I imagine they probably have very little interest in the actual theology of Evangelicalism.

    Replies: @Wency

    Well, I don’t want to oversell the argument I was making — it’s mainly speculative how much influence theology has on this matter. The resurgence of Reformed theology is real (specifically, among Baptists and quasi-Baptist non-denoms, which are the largest part of the US “Evangelical” church but not the whole of it) and it has been commented on and observed by many people other than me for years. But Zionism and the fate of the modern-day Jew are really very minor concerns of Reformed theology — it’s not so much that Reformed theology is anti-Zionist as that it’s incompatible with the strongly pro-Zionist Dispensationalist theology.

    But let’s also keep in mind that US conservatism has some very strong pro-Israeli tendencies independent of religious reasons, and that there is a secular component to so-called “Evangelical support”.

    If you take my father, a mildly religious United Methodist (not Evangelical) Reaganite, he strongly favored Israel over the Arabs for entirely secular reasons. Building on a comment V.K. made earlier, I would say that my father’s opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.

    In his view the Israelis were, well, Jews, which is to say not our people, but they’re still essentially civilized and somewhat European and we thus favor them in their struggle against Arab barbarians, just as we might favor French or Japanese or even Mexicans if they were caught up in a struggle for national survival against Arabs.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Wency

    Zionism and the fate of the modern-day Jew are really very minor concerns of Reformed theology — it’s not so much that Reformed theology is anti-Zionist as that it’s incompatible with the strongly pro-Zionist Dispensationalist theology.

    This is an accurate statement. I believe that it's all but impossible to be Dispensationalist without also being pre-Millennial / pre-Tribulation, and that leads to all sorts of errors summed up in The Late, Great, Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey, or the Left Behind fictional series.

    All the specialness that some Dispensationalists I have known were into - was a red heifer seen near the Jordan? Are they rebuilding the Temple? just doesn't apply in Reformed theology, because the Reformed are generally not much involved in looking for signs & portents of the End Times. This takes away a big part of the emotionalism involved in the Middle East. Plus the Reformed are confident that the prophecies have largely been fulfilled, there's not a lot of loose ends lying around on the Temple mount.

    If you take my father, a mildly religious United Methodist (not Evangelical) Reaganite, he strongly favored Israel over the Arabs for entirely secular reasons.

    Some of that is generational. People who grew up with various movies like Exodus on the TV regularly have that "plucky underdog of civilization" mindset. On the other hand, those who grew up with a mandatory visit to the museum of tolerance and Holocaustianity as a yearly feature of school may have a different view of things - the poll results above support this.

    , @silviosilver
    @Wency


    I would say that my father’s opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.
     
    Those are the two biggest factors for conservative types and even just apolitical normies. The media only ever show images of Palestinians throwing rocks or screaming as they do that thing where they parade the coffin hoisted on their shoulders. It's so easy to make them look like scary Islamic savages. And then the white people who support their cause are mostly lefty degenerates, green-haired lesbians and the like. Without knowing a single thing about the conflict, your typical normiecon forms a strong opinion about how who the 'good guys' are on this basis alone.

    Replies: @A123

    , @Wency
    @Wency

    In support of the Calvinist point, I found this interesting letter, which was signed by R.C. Sproul and what looks like an almost or entirely conservative Reformed group of many other theologians and pastors. The letter is from 2002, but I'd contend that Sproul's reputation among Evangelicals (especially intellectually-inclined Evangelicals) only increased in the years between then and his death in 2017.

    http://www.newhopefairfax.org/images/Open-Letter-To-Evangelicals-2002.pdf

    From the letter:


    At the heart of the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God's alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel. Second, others are teaching that the Bible's promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or "Holy Land," perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible's teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.
     
  80. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    >Spain and Portugal were not revolutionary regimes, but they did not extend recognition to Israel – of course, this was likely related to Jewish dislike of the regimes, perceiving them as fascists.

    I never thought that was fair. Portugal's alliance with the UK-the oldest in Europe-stood firm when there were seemingly no advantages in doing so. That was a lot more than most Western European countries did. Really, the much ballyhooed "Resistance" aside, most of Europe was content to keep quiet under German occupation or alliance until it was clear that the Third Reich would lose. This isn't to ignore stuff like the famines in occupied Greece, but the way you read literature today, you'd think the Germans were forced out everywhere by brave resisters, dealing with partisan warfare every day. That's just not what happened in most of Europe. The only exceptions were the places where the Nazis viewed the locals as subhumans to be someday ethnically cleansed (Poland and the occupied parts of the USSR) or where simmering communal tensions boiled over a la Iraq in 2003 upon the invasion (Yugoslavia).

    As for Spain, Franco inherited a nation that had just been leveled by a brutal three year civil war, in which his side received non-trivial levels of Italian and German aid. He was in no position to court Hitler's outright enmity, whatever his private feelings were. He made the best of a bad situation by allowing Spanish volunteers to go exclusively to the Eastern Front for the crusade against Bolshevism. That way, he simultaneously could keep Hitler off his back, keep himself in Churchill's good graces enough to secure his future should the Reich collapse, and at home put in a much needed filtering of the fascist hotheads who were chafing under his traditionalism. It was a win-win for everybody except for the aforementioned Bolsheviks, and well, who cares about them?

    Replies: @songbird

    I think that liberalism just has a low tolerance for any system outside of it, except for communism, for which they have at least some sympathy.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I think that liberalism just has a low tolerance for any system outside of it, except for communism, for which they have at least some sympathy.
     
    Liberalism and communism are polar opposites and entirely incompatible. The Cold War was driven by liberal hatred of communism. The Cold War was a war to the death between liberalism and communism.

    Replies: @anon

  81. @V. K. Ovelund
    @songbird


    The Soviet Bloc eventually leaned more towards Palestine.
     
    Early Stalin was no anti-Semite as far as I know, but late Stalin was. After Stalin and his gentile retainers had wrested the Soviet project from Jewish control, Jews seem to have grown less keen.

    Six million Jews had killed millions of Soviets.

    To conjecture that the two phenomena were related seems reasonable. It would tend to explain the Jewish-controlled Anglospheric media's persistent anti-Russian hysteria, at any rate. It would also tend to explain the old Soviet block's lean toward Palestine.

    Replies: @songbird

    I’m not sure Stalin was ethnocentric enough to be a genuine antisemite. A lot of the killings were done by his orders. I don’t think he really loved Russians, as a people, and I don’t know if he loved Georgians, his own folks.

    I believe the Soviet relationship with Arabs was one of opportunism rather than antipathy to Jews. It was the best fit for an anti-colonial narrative. Not to mention, Arabs had a strategic location and resources.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @songbird

    I'm not sure Stalin really "trusted" anyone, per se. But there were ethnic groups he relatively trusted more than others (Russians and Caucasians), and ones he distrusted moreso than his usual level of paranoia. Jews were definitely in the latter category, for a host of reasons.

    (Possibly at the bottom of Stalin's list were the Poles-"Clean out this Polish filth!"-who Stalin had a very real grudge against from the debacle of the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921. Despite being less than a percent of the population, Poles would be 12.5% of the people killed during the Great Purge.)

    It wasn't uncommon for minorities to become more ardent Great Russian nationalists than the Russians themselves. In Stalin's specific case, there was a class dimension to this: to a man like Stalin growing up in the backwaters of Georgia, Russia meant civilization and progress, not the vulgar, backward "log cabin" that it was for Lenin and Trotsky. But it happened elsehwhere. On the other end of the social scale, you had Nikolai Hartwig in the explosion of WWI become a rabid Slavophile despite his ethnic German origins.

    Aspiring to join the more advanced, dominant culture isn't terribly uncommon for upwardly mobile minorities in multi-ethnic states, from the Martians (Hungarian Jews who aspired to German culture) in fin-de-siecle Budapest to Park Chung Hee in Japanese occupied Korea to upwardly mobile Uighur college students in major Chinese cities today.

    Replies: @songbird

  82. anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Well, I don't want to oversell the argument I was making -- it's mainly speculative how much influence theology has on this matter. The resurgence of Reformed theology is real (specifically, among Baptists and quasi-Baptist non-denoms, which are the largest part of the US "Evangelical" church but not the whole of it) and it has been commented on and observed by many people other than me for years. But Zionism and the fate of the modern-day Jew are really very minor concerns of Reformed theology -- it's not so much that Reformed theology is anti-Zionist as that it's incompatible with the strongly pro-Zionist Dispensationalist theology.

    But let's also keep in mind that US conservatism has some very strong pro-Israeli tendencies independent of religious reasons, and that there is a secular component to so-called "Evangelical support".

    If you take my father, a mildly religious United Methodist (not Evangelical) Reaganite, he strongly favored Israel over the Arabs for entirely secular reasons. Building on a comment V.K. made earlier, I would say that my father's opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.

    In his view the Israelis were, well, Jews, which is to say not our people, but they're still essentially civilized and somewhat European and we thus favor them in their struggle against Arab barbarians, just as we might favor French or Japanese or even Mexicans if they were caught up in a struggle for national survival against Arabs.

    Replies: @anon, @silviosilver, @Wency

    Zionism and the fate of the modern-day Jew are really very minor concerns of Reformed theology — it’s not so much that Reformed theology is anti-Zionist as that it’s incompatible with the strongly pro-Zionist Dispensationalist theology.

    This is an accurate statement. I believe that it’s all but impossible to be Dispensationalist without also being pre-Millennial / pre-Tribulation, and that leads to all sorts of errors summed up in The Late, Great, Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey, or the Left Behind fictional series.

    All the specialness that some Dispensationalists I have known were into – was a red heifer seen near the Jordan? Are they rebuilding the Temple? just doesn’t apply in Reformed theology, because the Reformed are generally not much involved in looking for signs & portents of the End Times. This takes away a big part of the emotionalism involved in the Middle East. Plus the Reformed are confident that the prophecies have largely been fulfilled, there’s not a lot of loose ends lying around on the Temple mount.

    If you take my father, a mildly religious United Methodist (not Evangelical) Reaganite, he strongly favored Israel over the Arabs for entirely secular reasons.

    Some of that is generational. People who grew up with various movies like Exodus on the TV regularly have that “plucky underdog of civilization” mindset. On the other hand, those who grew up with a mandatory visit to the museum of tolerance and Holocaustianity as a yearly feature of school may have a different view of things – the poll results above support this.

    • Agree: Wency
  83. @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Well, I don't want to oversell the argument I was making -- it's mainly speculative how much influence theology has on this matter. The resurgence of Reformed theology is real (specifically, among Baptists and quasi-Baptist non-denoms, which are the largest part of the US "Evangelical" church but not the whole of it) and it has been commented on and observed by many people other than me for years. But Zionism and the fate of the modern-day Jew are really very minor concerns of Reformed theology -- it's not so much that Reformed theology is anti-Zionist as that it's incompatible with the strongly pro-Zionist Dispensationalist theology.

    But let's also keep in mind that US conservatism has some very strong pro-Israeli tendencies independent of religious reasons, and that there is a secular component to so-called "Evangelical support".

    If you take my father, a mildly religious United Methodist (not Evangelical) Reaganite, he strongly favored Israel over the Arabs for entirely secular reasons. Building on a comment V.K. made earlier, I would say that my father's opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.

    In his view the Israelis were, well, Jews, which is to say not our people, but they're still essentially civilized and somewhat European and we thus favor them in their struggle against Arab barbarians, just as we might favor French or Japanese or even Mexicans if they were caught up in a struggle for national survival against Arabs.

    Replies: @anon, @silviosilver, @Wency

    I would say that my father’s opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.

    Those are the two biggest factors for conservative types and even just apolitical normies. The media only ever show images of Palestinians throwing rocks or screaming as they do that thing where they parade the coffin hoisted on their shoulders. It’s so easy to make them look like scary Islamic savages. And then the white people who support their cause are mostly lefty degenerates, green-haired lesbians and the like. Without knowing a single thing about the conflict, your typical normiecon forms a strong opinion about how who the ‘good guys’ are on this basis alone.

    • Agree: Wency
    • Replies: @A123
    @silviosilver


    The media only ever show images of Palestinians throwing rocks or screaming as they do that thing where they parade the coffin hoisted on their shoulders. It’s so easy to make them look like scary Islamic savages.
     
    Actually, it is just the reverse. The Fake Stream Media does everything possible to avoid accurate coverage about violence by Muslims.

    Below is map showing locations in France that are unsafe for Christians to enter. This is the future of the U.S. if our Judeo-Christian nation continues to foolishly accept migrants incapable of assimilation.

    PEACE 😇
     

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zk11f2HI3Kg/WJoTvgwKMfI/AAAAAAAAgao/dQZ4YaiyVQ4QRp7VVtzdoOnDbEIXtW_jQCEw/s640/France%2Bno-go%2Bzones.jpg
  84. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    For reasons of threat assessment. A resurgence of “nazism” was considered a far bigger threat to their interests and the only effective way to neutralize it was demographically. You have to remember, going back to the 50s and 60s, no one really knew how successful attempts to make society “anti-racist” would actually be.
     
    Yes.

    It's easy to forget that Nazism was still considered to be a huge threat in the 1960s. Watch some old movies and some old TV shows and you'll see countless stories about conspiracies by ageing Nazis to rebuild the Third Reich. People really truly believed that it might happen. Remember, in the 1960s there were plenty of ex-Nazis still alive. The idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.

    Replies: @iffen

    idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.

    Since most Western countries have “hate speech” laws, and the US has de facto censorship, why do you say that it seems silly then, but not now?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.
     
    Since most Western countries have “hate speech” laws, and the US has de facto censorship, why do you say that it seems silly then, but not now?
     
    Because in the 1960s there really were plenty of ex-Nazis. Real ones. Actual Nazis. Some had been "denazified" but it was still plausible to believe that some of them might have secret hankerings for the return of the Third Reich.

    It was silly because WW2 had thoroughly and for all time discredited Nazism, but in the 60s people weren't entirely convinced of that. Nobody was entirely sure if it was true.

    And people thought that fascism still existed because they thought Franco was a fascist. He wasn't, but people thought he was. So the existence of supposedly fascist Spain made people think that fascism was still a real threat.

    The US has always had de facto censorship. The Hollywood Production Code was censorship. The difference between the US and other countries is that censorship in the US is left in the hands of the corporate sector, but the media has always practised censorship. When TV networks or the Hollywood studios or social media oligarchs decide what you can see and what opinions can be publicly expressed, that's censorship. And it's always been that way.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  85. @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Well, I don't want to oversell the argument I was making -- it's mainly speculative how much influence theology has on this matter. The resurgence of Reformed theology is real (specifically, among Baptists and quasi-Baptist non-denoms, which are the largest part of the US "Evangelical" church but not the whole of it) and it has been commented on and observed by many people other than me for years. But Zionism and the fate of the modern-day Jew are really very minor concerns of Reformed theology -- it's not so much that Reformed theology is anti-Zionist as that it's incompatible with the strongly pro-Zionist Dispensationalist theology.

    But let's also keep in mind that US conservatism has some very strong pro-Israeli tendencies independent of religious reasons, and that there is a secular component to so-called "Evangelical support".

    If you take my father, a mildly religious United Methodist (not Evangelical) Reaganite, he strongly favored Israel over the Arabs for entirely secular reasons. Building on a comment V.K. made earlier, I would say that my father's opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.

    In his view the Israelis were, well, Jews, which is to say not our people, but they're still essentially civilized and somewhat European and we thus favor them in their struggle against Arab barbarians, just as we might favor French or Japanese or even Mexicans if they were caught up in a struggle for national survival against Arabs.

    Replies: @anon, @silviosilver, @Wency

    In support of the Calvinist point, I found this interesting letter, which was signed by R.C. Sproul and what looks like an almost or entirely conservative Reformed group of many other theologians and pastors. The letter is from 2002, but I’d contend that Sproul’s reputation among Evangelicals (especially intellectually-inclined Evangelicals) only increased in the years between then and his death in 2017.

    http://www.newhopefairfax.org/images/Open-Letter-To-Evangelicals-2002.pdf

    From the letter:

    At the heart of the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God’s alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel. Second, others are teaching that the Bible’s promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or “Holy Land,” perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible’s teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.

  86. A123 says:
    @silviosilver
    @Wency


    I would say that my father’s opinion of the Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically was that they were barbarian-criminal-terrorist-fanatics with Soviet (later: Al Qaeda) sympathies, and the people making excuses for them were the equivalent of people making excuses for criminals as law and order broke down in the US in the 1960s.
     
    Those are the two biggest factors for conservative types and even just apolitical normies. The media only ever show images of Palestinians throwing rocks or screaming as they do that thing where they parade the coffin hoisted on their shoulders. It's so easy to make them look like scary Islamic savages. And then the white people who support their cause are mostly lefty degenerates, green-haired lesbians and the like. Without knowing a single thing about the conflict, your typical normiecon forms a strong opinion about how who the 'good guys' are on this basis alone.

    Replies: @A123

    The media only ever show images of Palestinians throwing rocks or screaming as they do that thing where they parade the coffin hoisted on their shoulders. It’s so easy to make them look like scary Islamic savages.

    Actually, it is just the reverse. The Fake Stream Media does everything possible to avoid accurate coverage about violence by Muslims.

    Below is map showing locations in France that are unsafe for Christians to enter. This is the future of the U.S. if our Judeo-Christian nation continues to foolishly accept migrants incapable of assimilation.

    PEACE 😇
     

  87. @songbird
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'm not sure Stalin was ethnocentric enough to be a genuine antisemite. A lot of the killings were done by his orders. I don't think he really loved Russians, as a people, and I don't know if he loved Georgians, his own folks.

    I believe the Soviet relationship with Arabs was one of opportunism rather than antipathy to Jews. It was the best fit for an anti-colonial narrative. Not to mention, Arabs had a strategic location and resources.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I’m not sure Stalin really “trusted” anyone, per se. But there were ethnic groups he relatively trusted more than others (Russians and Caucasians), and ones he distrusted moreso than his usual level of paranoia. Jews were definitely in the latter category, for a host of reasons.

    (Possibly at the bottom of Stalin’s list were the Poles-“Clean out this Polish filth!”-who Stalin had a very real grudge against from the debacle of the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921. Despite being less than a percent of the population, Poles would be 12.5% of the people killed during the Great Purge.)

    It wasn’t uncommon for minorities to become more ardent Great Russian nationalists than the Russians themselves. In Stalin’s specific case, there was a class dimension to this: to a man like Stalin growing up in the backwaters of Georgia, Russia meant civilization and progress, not the vulgar, backward “log cabin” that it was for Lenin and Trotsky. But it happened elsehwhere. On the other end of the social scale, you had Nikolai Hartwig in the explosion of WWI become a rabid Slavophile despite his ethnic German origins.

    Aspiring to join the more advanced, dominant culture isn’t terribly uncommon for upwardly mobile minorities in multi-ethnic states, from the Martians (Hungarian Jews who aspired to German culture) in fin-de-siecle Budapest to Park Chung Hee in Japanese occupied Korea to upwardly mobile Uighur college students in major Chinese cities today.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @nebulafox


    (Possibly at the bottom of Stalin’s list were the Poles-“Clean out this Polish filth!”-who Stalin had a very real grudge against from the debacle of the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921. Despite being less than a percent of the population, Poles would be 12.5% of the people killed during the Great Purge.)
     
    That's an interesting point. I wonder if it is possible that Stalin held a personal grudge against Poles based on the way that his war record as a commissar was questioned, during the Polish-Soviet War.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  88. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    I'm not sure Stalin really "trusted" anyone, per se. But there were ethnic groups he relatively trusted more than others (Russians and Caucasians), and ones he distrusted moreso than his usual level of paranoia. Jews were definitely in the latter category, for a host of reasons.

    (Possibly at the bottom of Stalin's list were the Poles-"Clean out this Polish filth!"-who Stalin had a very real grudge against from the debacle of the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921. Despite being less than a percent of the population, Poles would be 12.5% of the people killed during the Great Purge.)

    It wasn't uncommon for minorities to become more ardent Great Russian nationalists than the Russians themselves. In Stalin's specific case, there was a class dimension to this: to a man like Stalin growing up in the backwaters of Georgia, Russia meant civilization and progress, not the vulgar, backward "log cabin" that it was for Lenin and Trotsky. But it happened elsehwhere. On the other end of the social scale, you had Nikolai Hartwig in the explosion of WWI become a rabid Slavophile despite his ethnic German origins.

    Aspiring to join the more advanced, dominant culture isn't terribly uncommon for upwardly mobile minorities in multi-ethnic states, from the Martians (Hungarian Jews who aspired to German culture) in fin-de-siecle Budapest to Park Chung Hee in Japanese occupied Korea to upwardly mobile Uighur college students in major Chinese cities today.

    Replies: @songbird

    (Possibly at the bottom of Stalin’s list were the Poles-“Clean out this Polish filth!”-who Stalin had a very real grudge against from the debacle of the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921. Despite being less than a percent of the population, Poles would be 12.5% of the people killed during the Great Purge.)

    That’s an interesting point. I wonder if it is possible that Stalin held a personal grudge against Poles based on the way that his war record as a commissar was questioned, during the Polish-Soviet War.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @songbird

    I think that's probable. Keep in mind, this was when Tukhachevsky was being purged, and their mutual animosity went back to the same time period. Both men blamed each other for the defeat outside Warsaw.

    However, Stalin rarely did anything for personal or emotional reasons alone. The Great Purges targeted foreign Communists heavily in general, and there were more Poles (and perhaps Germans, who had the largest non-ruling Communist party in the world before Hitler started purging them) than anyone else in Moscow in part due just to geography. The Soviet regime was born with a heavy encirclement complex due to a mixture of ideology and the experiences of Russia in the 1920s, and Stalin seems to have genuinely believed that foreign spies had infiltrated the nation-particularly the Red Army, the one thing that could have overthrown him-and were out to get him.

    Like with German nationalism, anti-Polish sentiment goes back a long way in Russian nationalism. You have to remember that the equivalent to the Time of Troubles in the West would be the Irish invading England and capturing London. This led to an interesting dynamic for ethnic Poles who got caught up in the Russian Revolution, whether via the Tsarist army (Rokossovsky-a very interesting guy who probably wiped out more Nazis than anybody else) or in the pre-war period through the revolutionary underground (Felix Dzerzhinsky). They thought that Communism would give them a place to belong... and the reality turned out to be more prosaic.

  89. It’s important to distinguish between party leadership and its voters.

    Republican leadership despise their voters (cf. Liz Cheney) and find it necessary to lie to them in order to get elected. When it comes to Israel, Republican leadership passionately support Israel for campaign finance purposes (big money Jewish contributors) and in order to pursue their neocon (invade the world) objectives.

    Republican voters while they may support the country and Jews in general (John 4:22) as a concept, their support is tepid and they do not want to send their sons or their money to support the country.

    On the Democrat side, the situation is slightly different. Just like Republican leadership, Democrat leadership passionately support Israel. Anybody who thinks the Broad Squad represents Democrat leadership is deluded. AOC, Tlaib, Pressley and Omar represent a leftist rump (sic). Democrat leadership is fully integrated with Republican leadership on this issue.

    Democrat voters passionately hate Israel because they are anti-Semites and this creates tension on the left, which is a good thing.

    Republican Party leadership should use this as a tactical weapon against the left. That is, if they weren’t deeply stupid and timid people.

  90. @dfordoom
    @Almost Missouri


    Anyway, yes, there is a definite generational aspect to Israel boosterism. And that generation will be dying off soon. It is surprising to me that the usually pervasive and foresightful Zionists have been somewhat MIA in indoctrinating the younger generations into their cult.
     
    The problem they have is that it's increasingly difficult to persuade anyone that Israel is actually in any real danger. Even younger secular American Jews seem to be sceptical about Israel's need to be protected. Israel seems to be perfectly capable of defending itself.

    And it's becoming increasingly difficult to sell the idea of Israel as a victim of aggression.

    There's also the problem that the Holocaust is no longer something that happened within living memory. It's now a distant historical event. And people today don't know anything about history. I've met Millennials who don't know which countries were involved in World War 2, don't know what that war was about and don't know when it happened. And they have absolutely no idea that there was a First World War. Even the most horrifying events eventually fade into the mists of time.

    Even when you have a perfectly legitimate victim card to play you eventually reach a point when it can no longer be played effectively.

    It's important to recognise just how non-existent most young people's knowledge of history is. I also know a Millennial who thought television was invented in the 1980s.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    You can always find outliers. Your anecdotes prove nothing.

    The “Nazi bad, Jew good” paradigm is perhaps stronger than ever now. If anything, they can lie even more shamelessly now that the generation who remembers the war is ancient and 95% dead.

  91. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    Part of the explanation is that there's a lingering notion that Israel is a "Western" country on Capitol Hill. This relies off demographics that are nearly a half century out of date. When Israel acts like the ME Jewish nation-state that a majority of its people believe it is rather than the outpost of Europe that seems to linger on in their imaginations, cognitive dissonance results, especially among older Democrats like Biden or Schumer.

    >It was Israel’s neighbours that were under threat from Israel.

    Nasser's comments about driving people into the sea, regardless of his actual intent in policy, elicited what should have been a predictable reaction from a government then mostly staffed with genocide survivors: get them before there's even a chance that they get you. And have nukes.

    No such thing as innocents, not in that part of the world... nothing good comes from there. The less the US has to do with the damned region, the better.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Part of the explanation is that there’s a lingering notion that Israel is a “Western” country on Capitol Hill.

    Yes. I think there’s a tendency to think that Israel is kind of like New York, full of sophisticated art-loving liberal Jews.

    The less the US has to do with the damned region, the better.

    I totally agree with that.

    But Israel is one of the main justifications for US imperialism, and one of the main justifications for the insanely high level of US “defence” spending. So Zionism is very convenient for a lot of rich powerful white American gentiles.

    The US should also not be meddling in eastern Europe and east Asia, but again this meddling is very much in the interests of powerful groups in the US. The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business. But this meddling makes defence contractors rich.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >But Israel is one of the main justifications for US imperialism, and one of the main justifications for the insanely high level of US “defence” spending. So Zionism is very convenient for a lot of rich powerful white American gentiles.

    I agree. The only caveat I have is that Israel is its own nation that will ultimately act in its own national interests, not to US imperatives. In some ways, moreso than it was 20 years ago. Israel's foreign policy strategy of hedging its bets with the non-Western world has paid off dramatically, especially since India and Russia have governments ideologically sympathetic to Likud.

    The Chinese are going to try and play both sides for their broader image in the Muslim World: most Islamic governments don't care enough about the Uyghur issue for China's own domestic policies (say what you will about the Israelis, they don't have concentration camps) toward Muslim minorities to be a problem. Not that it matters as much as it used to, as the flight from Israel to Dubai shows. Israel is as secure as it will likely ever be.

    >The US should also not be meddling in eastern Europe and east Asia, but again this meddling is very much in the interests of powerful groups in the US. The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business.

    I agree when it comes to Europe, though I find it heavily ironic that the Democrats just caved in on Nord Stream 2, especially given their own domestic position on the Keystone. That's the sort of thing they'd have impeached Trump for. Bearing that in mind, Putin's Russia is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons, bound to be the junior partner in any potential axis with China, and Putin's appeal to the hard right in Europe is fueled by the actions of European politicians and the cultural left in those nations.

    Even in Asia, I would limit things to preserving the naval agreement with Singapore and maybe keeping a skeleton crew in Japan. The ROKA can more than take care of itself against any sorry force the DPRK can field, and (like Japan) can develop nuclear weapons within less than a year if needed. If the Koreans want to focus more on pre-1945 grievances with Japan than the modern problem of an aggressive Beijing, that's their choice to make.

    >But this meddling makes defence contractors rich.

    Nobody in Beijing, Moscow, Jerusalem or Tehran forces US politics to be the way it is. The rot is caused by Americans, and will only stop when Americans demand it stops. That's why I'm such a fanatic about not blaming foriengers for America's problems.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business.
     
    Unfortunately for the United States, TSMC is in the South China Sea's region.

    Three points:

    1. Eisenhower's lost recommendation. Had the U.S. restored import tariffs in 1961 to pre-World War II levels, as the departing President Eisenhower recommended, then the semiconductors of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), upon which the U.S. now relies, would still be manufactured in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, Idaho and California. As matters stand, however, with U.S. semiconductor manufacturing having decayed almost everywhere outside Oregon, the U.S. has a problem.[*]

    2. Reliance on east Asian manufacturing. TSMC has become a serious strategic vulnerability for the United States. Two hundred kilometers off the Red Chinese coast is a bad place for a great industrial power like the United States to source her semiconductors, including for military and naval applications. Traffic from Malaysia (yet more semiconductors, low-end) and Singapore (yet more semiconductors, high-end) passes through the South China Sea. Traffic from South Korea (computer memory and flat-panel displays) and Japan (silicon ingots and relevant industrial equipment) does not pass through the South China Sea but nonetheless terminates in the broader region.

    3. Federal policy. Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (probably my favorite senior officer of the Biden administration on the whole) is running in an orthogonal direction, trying to build international consensus toward a global minimum corporate tax—which might not do much harm per se, but indicates a dissonantly internationalized pattern of policy thought, unfit for purpose. Meanwhile, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative frets ineffectually over violations of U.S. intellectual property when what it should be doing is the complement; namely, converting itself into the Office of Aggressive U.S. Industrial Espionage.

    (3a. Federal policy and corporate taxation. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury would finally drop its decades-long fixation with Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson trade theory and just return to promoting import tariffs, the U.S. would no longer require a treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate. Import tariffs collect the desired corporate tax at the border, depositing the tax directly into the U.S. Treasury. No treaty is required. I grasp the Ricardian counterpoint regarding comparative advantage in significant quantitative detail. The Ricardian is an elegant theoretical finesse that wrings a tiny bit of extra utility, on paper, out of international trade, but is strategically impractical in the rough circumstances of the real world. A treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate is in my estimation a clumsy hack to avoid addressing the true problem: lack of tariffs.)

    The U.S. really, really needs to stop wasting time and attention on stupid vaccine/facemask politics and to start instead attending to the strategic repatriation of industry, for the U.S. position in the South China Sea is untenable.

    [*] You and I have discussed the curious difference between Australia and the U.S. in this matter. Perhaps Australia's 20th-century combination of sparse population, abundant minerals, and relative proximity to Asian markets have made Ricardian economics more practical in Australia than in the U.S. Perhaps Australia's status as the great, antipodal outpost of the English language has facilitated a certain style of arbitrage in commerce. Perhaps there is another reason. Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

  92. @songbird
    @nebulafox

    I think that liberalism just has a low tolerance for any system outside of it, except for communism, for which they have at least some sympathy.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I think that liberalism just has a low tolerance for any system outside of it, except for communism, for which they have at least some sympathy.

    Liberalism and communism are polar opposites and entirely incompatible. The Cold War was driven by liberal hatred of communism. The Cold War was a war to the death between liberalism and communism.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    Liberalism and communism are polar opposites and entirely incompatible

    "No True Liberalism"?

    lol.

  93. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.

    Since most Western countries have "hate speech" laws, and the US has de facto censorship, why do you say that it seems silly then, but not now?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.

    Since most Western countries have “hate speech” laws, and the US has de facto censorship, why do you say that it seems silly then, but not now?

    Because in the 1960s there really were plenty of ex-Nazis. Real ones. Actual Nazis. Some had been “denazified” but it was still plausible to believe that some of them might have secret hankerings for the return of the Third Reich.

    It was silly because WW2 had thoroughly and for all time discredited Nazism, but in the 60s people weren’t entirely convinced of that. Nobody was entirely sure if it was true.

    And people thought that fascism still existed because they thought Franco was a fascist. He wasn’t, but people thought he was. So the existence of supposedly fascist Spain made people think that fascism was still a real threat.

    The US has always had de facto censorship. The Hollywood Production Code was censorship. The difference between the US and other countries is that censorship in the US is left in the hands of the corporate sector, but the media has always practised censorship. When TV networks or the Hollywood studios or social media oligarchs decide what you can see and what opinions can be publicly expressed, that’s censorship. And it’s always been that way.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >It was silly because WW2 had thoroughly and for all time discredited Nazism, but in the 60s people weren’t entirely convinced of that. Nobody was entirely sure if it was true.

    Hindsight is 20/20.

    One thing that really changed in the 1960s in West Germany was the emasculation of the "deep state" that dated back to the Weimar era. Prior to that, the same guys who were there in the 1920s or their heirs still had a lot of influence. This was less out of a desire to revive Nazism than practical necessity: in the immediate post-WWII era with a whole generation of men dead or in prison camps, the only guys around to pick up the pieces and administer were civil servants who began their careers before 1933, with most of them continuing to serve the Reich afterwards. Still, generally speaking, most of them were conservative nationalists with little sympathy for democracy.

    (The 1970s/1980s USSR would run into a similar problem in a worse way: the gerontocracy that helped drive that country into a ground was partly a result of the demographic decimation caused by Operation Barbarossa. Really, the collapse of Communism was also partly fueled by that: they just did not have enough men of the right age to administer the country. Looking back at it, it really is a testament to Russian tenacity that the USSR kept going as long as it did.)


    >He wasn’t, but people thought he was.

    Franco was a firebreathing anti-Communist who was willing to shield fascists from prosecution. This didn't help his image, though most of them ended up using Spain as a launch pad to go to South America or the Middle East rather than settling in Spain proper. Interestingly enough, many of the fascists who did settle in Spain itself were not Germans or Austrians, which might explain why the European community was initially so hostile to Franco. One example: Ante Pavelić got assassinated in Spain, from wounds sustained in an assassination attempt, not from the Communist Tito regime but by a Serb ultra-nationalist who'd settled in Argentina. (God, Yugoslav politics, I love ya!)

    But as I've said in previous comments, the reality was pretty mundane and had little to do with ideology: Franco inherited a nation that was in ruins after civil war. He was not in a position to offer anything decisive to either side in WWII. Franco was under no illusions about his nation's relative strength compared to either the UK or Germany and did his best to try to avoid offending either. He was more than happy to lend soldiers for Hitler, not least because that would help stabilize Spanish politics by sending the incorrigible fascists (without the common Communist foe, their differences were coming to a head) off to die in Russia, but that was on the strict condition that they would only fight the Soviets, not the Anglo-Americans.

    It was a close call, but the onset of the Cold War ensured he'd survive. I suspect Franco, like Hitler eventually would, foresaw that and gambled that he'd hang on long enough to see it.

  94. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Part of the explanation is that there’s a lingering notion that Israel is a “Western” country on Capitol Hill.
     
    Yes. I think there's a tendency to think that Israel is kind of like New York, full of sophisticated art-loving liberal Jews.

    The less the US has to do with the damned region, the better.
     
    I totally agree with that.

    But Israel is one of the main justifications for US imperialism, and one of the main justifications for the insanely high level of US "defence" spending. So Zionism is very convenient for a lot of rich powerful white American gentiles.

    The US should also not be meddling in eastern Europe and east Asia, but again this meddling is very much in the interests of powerful groups in the US. The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America's business. But this meddling makes defence contractors rich.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    >But Israel is one of the main justifications for US imperialism, and one of the main justifications for the insanely high level of US “defence” spending. So Zionism is very convenient for a lot of rich powerful white American gentiles.

    I agree. The only caveat I have is that Israel is its own nation that will ultimately act in its own national interests, not to US imperatives. In some ways, moreso than it was 20 years ago. Israel’s foreign policy strategy of hedging its bets with the non-Western world has paid off dramatically, especially since India and Russia have governments ideologically sympathetic to Likud.

    The Chinese are going to try and play both sides for their broader image in the Muslim World: most Islamic governments don’t care enough about the Uyghur issue for China’s own domestic policies (say what you will about the Israelis, they don’t have concentration camps) toward Muslim minorities to be a problem. Not that it matters as much as it used to, as the flight from Israel to Dubai shows. Israel is as secure as it will likely ever be.

    >The US should also not be meddling in eastern Europe and east Asia, but again this meddling is very much in the interests of powerful groups in the US. The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business.

    I agree when it comes to Europe, though I find it heavily ironic that the Democrats just caved in on Nord Stream 2, especially given their own domestic position on the Keystone. That’s the sort of thing they’d have impeached Trump for. Bearing that in mind, Putin’s Russia is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons, bound to be the junior partner in any potential axis with China, and Putin’s appeal to the hard right in Europe is fueled by the actions of European politicians and the cultural left in those nations.

    Even in Asia, I would limit things to preserving the naval agreement with Singapore and maybe keeping a skeleton crew in Japan. The ROKA can more than take care of itself against any sorry force the DPRK can field, and (like Japan) can develop nuclear weapons within less than a year if needed. If the Koreans want to focus more on pre-1945 grievances with Japan than the modern problem of an aggressive Beijing, that’s their choice to make.

    >But this meddling makes defence contractors rich.

    Nobody in Beijing, Moscow, Jerusalem or Tehran forces US politics to be the way it is. The rot is caused by Americans, and will only stop when Americans demand it stops. That’s why I’m such a fanatic about not blaming foriengers for America’s problems.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Nobody in Beijing, Moscow, Jerusalem or Tehran forces US politics to be the way it is.
     
    I agree.

    The rot is caused by Americans, and will only stop when Americans demand it stops.
     
    But they can't demand that it stops through the ballot box. That won't work. Whether you have a Republican or a Democrat Administration you're still going to have an administration committed to meddling in other nations' affairs. And Americans can't vote for a third party because the incredibly rigid two-party system makes it futile.

    The only way that ordinary Americans can demand that it stops is by taking to the streets, as happened with the Vietnam War.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  95. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    idea of a Nazi resurgence still seemed plausible. It seems silly now but in the 60s people believed it.
     
    Since most Western countries have “hate speech” laws, and the US has de facto censorship, why do you say that it seems silly then, but not now?
     
    Because in the 1960s there really were plenty of ex-Nazis. Real ones. Actual Nazis. Some had been "denazified" but it was still plausible to believe that some of them might have secret hankerings for the return of the Third Reich.

    It was silly because WW2 had thoroughly and for all time discredited Nazism, but in the 60s people weren't entirely convinced of that. Nobody was entirely sure if it was true.

    And people thought that fascism still existed because they thought Franco was a fascist. He wasn't, but people thought he was. So the existence of supposedly fascist Spain made people think that fascism was still a real threat.

    The US has always had de facto censorship. The Hollywood Production Code was censorship. The difference between the US and other countries is that censorship in the US is left in the hands of the corporate sector, but the media has always practised censorship. When TV networks or the Hollywood studios or social media oligarchs decide what you can see and what opinions can be publicly expressed, that's censorship. And it's always been that way.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >It was silly because WW2 had thoroughly and for all time discredited Nazism, but in the 60s people weren’t entirely convinced of that. Nobody was entirely sure if it was true.

    Hindsight is 20/20.

    One thing that really changed in the 1960s in West Germany was the emasculation of the “deep state” that dated back to the Weimar era. Prior to that, the same guys who were there in the 1920s or their heirs still had a lot of influence. This was less out of a desire to revive Nazism than practical necessity: in the immediate post-WWII era with a whole generation of men dead or in prison camps, the only guys around to pick up the pieces and administer were civil servants who began their careers before 1933, with most of them continuing to serve the Reich afterwards. Still, generally speaking, most of them were conservative nationalists with little sympathy for democracy.

    (The 1970s/1980s USSR would run into a similar problem in a worse way: the gerontocracy that helped drive that country into a ground was partly a result of the demographic decimation caused by Operation Barbarossa. Really, the collapse of Communism was also partly fueled by that: they just did not have enough men of the right age to administer the country. Looking back at it, it really is a testament to Russian tenacity that the USSR kept going as long as it did.)

    >He wasn’t, but people thought he was.

    Franco was a firebreathing anti-Communist who was willing to shield fascists from prosecution. This didn’t help his image, though most of them ended up using Spain as a launch pad to go to South America or the Middle East rather than settling in Spain proper. Interestingly enough, many of the fascists who did settle in Spain itself were not Germans or Austrians, which might explain why the European community was initially so hostile to Franco. One example: Ante Pavelić got assassinated in Spain, from wounds sustained in an assassination attempt, not from the Communist Tito regime but by a Serb ultra-nationalist who’d settled in Argentina. (God, Yugoslav politics, I love ya!)

    But as I’ve said in previous comments, the reality was pretty mundane and had little to do with ideology: Franco inherited a nation that was in ruins after civil war. He was not in a position to offer anything decisive to either side in WWII. Franco was under no illusions about his nation’s relative strength compared to either the UK or Germany and did his best to try to avoid offending either. He was more than happy to lend soldiers for Hitler, not least because that would help stabilize Spanish politics by sending the incorrigible fascists (without the common Communist foe, their differences were coming to a head) off to die in Russia, but that was on the strict condition that they would only fight the Soviets, not the Anglo-Americans.

    It was a close call, but the onset of the Cold War ensured he’d survive. I suspect Franco, like Hitler eventually would, foresaw that and gambled that he’d hang on long enough to see it.

  96. @songbird
    @nebulafox


    (Possibly at the bottom of Stalin’s list were the Poles-“Clean out this Polish filth!”-who Stalin had a very real grudge against from the debacle of the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921. Despite being less than a percent of the population, Poles would be 12.5% of the people killed during the Great Purge.)
     
    That's an interesting point. I wonder if it is possible that Stalin held a personal grudge against Poles based on the way that his war record as a commissar was questioned, during the Polish-Soviet War.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I think that’s probable. Keep in mind, this was when Tukhachevsky was being purged, and their mutual animosity went back to the same time period. Both men blamed each other for the defeat outside Warsaw.

    However, Stalin rarely did anything for personal or emotional reasons alone. The Great Purges targeted foreign Communists heavily in general, and there were more Poles (and perhaps Germans, who had the largest non-ruling Communist party in the world before Hitler started purging them) than anyone else in Moscow in part due just to geography. The Soviet regime was born with a heavy encirclement complex due to a mixture of ideology and the experiences of Russia in the 1920s, and Stalin seems to have genuinely believed that foreign spies had infiltrated the nation-particularly the Red Army, the one thing that could have overthrown him-and were out to get him.

    Like with German nationalism, anti-Polish sentiment goes back a long way in Russian nationalism. You have to remember that the equivalent to the Time of Troubles in the West would be the Irish invading England and capturing London. This led to an interesting dynamic for ethnic Poles who got caught up in the Russian Revolution, whether via the Tsarist army (Rokossovsky-a very interesting guy who probably wiped out more Nazis than anybody else) or in the pre-war period through the revolutionary underground (Felix Dzerzhinsky). They thought that Communism would give them a place to belong… and the reality turned out to be more prosaic.

    • Thanks: songbird
  97. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Part of the explanation is that there’s a lingering notion that Israel is a “Western” country on Capitol Hill.
     
    Yes. I think there's a tendency to think that Israel is kind of like New York, full of sophisticated art-loving liberal Jews.

    The less the US has to do with the damned region, the better.
     
    I totally agree with that.

    But Israel is one of the main justifications for US imperialism, and one of the main justifications for the insanely high level of US "defence" spending. So Zionism is very convenient for a lot of rich powerful white American gentiles.

    The US should also not be meddling in eastern Europe and east Asia, but again this meddling is very much in the interests of powerful groups in the US. The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America's business. But this meddling makes defence contractors rich.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business.

    Unfortunately for the United States, TSMC is in the South China Sea’s region.

    [MORE]

    Three points:

    1. Eisenhower’s lost recommendation. Had the U.S. restored import tariffs in 1961 to pre-World War II levels, as the departing President Eisenhower recommended, then the semiconductors of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), upon which the U.S. now relies, would still be manufactured in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, Idaho and California. As matters stand, however, with U.S. semiconductor manufacturing having decayed almost everywhere outside Oregon, the U.S. has a problem.[*]

    2. Reliance on east Asian manufacturing. TSMC has become a serious strategic vulnerability for the United States. Two hundred kilometers off the Red Chinese coast is a bad place for a great industrial power like the United States to source her semiconductors, including for military and naval applications. Traffic from Malaysia (yet more semiconductors, low-end) and Singapore (yet more semiconductors, high-end) passes through the South China Sea. Traffic from South Korea (computer memory and flat-panel displays) and Japan (silicon ingots and relevant industrial equipment) does not pass through the South China Sea but nonetheless terminates in the broader region.

    3. Federal policy. Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (probably my favorite senior officer of the Biden administration on the whole) is running in an orthogonal direction, trying to build international consensus toward a global minimum corporate tax—which might not do much harm per se, but indicates a dissonantly internationalized pattern of policy thought, unfit for purpose. Meanwhile, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative frets ineffectually over violations of U.S. intellectual property when what it should be doing is the complement; namely, converting itself into the Office of Aggressive U.S. Industrial Espionage.

    (3a. Federal policy and corporate taxation. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury would finally drop its decades-long fixation with Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson trade theory and just return to promoting import tariffs, the U.S. would no longer require a treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate. Import tariffs collect the desired corporate tax at the border, depositing the tax directly into the U.S. Treasury. No treaty is required. I grasp the Ricardian counterpoint regarding comparative advantage in significant quantitative detail. The Ricardian is an elegant theoretical finesse that wrings a tiny bit of extra utility, on paper, out of international trade, but is strategically impractical in the rough circumstances of the real world. A treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate is in my estimation a clumsy hack to avoid addressing the true problem: lack of tariffs.)

    The U.S. really, really needs to stop wasting time and attention on stupid vaccine/facemask politics and to start instead attending to the strategic repatriation of industry, for the U.S. position in the South China Sea is untenable.

    [*] You and I have discussed the curious difference between Australia and the U.S. in this matter. Perhaps Australia’s 20th-century combination of sparse population, abundant minerals, and relative proximity to Asian markets have made Ricardian economics more practical in Australia than in the U.S. Perhaps Australia’s status as the great, antipodal outpost of the English language has facilitated a certain style of arbitrage in commerce. Perhaps there is another reason. Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

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

    Point 1: Agreed. I cannot fathom who in their right mind wouldn't look at the last 30 years of US trade policy-as well as sharing industrial secrets-as anything other than giving away the whole damned cow after decades of feeding and raising her. Apre moi, le deluge, indeed.

    Point 2: When it comes to semiconductor technology, they've been catching up, last time I checked. They aren't quite at Taiwanese and ROK quality levels yet, but they've well outstripped Malaysia and are probably closing in on Japan and Singapore. In general, as the PRC is for intents and purposes a 1st World nation now, they are perfectly able to attract scientists, especially from the diaspora they so heavily invested in back in the 80s and 90s. (The Chinese are great at playing the long game.) And while corruption exists, it never was the Russian/Indian-style soul-sucking corruption that prevents technology projects from getting off the ground, and Xi's purges have also cut down on what was there 10 years ago.

    I think the US really, really should reconsider the wisdom of having, say, our drug supplies reliant off China and India. The people who hollowed out the US in the name of saving pennies, whether at the cost of redundancy or greater neoliberal efficiency, need a good damnatio memoriae. Strategic repatriation of industry: like the term.

    >Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

    I know little about economics and happily defer to you if you do, but one thing I suspect is that there's a very sweet middle spot you need to manage if you simultaneously need to court foreign investment while safeguarding domestic industries in their infancy.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.
     
    The Australian market was just too small.

    With such a small market you can't really have a viable manufacturing sector unless you concentrate on industries in which economies of scale are less critical. The government would need to carefully select industries which might be viable. That requires a certain amount of central planning (at which point the libertarians at UR will start chanting, "But that's communism!") But I don't see how you could do it without some degree of central planning.

    The problem in the post-war period was that Australia was manufacturing too wide a variety of goods. Early post-war governments wanted that because of WW2 and Cold War paranoia. They thought that Australia needed to be self-sufficient. But we just ended up with too many non-viable industries, instead of a handful of viable industries.

    And in most cases there were too many companies involved. We had at one stage a ludicrous number of companies building cars in Australia. We might have been able to support one car maker, maybe two at most. We had companies whose Australian car manufacturing plants were doomed right from the outset (companies like Chrysler and British Leyland). They had very small shares of a very small market.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  98. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I think that liberalism just has a low tolerance for any system outside of it, except for communism, for which they have at least some sympathy.
     
    Liberalism and communism are polar opposites and entirely incompatible. The Cold War was driven by liberal hatred of communism. The Cold War was a war to the death between liberalism and communism.

    Replies: @anon

    Liberalism and communism are polar opposites and entirely incompatible

    “No True Liberalism”?

    lol.

  99. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business.
     
    Unfortunately for the United States, TSMC is in the South China Sea's region.

    Three points:

    1. Eisenhower's lost recommendation. Had the U.S. restored import tariffs in 1961 to pre-World War II levels, as the departing President Eisenhower recommended, then the semiconductors of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), upon which the U.S. now relies, would still be manufactured in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, Idaho and California. As matters stand, however, with U.S. semiconductor manufacturing having decayed almost everywhere outside Oregon, the U.S. has a problem.[*]

    2. Reliance on east Asian manufacturing. TSMC has become a serious strategic vulnerability for the United States. Two hundred kilometers off the Red Chinese coast is a bad place for a great industrial power like the United States to source her semiconductors, including for military and naval applications. Traffic from Malaysia (yet more semiconductors, low-end) and Singapore (yet more semiconductors, high-end) passes through the South China Sea. Traffic from South Korea (computer memory and flat-panel displays) and Japan (silicon ingots and relevant industrial equipment) does not pass through the South China Sea but nonetheless terminates in the broader region.

    3. Federal policy. Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (probably my favorite senior officer of the Biden administration on the whole) is running in an orthogonal direction, trying to build international consensus toward a global minimum corporate tax—which might not do much harm per se, but indicates a dissonantly internationalized pattern of policy thought, unfit for purpose. Meanwhile, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative frets ineffectually over violations of U.S. intellectual property when what it should be doing is the complement; namely, converting itself into the Office of Aggressive U.S. Industrial Espionage.

    (3a. Federal policy and corporate taxation. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury would finally drop its decades-long fixation with Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson trade theory and just return to promoting import tariffs, the U.S. would no longer require a treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate. Import tariffs collect the desired corporate tax at the border, depositing the tax directly into the U.S. Treasury. No treaty is required. I grasp the Ricardian counterpoint regarding comparative advantage in significant quantitative detail. The Ricardian is an elegant theoretical finesse that wrings a tiny bit of extra utility, on paper, out of international trade, but is strategically impractical in the rough circumstances of the real world. A treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate is in my estimation a clumsy hack to avoid addressing the true problem: lack of tariffs.)

    The U.S. really, really needs to stop wasting time and attention on stupid vaccine/facemask politics and to start instead attending to the strategic repatriation of industry, for the U.S. position in the South China Sea is untenable.

    [*] You and I have discussed the curious difference between Australia and the U.S. in this matter. Perhaps Australia's 20th-century combination of sparse population, abundant minerals, and relative proximity to Asian markets have made Ricardian economics more practical in Australia than in the U.S. Perhaps Australia's status as the great, antipodal outpost of the English language has facilitated a certain style of arbitrage in commerce. Perhaps there is another reason. Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    Point 1: Agreed. I cannot fathom who in their right mind wouldn’t look at the last 30 years of US trade policy-as well as sharing industrial secrets-as anything other than giving away the whole damned cow after decades of feeding and raising her. Apre moi, le deluge, indeed.

    Point 2: When it comes to semiconductor technology, they’ve been catching up, last time I checked. They aren’t quite at Taiwanese and ROK quality levels yet, but they’ve well outstripped Malaysia and are probably closing in on Japan and Singapore. In general, as the PRC is for intents and purposes a 1st World nation now, they are perfectly able to attract scientists, especially from the diaspora they so heavily invested in back in the 80s and 90s. (The Chinese are great at playing the long game.) And while corruption exists, it never was the Russian/Indian-style soul-sucking corruption that prevents technology projects from getting off the ground, and Xi’s purges have also cut down on what was there 10 years ago.

    I think the US really, really should reconsider the wisdom of having, say, our drug supplies reliant off China and India. The people who hollowed out the US in the name of saving pennies, whether at the cost of redundancy or greater neoliberal efficiency, need a good damnatio memoriae. Strategic repatriation of industry: like the term.

    >Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

    I know little about economics and happily defer to you if you do, but one thing I suspect is that there’s a very sweet middle spot you need to manage if you simultaneously need to court foreign investment while safeguarding domestic industries in their infancy.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox


    I know little about economics and happily defer to you if you do....
     
    Thanks. I am a mere dilettante patzer, though, not an expert. I read a lot. Like hundreds of thousands of others, I used to read The Wall Street Journal until that paper ruined itself.

    Like you, I can work a differential equation when necessary, so when the reading turns quantitative, that helps. Macroeconomics is a great field for dilettantes because, excepting central bankers, few persons have actual, practical expertise.


    ... but one thing I suspect is that there’s a very sweet middle spot you need to manage if you simultaneously need to court foreign investment while safeguarding domestic industries in their infancy.
     
    That may be, yet regarding foreign investment, I cannot see how it helps much in most instances. Americans pay for cargo containers full of consumer goods with phony dollars, which dollars return to the U.S. to invest by buying up U.S. assets. I believe that the U.S. did better between 1870 and 1970, when Americans did that to other countries rather than the other way around.

    If it's advanced technology Americans need, well, we still develop a lot of that here, but now that so much is developed abroad, federally supported international industrial espionage on a substantial scale will probably become a practical necessity going forward. We complain about the Chinese stealing our technology but forget that patents are a domestic contrivance, not an international principle. International patent law has about as much practical force as the Locarno Treaty had, which is to say, not much, except in instances in which the states involved happen to find enforcement convenient.

    I think that we Americans have allowed ourselves to be confused on trade. We tend to think that trade comes from trade treaties or “trade deals,” but it doesn't. It comes from markets (formerly, literal markets, as in a walled city at whose gate a toll is assessed) and from ports. If you have a port and lower the harbor chain to admit ships, then you have trade. Ships arrive from who knows where. Two states require no diplomatic relations to trade with one another (as Napoleon learned to his chagrin when he tried to cut off Continental trade with the British). The ancient Romans knew little about China and certainly had no Chinese trade deals, but the Romans had Chinese trade nevertheless, because the Romans had ports.

    Anyway, if you wondered whether I were an expert or a mere dilettante patzer, then the last paragraph or two should have cleared that up for you. Meanwhile, your entire remark (among other remarks of yours on Byzantine history and such) has been read by me with interest.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  100. @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Point 1: Agreed. I cannot fathom who in their right mind wouldn't look at the last 30 years of US trade policy-as well as sharing industrial secrets-as anything other than giving away the whole damned cow after decades of feeding and raising her. Apre moi, le deluge, indeed.

    Point 2: When it comes to semiconductor technology, they've been catching up, last time I checked. They aren't quite at Taiwanese and ROK quality levels yet, but they've well outstripped Malaysia and are probably closing in on Japan and Singapore. In general, as the PRC is for intents and purposes a 1st World nation now, they are perfectly able to attract scientists, especially from the diaspora they so heavily invested in back in the 80s and 90s. (The Chinese are great at playing the long game.) And while corruption exists, it never was the Russian/Indian-style soul-sucking corruption that prevents technology projects from getting off the ground, and Xi's purges have also cut down on what was there 10 years ago.

    I think the US really, really should reconsider the wisdom of having, say, our drug supplies reliant off China and India. The people who hollowed out the US in the name of saving pennies, whether at the cost of redundancy or greater neoliberal efficiency, need a good damnatio memoriae. Strategic repatriation of industry: like the term.

    >Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

    I know little about economics and happily defer to you if you do, but one thing I suspect is that there's a very sweet middle spot you need to manage if you simultaneously need to court foreign investment while safeguarding domestic industries in their infancy.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I know little about economics and happily defer to you if you do….

    Thanks. I am a mere dilettante patzer, though, not an expert. I read a lot. Like hundreds of thousands of others, I used to read The Wall Street Journal until that paper ruined itself.

    Like you, I can work a differential equation when necessary, so when the reading turns quantitative, that helps. Macroeconomics is a great field for dilettantes because, excepting central bankers, few persons have actual, practical expertise.

    … but one thing I suspect is that there’s a very sweet middle spot you need to manage if you simultaneously need to court foreign investment while safeguarding domestic industries in their infancy.

    That may be, yet regarding foreign investment, I cannot see how it helps much in most instances. Americans pay for cargo containers full of consumer goods with phony dollars, which dollars return to the U.S. to invest by buying up U.S. assets. I believe that the U.S. did better between 1870 and 1970, when Americans did that to other countries rather than the other way around.

    [MORE]

    If it’s advanced technology Americans need, well, we still develop a lot of that here, but now that so much is developed abroad, federally supported international industrial espionage on a substantial scale will probably become a practical necessity going forward. We complain about the Chinese stealing our technology but forget that patents are a domestic contrivance, not an international principle. International patent law has about as much practical force as the Locarno Treaty had, which is to say, not much, except in instances in which the states involved happen to find enforcement convenient.

    I think that we Americans have allowed ourselves to be confused on trade. We tend to think that trade comes from trade treaties or “trade deals,” but it doesn’t. It comes from markets (formerly, literal markets, as in a walled city at whose gate a toll is assessed) and from ports. If you have a port and lower the harbor chain to admit ships, then you have trade. Ships arrive from who knows where. Two states require no diplomatic relations to trade with one another (as Napoleon learned to his chagrin when he tried to cut off Continental trade with the British). The ancient Romans knew little about China and certainly had no Chinese trade deals, but the Romans had Chinese trade nevertheless, because the Romans had ports.

    Anyway, if you wondered whether I were an expert or a mere dilettante patzer, then the last paragraph or two should have cleared that up for you. Meanwhile, your entire remark (among other remarks of yours on Byzantine history and such) has been read by me with interest.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It did. Thanks.

    >Meanwhile, your entire remark (among other remarks of yours on Byzantine history and such) has been read by me with interest.

    One thing about Byzantine history you learn is that you should always fight hard and not quit, even if you don't win, for two reasons: you can inspire future people who have better luck or circumstances than you, leading to a good propagation effect, and you can still have a good impact in ways you can't see at the time.

    Heraclius undertook one of the most astonishing military campaigns in the classical world: and if you date the end of the classical world to the rise of Islam, the final one. This was an empire decimated by plague, financial problems, defeats... everything. He managed against the odds to pull it off, only to be knocked down five years later because the same year he set out with the last Roman army in the world-622 AD-was the year that Muhammad fled for Medina. I.e: historical fate. You could look at that story as a tragedy. Or you could admire it, realize you might not run into such a historical freak accident, and realize that effort led to the survival of the Roman state as a buffer for Europe when it was at its lowest point.

  101. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >But Israel is one of the main justifications for US imperialism, and one of the main justifications for the insanely high level of US “defence” spending. So Zionism is very convenient for a lot of rich powerful white American gentiles.

    I agree. The only caveat I have is that Israel is its own nation that will ultimately act in its own national interests, not to US imperatives. In some ways, moreso than it was 20 years ago. Israel's foreign policy strategy of hedging its bets with the non-Western world has paid off dramatically, especially since India and Russia have governments ideologically sympathetic to Likud.

    The Chinese are going to try and play both sides for their broader image in the Muslim World: most Islamic governments don't care enough about the Uyghur issue for China's own domestic policies (say what you will about the Israelis, they don't have concentration camps) toward Muslim minorities to be a problem. Not that it matters as much as it used to, as the flight from Israel to Dubai shows. Israel is as secure as it will likely ever be.

    >The US should also not be meddling in eastern Europe and east Asia, but again this meddling is very much in the interests of powerful groups in the US. The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business.

    I agree when it comes to Europe, though I find it heavily ironic that the Democrats just caved in on Nord Stream 2, especially given their own domestic position on the Keystone. That's the sort of thing they'd have impeached Trump for. Bearing that in mind, Putin's Russia is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons, bound to be the junior partner in any potential axis with China, and Putin's appeal to the hard right in Europe is fueled by the actions of European politicians and the cultural left in those nations.

    Even in Asia, I would limit things to preserving the naval agreement with Singapore and maybe keeping a skeleton crew in Japan. The ROKA can more than take care of itself against any sorry force the DPRK can field, and (like Japan) can develop nuclear weapons within less than a year if needed. If the Koreans want to focus more on pre-1945 grievances with Japan than the modern problem of an aggressive Beijing, that's their choice to make.

    >But this meddling makes defence contractors rich.

    Nobody in Beijing, Moscow, Jerusalem or Tehran forces US politics to be the way it is. The rot is caused by Americans, and will only stop when Americans demand it stops. That's why I'm such a fanatic about not blaming foriengers for America's problems.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Nobody in Beijing, Moscow, Jerusalem or Tehran forces US politics to be the way it is.

    I agree.

    The rot is caused by Americans, and will only stop when Americans demand it stops.

    But they can’t demand that it stops through the ballot box. That won’t work. Whether you have a Republican or a Democrat Administration you’re still going to have an administration committed to meddling in other nations’ affairs. And Americans can’t vote for a third party because the incredibly rigid two-party system makes it futile.

    The only way that ordinary Americans can demand that it stops is by taking to the streets, as happened with the Vietnam War.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >I agree.

    It cannot be emphasized enough. Both parties are eager to divert focus onto foreign countries over the malfeasance of American elites. The only way to start fixing ones problems is to accept some degree of control over them. If it works for an individual, why not a country?

    I've been a hard critic of the PRC's influence in American politics and industry, but it'd be the height of hypocrisy to blame the Chinese for doing what it is in their own national interests. Were I Chinese, I wouldn't act differently. Nobody in Beijing forced us to keep trade policies grossly against our interests. It's the American elites that profited from hollowing out their own nation that both deserve the anger, and practically speaking, Americans can do something about.

    >But they can’t demand that it stops through the ballot box. That won’t work. Whether you have a Republican or a Democrat Administration you’re still going to have an administration committed to meddling in other nations’ affairs. And Americans can’t vote for a third party because the incredibly rigid two-party system makes it futile.

    I think the Trump experience shows the problem of populist tidal waves at the ballot box: if you don't have effective administrators and bureaucrats, you'll have to rely on existing ones hostile to you. That's why the Right should really focus more on local politics, because these things take time: especially if you think the federal government is going to become more impotent as America declines. America's money games are not going to last forever. Bad things happen to creaky regimes who rely off inertia and past credit when they run into fiscal problems that they can't BS away.

    Re, Vietnam: it wasn't solely public pressure, especially since any Americans came to hate the anti-war protesters more than the war itself. As early as 1966, Nixon's foreign policy articles clearly show a desire-however gingerly-to put South Vietnam into its appropriate geopolitical context. This was a story he'd seen before in a different format as Eisenhower's VP when he concluded the Korean War, and led to general conclusions about foreign policy aimed to prevent future armed interventions like Vietnam. I suspect a Democratic administration would have came to a similar conclusion. That didn't happen in the 21st Century: there was a sort of lumbering inertia even though people realized that old policies were failing.

    There's a very striking difference between those elites and our post-Cold War ones. However flawed the former were, they did identify with the American nation and saw national interests as theirs. The latter: entirely divorced. Why should they care?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  102. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The Crimea and the South China Sea are none of America’s business.
     
    Unfortunately for the United States, TSMC is in the South China Sea's region.

    Three points:

    1. Eisenhower's lost recommendation. Had the U.S. restored import tariffs in 1961 to pre-World War II levels, as the departing President Eisenhower recommended, then the semiconductors of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), upon which the U.S. now relies, would still be manufactured in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, Idaho and California. As matters stand, however, with U.S. semiconductor manufacturing having decayed almost everywhere outside Oregon, the U.S. has a problem.[*]

    2. Reliance on east Asian manufacturing. TSMC has become a serious strategic vulnerability for the United States. Two hundred kilometers off the Red Chinese coast is a bad place for a great industrial power like the United States to source her semiconductors, including for military and naval applications. Traffic from Malaysia (yet more semiconductors, low-end) and Singapore (yet more semiconductors, high-end) passes through the South China Sea. Traffic from South Korea (computer memory and flat-panel displays) and Japan (silicon ingots and relevant industrial equipment) does not pass through the South China Sea but nonetheless terminates in the broader region.

    3. Federal policy. Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (probably my favorite senior officer of the Biden administration on the whole) is running in an orthogonal direction, trying to build international consensus toward a global minimum corporate tax—which might not do much harm per se, but indicates a dissonantly internationalized pattern of policy thought, unfit for purpose. Meanwhile, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative frets ineffectually over violations of U.S. intellectual property when what it should be doing is the complement; namely, converting itself into the Office of Aggressive U.S. Industrial Espionage.

    (3a. Federal policy and corporate taxation. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury would finally drop its decades-long fixation with Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson trade theory and just return to promoting import tariffs, the U.S. would no longer require a treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate. Import tariffs collect the desired corporate tax at the border, depositing the tax directly into the U.S. Treasury. No treaty is required. I grasp the Ricardian counterpoint regarding comparative advantage in significant quantitative detail. The Ricardian is an elegant theoretical finesse that wrings a tiny bit of extra utility, on paper, out of international trade, but is strategically impractical in the rough circumstances of the real world. A treaty for a global minimum corporate tax rate is in my estimation a clumsy hack to avoid addressing the true problem: lack of tariffs.)

    The U.S. really, really needs to stop wasting time and attention on stupid vaccine/facemask politics and to start instead attending to the strategic repatriation of industry, for the U.S. position in the South China Sea is untenable.

    [*] You and I have discussed the curious difference between Australia and the U.S. in this matter. Perhaps Australia's 20th-century combination of sparse population, abundant minerals, and relative proximity to Asian markets have made Ricardian economics more practical in Australia than in the U.S. Perhaps Australia's status as the great, antipodal outpost of the English language has facilitated a certain style of arbitrage in commerce. Perhaps there is another reason. Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.

    The Australian market was just too small.

    With such a small market you can’t really have a viable manufacturing sector unless you concentrate on industries in which economies of scale are less critical. The government would need to carefully select industries which might be viable. That requires a certain amount of central planning (at which point the libertarians at UR will start chanting, “But that’s communism!”) But I don’t see how you could do it without some degree of central planning.

    The problem in the post-war period was that Australia was manufacturing too wide a variety of goods. Early post-war governments wanted that because of WW2 and Cold War paranoia. They thought that Australia needed to be self-sufficient. But we just ended up with too many non-viable industries, instead of a handful of viable industries.

    And in most cases there were too many companies involved. We had at one stage a ludicrous number of companies building cars in Australia. We might have been able to support one car maker, maybe two at most. We had companies whose Australian car manufacturing plants were doomed right from the outset (companies like Chrysler and British Leyland). They had very small shares of a very small market.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    One finds the following in a 1999 paper by one Michael Emmery:


    [T]he [Australian] Tariff Board ... requested references covering production in Australia of all machinery and mechanical appliances. It noted that duties in this area ranged up to 75 per cent; and there was provision for ready-made protection at 55 and 60 per cent ad valorem for a wide range of products not yet produced in Australia.

    The Tariff Board, in its subsequent Annual Report for 1967-68, presented two classifications which provided a ranking of manufacturing activity by level of protection. The first was based on the existing nominal protection applying to final products as shown in the Australian Tariff. The second ranking was based on industries rather than products; it showed the proportion of the output of each industry group subject to different levels of nominal protection....

    Accordingly the Board set its points of reference for identifying high, medium and low cost production in effective rate terms as follows:

        * high cost-effective rates exceeding 50 per cent,
        * medium cost-effective rates between 25 and 50 per cent, and
        * low cost-effective rates of 25 per cent or less....

    The 1969-70 Report provided estimates that the average rate of effective protection available to individual Australian manufacturing industries ranged from 0 to 120 per cent, the average rate for manufacturing industry as a whole was 46 per cent....
     

    A tariff of 46 percent would be a bit stiff in reference to the American experience. An effective tariff of 120 percent is an extreme measure by which a country effectively blockades herself. For what it's worth, from 1816 through 1939, Americans had happy experience with tariffs in the 20 to 40 percent range. Some American tariffs rose to 60 per cent or more, but at 60 percent, a country really starts to feel the bite of Ricardian disadvantage.

    Hard analytical remarks are unsuited to a blog's comment column, but would you permit me just one? In the Heckscher-Ohlin model the competitive-protective advantage a tariff affords the domestic producer is what is called a first-order term. The net theoretical differential penalty to the consumer (for whom income taxes fall and wages rise but prices, according to theory, rise even more) is a second-order term. A second-order term goes in proportion to the square of the tariff rate.

    At a moderate tariff rate, the theoretical second-order term is sufficiently inconsequential to be swamped by practical industrial-tactical factors (such as a company's maneuvers to dominate a market niche or a country's provision to limit reliance on foreigners for critical supplies). At a high tariff rate, however, the second-order term starts to dig in.

    I realize that free-trade economists insist that the second-order term is a net effect, and that the square of a zero tariff rate (zero squared being zero) is still optimal according to the model. I get it. I just observe that, in the real world, they seem to be wrong.


    The Australian market was just too small.
     
    Probably correct.

    A great benefit of moderately tariffed trade, avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of immoderately high tariffs on the right hand and slavish devotion to the theoretical model on the left, is that moderately tariffed trade simultaneously insures against both domestic and foreign shocks. Foreign supply is welcome when the domestic plant catches fire! Domestic supply is necessary when war or other circumstance cuts the foreign supplier off.

    But maybe, as you say, tariffs just do not prosper for Australia.

  103. Oh, come on. Israeli Jews, the ones most affected by this, didn’t sow this. Orthodox Jews in America, who are also pretty affected, sure didn’t sow this either.

    After the Soviets took over Russia, a great rabbi made an appeal to Trotsky, Jew to Jew, that maybe he could use his influence to have the Communists let up on the persecution of Jews a bit. Trotsky responded that he was a revolutionary, not a Jew. The rabbi sighed in response, “The Trotskys make the revolutions and the Bronsteins [Trotsky’s birth name] pay the price.”

    (Of course, Trotsky did eventually pay the price, with an ice pick in his head.)

    So the Sulzbergers, and the Soroses, and the Sanderses, and countless other American Jews- most of whom have zero contact with Judaism and Jews and less than zero sympathy with Israel- sowed and sowed and sowed and made revolutions, and the poor Orthodox and Israelis, who never had a hand in it, reap and pay the price.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Nachum


    After the Soviets took over Russia, a great rabbi made an appeal to Trotsky, Jew to Jew, that maybe he could use his influence to have the Communists let up on the persecution of Jews a bit. Trotsky responded that he was a revolutionary, not a Jew. The rabbi sighed in response, “The Trotskys make the revolutions and the Bronsteins [Trotsky’s birth name] pay the price.”
     
    Yes but from a gentile perspective this is precisely the problem. To a Jew, it is always the Jew that is the victim, almost regardless of circumstance, even when the victimizer is Jewish, as well. It's almost as if gentiles didn't count.

    To a Jew, the Jew's perspective on “paying the price” is valid, just as to a rancher, the rancher's perspective on slaughtering cattle is valid; but then the Jew wonders why the gentile for some inscrutable reason dislikes him and, eventually, unfortunately, acts on that dislike.

    The thing is, I don't think that some Jews can help it. Paranoia and xenophobia, along with a disregard for the gentile's humanity and a disposition to project the Jew's own misdeeds onto a gentile scapegoat, seem evolutionarily to be baked into the Jewish psyche.

    To be clear (for I must take care not to stoke Jewish paranoia), I propose no extreme measures. I do not desire extreme measures. I oppose extreme measures. However, a warier, more realistic social assessment of persistent, age-old Jew-against-gentile conflict would be welcome.

    Replies: @Nachum

  104. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Whatever the reason, the protectionist economics that yielded such fine results in 18th-century Britain, 19th-century U.S. and Germany, and 20th-century Japan have not seemed to work for Australia—though hardly for lack of trying.
     
    The Australian market was just too small.

    With such a small market you can't really have a viable manufacturing sector unless you concentrate on industries in which economies of scale are less critical. The government would need to carefully select industries which might be viable. That requires a certain amount of central planning (at which point the libertarians at UR will start chanting, "But that's communism!") But I don't see how you could do it without some degree of central planning.

    The problem in the post-war period was that Australia was manufacturing too wide a variety of goods. Early post-war governments wanted that because of WW2 and Cold War paranoia. They thought that Australia needed to be self-sufficient. But we just ended up with too many non-viable industries, instead of a handful of viable industries.

    And in most cases there were too many companies involved. We had at one stage a ludicrous number of companies building cars in Australia. We might have been able to support one car maker, maybe two at most. We had companies whose Australian car manufacturing plants were doomed right from the outset (companies like Chrysler and British Leyland). They had very small shares of a very small market.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    One finds the following in a 1999 paper by one Michael Emmery:

    [T]he [Australian] Tariff Board … requested references covering production in Australia of all machinery and mechanical appliances. It noted that duties in this area ranged up to 75 per cent; and there was provision for ready-made protection at 55 and 60 per cent ad valorem for a wide range of products not yet produced in Australia.

    The Tariff Board, in its subsequent Annual Report for 1967-68, presented two classifications which provided a ranking of manufacturing activity by level of protection. The first was based on the existing nominal protection applying to final products as shown in the Australian Tariff. The second ranking was based on industries rather than products; it showed the proportion of the output of each industry group subject to different levels of nominal protection….

    Accordingly the Board set its points of reference for identifying high, medium and low cost production in effective rate terms as follows:

        * high cost-effective rates exceeding 50 per cent,
        * medium cost-effective rates between 25 and 50 per cent, and
        * low cost-effective rates of 25 per cent or less….

    The 1969-70 Report provided estimates that the average rate of effective protection available to individual Australian manufacturing industries ranged from 0 to 120 per cent, the average rate for manufacturing industry as a whole was 46 per cent….

    A tariff of 46 percent would be a bit stiff in reference to the American experience. An effective tariff of 120 percent is an extreme measure by which a country effectively blockades herself. For what it’s worth, from 1816 through 1939, Americans had happy experience with tariffs in the 20 to 40 percent range. Some American tariffs rose to 60 per cent or more, but at 60 percent, a country really starts to feel the bite of Ricardian disadvantage.

    Hard analytical remarks are unsuited to a blog’s comment column, but would you permit me just one? In the Heckscher-Ohlin model the competitive-protective advantage a tariff affords the domestic producer is what is called a first-order term. The net theoretical differential penalty to the consumer (for whom income taxes fall and wages rise but prices, according to theory, rise even more) is a second-order term. A second-order term goes in proportion to the square of the tariff rate.

    At a moderate tariff rate, the theoretical second-order term is sufficiently inconsequential to be swamped by practical industrial-tactical factors (such as a company’s maneuvers to dominate a market niche or a country’s provision to limit reliance on foreigners for critical supplies). At a high tariff rate, however, the second-order term starts to dig in.

    I realize that free-trade economists insist that the second-order term is a net effect, and that the square of a zero tariff rate (zero squared being zero) is still optimal according to the model. I get it. I just observe that, in the real world, they seem to be wrong.

    The Australian market was just too small.

    Probably correct.

    A great benefit of moderately tariffed trade, avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of immoderately high tariffs on the right hand and slavish devotion to the theoretical model on the left, is that moderately tariffed trade simultaneously insures against both domestic and foreign shocks. Foreign supply is welcome when the domestic plant catches fire! Domestic supply is necessary when war or other circumstance cuts the foreign supplier off.

    But maybe, as you say, tariffs just do not prosper for Australia.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  105. @Nachum
    Oh, come on. Israeli Jews, the ones most affected by this, didn't sow this. Orthodox Jews in America, who are also pretty affected, sure didn't sow this either.

    After the Soviets took over Russia, a great rabbi made an appeal to Trotsky, Jew to Jew, that maybe he could use his influence to have the Communists let up on the persecution of Jews a bit. Trotsky responded that he was a revolutionary, not a Jew. The rabbi sighed in response, "The Trotskys make the revolutions and the Bronsteins [Trotsky's birth name] pay the price."

    (Of course, Trotsky did eventually pay the price, with an ice pick in his head.)

    So the Sulzbergers, and the Soroses, and the Sanderses, and countless other American Jews- most of whom have zero contact with Judaism and Jews and less than zero sympathy with Israel- sowed and sowed and sowed and made revolutions, and the poor Orthodox and Israelis, who never had a hand in it, reap and pay the price.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    After the Soviets took over Russia, a great rabbi made an appeal to Trotsky, Jew to Jew, that maybe he could use his influence to have the Communists let up on the persecution of Jews a bit. Trotsky responded that he was a revolutionary, not a Jew. The rabbi sighed in response, “The Trotskys make the revolutions and the Bronsteins [Trotsky’s birth name] pay the price.”

    Yes but from a gentile perspective this is precisely the problem. To a Jew, it is always the Jew that is the victim, almost regardless of circumstance, even when the victimizer is Jewish, as well. It’s almost as if gentiles didn’t count.

    To a Jew, the Jew’s perspective on “paying the price” is valid, just as to a rancher, the rancher’s perspective on slaughtering cattle is valid; but then the Jew wonders why the gentile for some inscrutable reason dislikes him and, eventually, unfortunately, acts on that dislike.

    The thing is, I don’t think that some Jews can help it. Paranoia and xenophobia, along with a disregard for the gentile’s humanity and a disposition to project the Jew’s own misdeeds onto a gentile scapegoat, seem evolutionarily to be baked into the Jewish psyche.

    To be clear (for I must take care not to stoke Jewish paranoia), I propose no extreme measures. I do not desire extreme measures. I oppose extreme measures. However, a warier, more realistic social assessment of persistent, age-old Jew-against-gentile conflict would be welcome.

    • Replies: @Nachum
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You took quite a leap there from paragraph one to paragraph two. It's entirely natural for a Jewish leader to be concerned that his people (and religion) are being persecuted. It's entirely natural for a Jew to be concerned for Jews. I see no reason why the fact that a Jew is doing the persecution makes any difference; the rabbi was in no way defending Trotsky's persecution of non-Jews, and- here's the important point- he in no way was saying that persecution of non-Jews was okay. (The same rabbi, for example, called for prayers when entirely non-Jewish populations faced disasters.) That *you* drew that conclusion from what I wrote is quite unfounded, and very, very telling.

    Actually, it doesn't have to be telling, even: You wear your feelings on your sleeve, and the fact that you have no evidence for them doesn't matter.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  106. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Nobody in Beijing, Moscow, Jerusalem or Tehran forces US politics to be the way it is.
     
    I agree.

    The rot is caused by Americans, and will only stop when Americans demand it stops.
     
    But they can't demand that it stops through the ballot box. That won't work. Whether you have a Republican or a Democrat Administration you're still going to have an administration committed to meddling in other nations' affairs. And Americans can't vote for a third party because the incredibly rigid two-party system makes it futile.

    The only way that ordinary Americans can demand that it stops is by taking to the streets, as happened with the Vietnam War.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >I agree.

    It cannot be emphasized enough. Both parties are eager to divert focus onto foreign countries over the malfeasance of American elites. The only way to start fixing ones problems is to accept some degree of control over them. If it works for an individual, why not a country?

    I’ve been a hard critic of the PRC’s influence in American politics and industry, but it’d be the height of hypocrisy to blame the Chinese for doing what it is in their own national interests. Were I Chinese, I wouldn’t act differently. Nobody in Beijing forced us to keep trade policies grossly against our interests. It’s the American elites that profited from hollowing out their own nation that both deserve the anger, and practically speaking, Americans can do something about.

    >But they can’t demand that it stops through the ballot box. That won’t work. Whether you have a Republican or a Democrat Administration you’re still going to have an administration committed to meddling in other nations’ affairs. And Americans can’t vote for a third party because the incredibly rigid two-party system makes it futile.

    I think the Trump experience shows the problem of populist tidal waves at the ballot box: if you don’t have effective administrators and bureaucrats, you’ll have to rely on existing ones hostile to you. That’s why the Right should really focus more on local politics, because these things take time: especially if you think the federal government is going to become more impotent as America declines. America’s money games are not going to last forever. Bad things happen to creaky regimes who rely off inertia and past credit when they run into fiscal problems that they can’t BS away.

    Re, Vietnam: it wasn’t solely public pressure, especially since any Americans came to hate the anti-war protesters more than the war itself. As early as 1966, Nixon’s foreign policy articles clearly show a desire-however gingerly-to put South Vietnam into its appropriate geopolitical context. This was a story he’d seen before in a different format as Eisenhower’s VP when he concluded the Korean War, and led to general conclusions about foreign policy aimed to prevent future armed interventions like Vietnam. I suspect a Democratic administration would have came to a similar conclusion. That didn’t happen in the 21st Century: there was a sort of lumbering inertia even though people realized that old policies were failing.

    There’s a very striking difference between those elites and our post-Cold War ones. However flawed the former were, they did identify with the American nation and saw national interests as theirs. The latter: entirely divorced. Why should they care?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    There’s a very striking difference between those elites and our post-Cold War ones. However flawed the former were, they did identify with the American nation and saw national interests as theirs. The latter: entirely divorced. Why should they care?
     
    I don't think that business elites have ever changed. The business elites of the 19th century were as vicious, stupid, cowardly, greedy and short-sighted as those of today.

    But you may have a point about political elites. In the past there were at least some politicians motivated by genuine idealism and a genuine concern for the nation.

    You also have to take into account different ways of thinking about the "national interest". For many modern American elites the "national interest" means the maintenance and expansion of a global American Empire. The ultimate aim is for the whole world to be run from Washington. For many modern American elites the "national interest" means the interests of the empire.

    They really do think that the "national interest" requires the complete subjugation of Russia and China and Europe to the American Empire. They think it requires Russia and China to become provinces of the American Empire, provinces ruled from Washington.

    So while the corrupt opportunists are a problem the idealists are a bigger problem. They're the ones who are likely to drag the world into nuclear war.

    The problem is not that the modern political elites are more corrupt (although they are more corrupt), the problem is that they're much much crazier.

    Nixon was essentially a pragmatist. He was also sane. Pragmatism and sanity have disappeared from modern politics.
  107. @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox


    I know little about economics and happily defer to you if you do....
     
    Thanks. I am a mere dilettante patzer, though, not an expert. I read a lot. Like hundreds of thousands of others, I used to read The Wall Street Journal until that paper ruined itself.

    Like you, I can work a differential equation when necessary, so when the reading turns quantitative, that helps. Macroeconomics is a great field for dilettantes because, excepting central bankers, few persons have actual, practical expertise.


    ... but one thing I suspect is that there’s a very sweet middle spot you need to manage if you simultaneously need to court foreign investment while safeguarding domestic industries in their infancy.
     
    That may be, yet regarding foreign investment, I cannot see how it helps much in most instances. Americans pay for cargo containers full of consumer goods with phony dollars, which dollars return to the U.S. to invest by buying up U.S. assets. I believe that the U.S. did better between 1870 and 1970, when Americans did that to other countries rather than the other way around.

    If it's advanced technology Americans need, well, we still develop a lot of that here, but now that so much is developed abroad, federally supported international industrial espionage on a substantial scale will probably become a practical necessity going forward. We complain about the Chinese stealing our technology but forget that patents are a domestic contrivance, not an international principle. International patent law has about as much practical force as the Locarno Treaty had, which is to say, not much, except in instances in which the states involved happen to find enforcement convenient.

    I think that we Americans have allowed ourselves to be confused on trade. We tend to think that trade comes from trade treaties or “trade deals,” but it doesn't. It comes from markets (formerly, literal markets, as in a walled city at whose gate a toll is assessed) and from ports. If you have a port and lower the harbor chain to admit ships, then you have trade. Ships arrive from who knows where. Two states require no diplomatic relations to trade with one another (as Napoleon learned to his chagrin when he tried to cut off Continental trade with the British). The ancient Romans knew little about China and certainly had no Chinese trade deals, but the Romans had Chinese trade nevertheless, because the Romans had ports.

    Anyway, if you wondered whether I were an expert or a mere dilettante patzer, then the last paragraph or two should have cleared that up for you. Meanwhile, your entire remark (among other remarks of yours on Byzantine history and such) has been read by me with interest.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    It did. Thanks.

    >Meanwhile, your entire remark (among other remarks of yours on Byzantine history and such) has been read by me with interest.

    One thing about Byzantine history you learn is that you should always fight hard and not quit, even if you don’t win, for two reasons: you can inspire future people who have better luck or circumstances than you, leading to a good propagation effect, and you can still have a good impact in ways you can’t see at the time.

    Heraclius undertook one of the most astonishing military campaigns in the classical world: and if you date the end of the classical world to the rise of Islam, the final one. This was an empire decimated by plague, financial problems, defeats… everything. He managed against the odds to pull it off, only to be knocked down five years later because the same year he set out with the last Roman army in the world-622 AD-was the year that Muhammad fled for Medina. I.e: historical fate. You could look at that story as a tragedy. Or you could admire it, realize you might not run into such a historical freak accident, and realize that effort led to the survival of the Roman state as a buffer for Europe when it was at its lowest point.

  108. @DanHessinMD
    @oliver elkington

    "Am very surprised at the high support among Republicans for Israel"

    I think for a big subset of Republicans it is very simple.

    Most Republicans are Christian. Christians really don't want to see their holy land in Muslim hands. Under Israel, the Christian holy lands are protected. Under Islamic control, the Christian holy lands would probably not be protected and might well be destroyed. Protecting the Christian holy lands is kind of a big deal: it is why all those Crusades happened. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and basically all of Jesus' life and the Last Supper and Jesus' crucifixion were centered around Jerusalem. And you also have the Jordan River where Jesus was baptized and the Sea of Galilee where he did miracles gathered disciples from among the fishermen.

    So the idea that Republicans are a bunch of chumps for supporting Israel isn't right. They get something really big in return. Guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not cucks for supporting Israel -- they are protecting their own holy land, the Christian one.

    And honestly this is perhaps the best possible arrangement for that. The Israeli Jews are probably much more tough and well suited for holding that territory than Christians. If Pope Francis held that land, how long before it would be lost? A week?

    But American politicians can't actually say this without sounding like theocrats. And so it goes unsaid and young right wingers often don't get it.

    Replies: @Lucia Chiara

    Ironically-“vulnerable” Christian and other holy sites in the Holy Land have been well protected since the 1700s (ergo long before the modern state of Israel) by the “Status Quo” agreement drawn up when the area was still under Ottoman moslem control.

    The fact that historically-ignorant US politicos imagine, say, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is safest in a zionist Jerusalem, absent copious US financial incentives for sites to remain unmolested? Ha!

  109. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Nachum


    After the Soviets took over Russia, a great rabbi made an appeal to Trotsky, Jew to Jew, that maybe he could use his influence to have the Communists let up on the persecution of Jews a bit. Trotsky responded that he was a revolutionary, not a Jew. The rabbi sighed in response, “The Trotskys make the revolutions and the Bronsteins [Trotsky’s birth name] pay the price.”
     
    Yes but from a gentile perspective this is precisely the problem. To a Jew, it is always the Jew that is the victim, almost regardless of circumstance, even when the victimizer is Jewish, as well. It's almost as if gentiles didn't count.

    To a Jew, the Jew's perspective on “paying the price” is valid, just as to a rancher, the rancher's perspective on slaughtering cattle is valid; but then the Jew wonders why the gentile for some inscrutable reason dislikes him and, eventually, unfortunately, acts on that dislike.

    The thing is, I don't think that some Jews can help it. Paranoia and xenophobia, along with a disregard for the gentile's humanity and a disposition to project the Jew's own misdeeds onto a gentile scapegoat, seem evolutionarily to be baked into the Jewish psyche.

    To be clear (for I must take care not to stoke Jewish paranoia), I propose no extreme measures. I do not desire extreme measures. I oppose extreme measures. However, a warier, more realistic social assessment of persistent, age-old Jew-against-gentile conflict would be welcome.

    Replies: @Nachum

    You took quite a leap there from paragraph one to paragraph two. It’s entirely natural for a Jewish leader to be concerned that his people (and religion) are being persecuted. It’s entirely natural for a Jew to be concerned for Jews. I see no reason why the fact that a Jew is doing the persecution makes any difference; the rabbi was in no way defending Trotsky’s persecution of non-Jews, and- here’s the important point- he in no way was saying that persecution of non-Jews was okay. (The same rabbi, for example, called for prayers when entirely non-Jewish populations faced disasters.) That *you* drew that conclusion from what I wrote is quite unfounded, and very, very telling.

    Actually, it doesn’t have to be telling, even: You wear your feelings on your sleeve, and the fact that you have no evidence for them doesn’t matter.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Nachum

    To debate such questions with Jews like you serves little point. Appeals like yours to the putative social undesirability of unblinkered observers (like me) of Jewish behavior have indeed been effective, yet every time a Jew like you resorts to the appeal, the appeal falters a bit more.

    So, nice try, but it won't work with me. Eventually, it won't work with anyone else, either, for that is the trouble with so many of you Jews. You're always manipulating something or somebody. Eventually, gentiles tire of it.

    Replies: @Nachum, @dfordoom

  110. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >I agree.

    It cannot be emphasized enough. Both parties are eager to divert focus onto foreign countries over the malfeasance of American elites. The only way to start fixing ones problems is to accept some degree of control over them. If it works for an individual, why not a country?

    I've been a hard critic of the PRC's influence in American politics and industry, but it'd be the height of hypocrisy to blame the Chinese for doing what it is in their own national interests. Were I Chinese, I wouldn't act differently. Nobody in Beijing forced us to keep trade policies grossly against our interests. It's the American elites that profited from hollowing out their own nation that both deserve the anger, and practically speaking, Americans can do something about.

    >But they can’t demand that it stops through the ballot box. That won’t work. Whether you have a Republican or a Democrat Administration you’re still going to have an administration committed to meddling in other nations’ affairs. And Americans can’t vote for a third party because the incredibly rigid two-party system makes it futile.

    I think the Trump experience shows the problem of populist tidal waves at the ballot box: if you don't have effective administrators and bureaucrats, you'll have to rely on existing ones hostile to you. That's why the Right should really focus more on local politics, because these things take time: especially if you think the federal government is going to become more impotent as America declines. America's money games are not going to last forever. Bad things happen to creaky regimes who rely off inertia and past credit when they run into fiscal problems that they can't BS away.

    Re, Vietnam: it wasn't solely public pressure, especially since any Americans came to hate the anti-war protesters more than the war itself. As early as 1966, Nixon's foreign policy articles clearly show a desire-however gingerly-to put South Vietnam into its appropriate geopolitical context. This was a story he'd seen before in a different format as Eisenhower's VP when he concluded the Korean War, and led to general conclusions about foreign policy aimed to prevent future armed interventions like Vietnam. I suspect a Democratic administration would have came to a similar conclusion. That didn't happen in the 21st Century: there was a sort of lumbering inertia even though people realized that old policies were failing.

    There's a very striking difference between those elites and our post-Cold War ones. However flawed the former were, they did identify with the American nation and saw national interests as theirs. The latter: entirely divorced. Why should they care?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    There’s a very striking difference between those elites and our post-Cold War ones. However flawed the former were, they did identify with the American nation and saw national interests as theirs. The latter: entirely divorced. Why should they care?

    I don’t think that business elites have ever changed. The business elites of the 19th century were as vicious, stupid, cowardly, greedy and short-sighted as those of today.

    But you may have a point about political elites. In the past there were at least some politicians motivated by genuine idealism and a genuine concern for the nation.

    You also have to take into account different ways of thinking about the “national interest”. For many modern American elites the “national interest” means the maintenance and expansion of a global American Empire. The ultimate aim is for the whole world to be run from Washington. For many modern American elites the “national interest” means the interests of the empire.

    They really do think that the “national interest” requires the complete subjugation of Russia and China and Europe to the American Empire. They think it requires Russia and China to become provinces of the American Empire, provinces ruled from Washington.

    So while the corrupt opportunists are a problem the idealists are a bigger problem. They’re the ones who are likely to drag the world into nuclear war.

    The problem is not that the modern political elites are more corrupt (although they are more corrupt), the problem is that they’re much much crazier.

    Nixon was essentially a pragmatist. He was also sane. Pragmatism and sanity have disappeared from modern politics.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  111. @Nachum
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You took quite a leap there from paragraph one to paragraph two. It's entirely natural for a Jewish leader to be concerned that his people (and religion) are being persecuted. It's entirely natural for a Jew to be concerned for Jews. I see no reason why the fact that a Jew is doing the persecution makes any difference; the rabbi was in no way defending Trotsky's persecution of non-Jews, and- here's the important point- he in no way was saying that persecution of non-Jews was okay. (The same rabbi, for example, called for prayers when entirely non-Jewish populations faced disasters.) That *you* drew that conclusion from what I wrote is quite unfounded, and very, very telling.

    Actually, it doesn't have to be telling, even: You wear your feelings on your sleeve, and the fact that you have no evidence for them doesn't matter.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    To debate such questions with Jews like you serves little point. Appeals like yours to the putative social undesirability of unblinkered observers (like me) of Jewish behavior have indeed been effective, yet every time a Jew like you resorts to the appeal, the appeal falters a bit more.

    So, nice try, but it won’t work with me. Eventually, it won’t work with anyone else, either, for that is the trouble with so many of you Jews. You’re always manipulating something or somebody. Eventually, gentiles tire of it.

    • Replies: @Nachum
    @V. K. Ovelund

    And then...?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    So, nice try, but it won’t work with me. Eventually, it won’t work with anyone else, either, for that is the trouble with so many of you Jews. You’re always manipulating something or somebody. Eventually, gentiles tire of it.
     
    The problem for anti-semites is that 99% of white gentiles do not perceive that there is any Jewish Problem. 99% of white gentiles would be absolutely mystified if you started talking to them about a Jewish Problem.

    Antisemitism is a peculiar obsession of a tiny sliver of the white population, a tiny sliver that is concentrated almost entirely on the far right.

    I agree with you on many many issues but the far right would get a lot further if it simply argued the issues. Introducing antisemitic arguments immediately causes 99% of white people to stop listening to your arguments, even when your arguments (when shorn of the antisemitic elements) happen to be entirely valid and correct.

    Anti-Zionism is a different matter. You do have a chance of persuading people to listen to anti-Zionist arguments if you don't present them in an antisemitic way. Even many Jews are open to anti-Zionist arguments.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  112. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Nachum

    To debate such questions with Jews like you serves little point. Appeals like yours to the putative social undesirability of unblinkered observers (like me) of Jewish behavior have indeed been effective, yet every time a Jew like you resorts to the appeal, the appeal falters a bit more.

    So, nice try, but it won't work with me. Eventually, it won't work with anyone else, either, for that is the trouble with so many of you Jews. You're always manipulating something or somebody. Eventually, gentiles tire of it.

    Replies: @Nachum, @dfordoom

    And then…?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Nachum


    And then…?
     
    And then my people can get on with a national life that no longer revolves around the absurd requirements of Jews. As for the rest of your question, one gathers that you reside in Israel. Therefore, as long as the answer does not involve me and mine, you may please answer the question for yourself.

    All I wish is for the answer not to be my concern. As long as the answer is made to be my concern, my answer will be anti-Semitic, every time.

    Replies: @A123

  113. @Nachum
    @V. K. Ovelund

    And then...?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    And then…?

    And then my people can get on with a national life that no longer revolves around the absurd requirements of Jews. As for the rest of your question, one gathers that you reside in Israel. Therefore, as long as the answer does not involve me and mine, you may please answer the question for yourself.

    All I wish is for the answer not to be my concern. As long as the answer is made to be my concern, my answer will be anti-Semitic, every time.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism. If anti-Semitism wins, people like Ilhan Omar & George IslamoSoros will be victorious. Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

  114. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Nachum


    And then…?
     
    And then my people can get on with a national life that no longer revolves around the absurd requirements of Jews. As for the rest of your question, one gathers that you reside in Israel. Therefore, as long as the answer does not involve me and mine, you may please answer the question for yourself.

    All I wish is for the answer not to be my concern. As long as the answer is made to be my concern, my answer will be anti-Semitic, every time.

    Replies: @A123

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism. If anti-Semitism wins, people like Ilhan Omar & George IslamoSoros will be victorious. Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @anon
    @A123

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians

    Define the term "Judeo-Christians". Thanks. This is the third time you've been asked, by the way. Or
    maybe the fourth.

    Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    Real Christians know that is false.

    In the real world, the Constitution has a rare win.


    A Georgia law created to discourage the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement has been ruled as “unconstitutional,” in a move that activists are celebrating as a “major victory.”
     
    https://www.rt.com/usa/524702-abby-martin-bds-lawsuit-georgia/

    Replies: @A123

    , @dfordoom
    @A123


    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism.
     
    In the real world there's no such thing as a Judeo-Christian.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism.
     
    I actually have some sympathy to this point. Moreover, as you have demonstrated (or at least have anecdotally suggested with a degree of persuasion), even your SJW point may have some merit, to my surprise.

    However, my task is to bully and goad the antisocial Judeo- in the Judeo-Christian to hold up his end of the bargain, instead of the Judeo's viewing the bargain as yet another chance to take advantage of the hapless Christian.

    For the first 50 years of my life, I stood on the Jews' side, but they finally wore me out—and I am not the only one. They should have been satisfied with sucking the United States into a war against the Third Reich. They should not subsequently have maneuvered to jail and ruin David Irving and Germar Rudolf, persons I would otherwise have ignored. Meanwhile, you don't see me goading Ron Unz or Jay Fink. Why would I?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  115. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism. If anti-Semitism wins, people like Ilhan Omar & George IslamoSoros will be victorious. Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians

    Define the term “Judeo-Christians”. Thanks. This is the third time you’ve been asked, by the way. Or
    maybe the fourth.

    Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    Real Christians know that is false.

    In the real world, the Constitution has a rare win.

    A Georgia law created to discourage the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement has been ruled as “unconstitutional,” in a move that activists are celebrating as a “major victory.”

    https://www.rt.com/usa/524702-abby-martin-bds-lawsuit-georgia/

    • Replies: @A123
    @anon

    You would be much more likely to obtain a response if you pick a handle for your comments and stick with it.

    The rapidly failing courts are establishing a right to "Lie for Allah" that does not exist in the Constitution. It is yet another defeat for God and a win for Satan/Allah/Lucifer.

    The definition is simple. Judeo-Christians are those who stand against Satan/Allah/Lucifer. Trying to break the coalition that stands against Evil is service to Allah.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon

  116. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism. If anti-Semitism wins, people like Ilhan Omar & George IslamoSoros will be victorious. Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism.

    In the real world there’s no such thing as a Judeo-Christian.

  117. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Nachum

    To debate such questions with Jews like you serves little point. Appeals like yours to the putative social undesirability of unblinkered observers (like me) of Jewish behavior have indeed been effective, yet every time a Jew like you resorts to the appeal, the appeal falters a bit more.

    So, nice try, but it won't work with me. Eventually, it won't work with anyone else, either, for that is the trouble with so many of you Jews. You're always manipulating something or somebody. Eventually, gentiles tire of it.

    Replies: @Nachum, @dfordoom

    So, nice try, but it won’t work with me. Eventually, it won’t work with anyone else, either, for that is the trouble with so many of you Jews. You’re always manipulating something or somebody. Eventually, gentiles tire of it.

    The problem for anti-semites is that 99% of white gentiles do not perceive that there is any Jewish Problem. 99% of white gentiles would be absolutely mystified if you started talking to them about a Jewish Problem.

    Antisemitism is a peculiar obsession of a tiny sliver of the white population, a tiny sliver that is concentrated almost entirely on the far right.

    I agree with you on many many issues but the far right would get a lot further if it simply argued the issues. Introducing antisemitic arguments immediately causes 99% of white people to stop listening to your arguments, even when your arguments (when shorn of the antisemitic elements) happen to be entirely valid and correct.

    Anti-Zionism is a different matter. You do have a chance of persuading people to listen to anti-Zionist arguments if you don’t present them in an antisemitic way. Even many Jews are open to anti-Zionist arguments.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Introducing antisemitic arguments immediately causes 99% of white people to stop listening to your arguments, even when your arguments (when shorn of the antisemitic elements) happen to be entirely valid and correct.
     
    In the United States, the 99% is a gross exaggeration; but whatever the figure might be, my goal is to reduce it. If that weren't working, then I wouldn't be doing it; but it is indeed working, because once attention is drawn to that Jews run all the broadcast networks, seven of the eight colleges of the Ivy League, the law firm that pressed an unfair personal-injury claim against them, and so on, people can't stop thinking about it.

    Besides, persons who know me (including you, at least with respect to my online persona) know that I am a mild, reasonable, decent, fair person. That is why my dean (who did not know me and, incredibly, never once met me face to face) had to resort to subterfuge to purge me; for once she had set the bureaucratic wheels in motion to grind me up and spit me out, one tenured professor after another after another—Democrats, every one of them—complained to her and asked her to stop, despite the Revolution and the massive general resistance against MAGA and Trump.

    Look around you in this blog. Do you see many who have stopped listening to my arguments? I can name four or five who have stopped; but one or two even of those seem to have started again. Many more disagree, but have hardly stopped listening.

    The reason is that relationships are superior to optics. The truth (or one's perception thereof) is superior to lies. I shall name the Jew because I believe that it is the right thing to do, and I believe it to be important.

    If you want optics, then shave, brush the teeth, comb the hair, iron the shirt and polish the shoes; but don't trim the truth (or one's perception thereof) so far that the principal point is obscured.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  118. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    So, nice try, but it won’t work with me. Eventually, it won’t work with anyone else, either, for that is the trouble with so many of you Jews. You’re always manipulating something or somebody. Eventually, gentiles tire of it.
     
    The problem for anti-semites is that 99% of white gentiles do not perceive that there is any Jewish Problem. 99% of white gentiles would be absolutely mystified if you started talking to them about a Jewish Problem.

    Antisemitism is a peculiar obsession of a tiny sliver of the white population, a tiny sliver that is concentrated almost entirely on the far right.

    I agree with you on many many issues but the far right would get a lot further if it simply argued the issues. Introducing antisemitic arguments immediately causes 99% of white people to stop listening to your arguments, even when your arguments (when shorn of the antisemitic elements) happen to be entirely valid and correct.

    Anti-Zionism is a different matter. You do have a chance of persuading people to listen to anti-Zionist arguments if you don't present them in an antisemitic way. Even many Jews are open to anti-Zionist arguments.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Introducing antisemitic arguments immediately causes 99% of white people to stop listening to your arguments, even when your arguments (when shorn of the antisemitic elements) happen to be entirely valid and correct.

    In the United States, the 99% is a gross exaggeration; but whatever the figure might be, my goal is to reduce it. If that weren’t working, then I wouldn’t be doing it; but it is indeed working, because once attention is drawn to that Jews run all the broadcast networks, seven of the eight colleges of the Ivy League, the law firm that pressed an unfair personal-injury claim against them, and so on, people can’t stop thinking about it.

    [MORE]

    Besides, persons who know me (including you, at least with respect to my online persona) know that I am a mild, reasonable, decent, fair person. That is why my dean (who did not know me and, incredibly, never once met me face to face) had to resort to subterfuge to purge me; for once she had set the bureaucratic wheels in motion to grind me up and spit me out, one tenured professor after another after another—Democrats, every one of them—complained to her and asked her to stop, despite the Revolution and the massive general resistance against MAGA and Trump.

    Look around you in this blog. Do you see many who have stopped listening to my arguments? I can name four or five who have stopped; but one or two even of those seem to have started again. Many more disagree, but have hardly stopped listening.

    The reason is that relationships are superior to optics. The truth (or one’s perception thereof) is superior to lies. I shall name the Jew because I believe that it is the right thing to do, and I believe it to be important.

    If you want optics, then shave, brush the teeth, comb the hair, iron the shirt and polish the shoes; but don’t trim the truth (or one’s perception thereof) so far that the principal point is obscured.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    but don’t trim the truth (or one’s perception thereof) so far that the principal point is obscured.
     
    But are you so sure of the truth? Look at the various insanities that are destroying society. A lot of them seem to have little to do with Jewish conspiracies.

    Take the climate change madness. This seems to be driven by a combination of factors. One factor is corrupt scientists using climate change as a means of getting more funding. But mostly it's a mass hysteria event of the kind that has been so common in the past couple of centuries. The climate change madness is also driven by opportunistic and foolish politicians. I don't see a huge Jewish conspiracy here.

    Take immigration. There are all kinds of lobby groups pushing for immigration. I've mentioned the corporate sector and the farming lobby elsewhere. Jews have certainly been active in pushing immigration but they have not been the only ones. But a major driving force behind immigration has been Christian churches. Christian churches of all denominations have been enthusiastic supporters of open borders. Why do you refuse to Name the Christian?

    Take feminism. American feminism started as a Puritan Christian movement and the most destructive strain of American feminism has always been the Puritan-influenced strain. Why do you refuse to Name the Puritan?

    Take the LGBTwhatever stuff. Sure there are Jews involved but there are a hell of a lot of non-Jews involved. The LGBTwhatever crowd has to a disturbing extent been aided and abetted by Christians who are desperately virtue-signalling and desperately trying to appear caring and sharing.

    Take foreign policy. You can blame Jews for some of the craziness of US foreign policy in the Middle East. You can blame Jews to some extent for the hysterical Russophobia, but Russophobia isn't entirely confined to Jews. And what does the craziness of US foreign policy towards China have to do with the Jews? A fair amount of the foreign policy craziness emanates from the military-industrial complex and corrupt politicians. And a fair amount of the foreign policy craziness coimes from Evangelical Christians.

    So when you look at the major society-destroying problems, most of them don't seem to be entirely or even primarily the work of Jews. Christians have done just as much harm, if not more.

    The problem with antisemitism is that once you decide that everything is the fault of the Jews it distorts your thinking and it leads you to ignore other groups that have done just as much if not more harm.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  119. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism. If anti-Semitism wins, people like Ilhan Omar & George IslamoSoros will be victorious. Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism.

    I actually have some sympathy to this point. Moreover, as you have demonstrated (or at least have anecdotally suggested with a degree of persuasion), even your SJW point may have some merit, to my surprise.

    However, my task is to bully and goad the antisocial Judeo- in the Judeo-Christian to hold up his end of the bargain, instead of the Judeo’s viewing the bargain as yet another chance to take advantage of the hapless Christian.

    For the first 50 years of my life, I stood on the Jews’ side, but they finally wore me out—and I am not the only one. They should have been satisfied with sucking the United States into a war against the Third Reich. They should not subsequently have maneuvered to jail and ruin David Irving and Germar Rudolf, persons I would otherwise have ignored. Meanwhile, you don’t see me goading Ron Unz or Jay Fink. Why would I?

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

    @A123

    There are Muslims on this blog I value and with whom I get along, so I should tactfully (and candidly) add: I became as anti-Muslim as any other American on 9/11, but subsequently spent some time in Dearborn, Mich., got to know several Muslims there and elsewhere, and discovered to my astonishment that I rather like the white Muslims I know. Iranians gentiles (whom I know from places other than Dearborn) are especially great. (I do not personally know any Iranian Jews but I know persons who do. The Iranian Jews sound fairly unpleasant to me.)

    Black Muslims, as in Somali not Farrakhan, are awful, but that is a tale for another day.

    On the other hand, it is not only the white Muslims I know that I like. Perplexingly, I rather like the Jews I know, too, so you can make of all that what you will.

    Replies: @A123

  120. @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    In the real world, Judeo-Christians are standing together against the much greater threat of SJW Islamic Globalism.
     
    I actually have some sympathy to this point. Moreover, as you have demonstrated (or at least have anecdotally suggested with a degree of persuasion), even your SJW point may have some merit, to my surprise.

    However, my task is to bully and goad the antisocial Judeo- in the Judeo-Christian to hold up his end of the bargain, instead of the Judeo's viewing the bargain as yet another chance to take advantage of the hapless Christian.

    For the first 50 years of my life, I stood on the Jews' side, but they finally wore me out—and I am not the only one. They should have been satisfied with sucking the United States into a war against the Third Reich. They should not subsequently have maneuvered to jail and ruin David Irving and Germar Rudolf, persons I would otherwise have ignored. Meanwhile, you don't see me goading Ron Unz or Jay Fink. Why would I?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    There are Muslims on this blog I value and with whom I get along, so I should tactfully (and candidly) add: I became as anti-Muslim as any other American on 9/11, but subsequently spent some time in Dearborn, Mich., got to know several Muslims there and elsewhere, and discovered to my astonishment that I rather like the white Muslims I know. Iranians gentiles (whom I know from places other than Dearborn) are especially great. (I do not personally know any Iranian Jews but I know persons who do. The Iranian Jews sound fairly unpleasant to me.)

    Black Muslims, as in Somali not Farrakhan, are awful, but that is a tale for another day.

    On the other hand, it is not only the white Muslims I know that I like. Perplexingly, I rather like the Jews I know, too, so you can make of all that what you will.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Would you agree that there is a scientific difference between:
    • Individual anecdotes
    • Broad based evidence

    If so, which has more value in decision making?

    When you look at any Christian country with a significant Muslim minority you find statistical proof of non-assimilation.

    • In France, there are over 120 "no-go" zones unsafe for Christian entry.
    • In Sweden, 80% of the attempted sex crimes are committed by Muslim rape-ugees.
    • In the U.S., Muslims are 1% of the general population and 20% of the prison population.

    Is there any Christian country where assimilation has been successful?
    _____

    I am not trying to "goad" you. Just the opposite. You have potential and I am trying to enlighten you.

    You have legitimate grievances against a tiny number of Elites. You keep approaching the line where you can separate Elites from non-elites. Instead of making a break thru, you start lumping them together again.

    Blaming the innocent is very non-Christian behaviour. You seem to accept that there are multiple Jewish populations, many of them who oppose each other. Instead of smearing the entire population of "all Jews", you could be much more effective by stating the actual subgroup you have issues with.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  121. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @A123

    There are Muslims on this blog I value and with whom I get along, so I should tactfully (and candidly) add: I became as anti-Muslim as any other American on 9/11, but subsequently spent some time in Dearborn, Mich., got to know several Muslims there and elsewhere, and discovered to my astonishment that I rather like the white Muslims I know. Iranians gentiles (whom I know from places other than Dearborn) are especially great. (I do not personally know any Iranian Jews but I know persons who do. The Iranian Jews sound fairly unpleasant to me.)

    Black Muslims, as in Somali not Farrakhan, are awful, but that is a tale for another day.

    On the other hand, it is not only the white Muslims I know that I like. Perplexingly, I rather like the Jews I know, too, so you can make of all that what you will.

    Replies: @A123

    Would you agree that there is a scientific difference between:
    • Individual anecdotes
    • Broad based evidence

    If so, which has more value in decision making?

    When you look at any Christian country with a significant Muslim minority you find statistical proof of non-assimilation.

    • In France, there are over 120 “no-go” zones unsafe for Christian entry.
    • In Sweden, 80% of the attempted sex crimes are committed by Muslim rape-ugees.
    • In the U.S., Muslims are 1% of the general population and 20% of the prison population.

    Is there any Christian country where assimilation has been successful?
    _____

    I am not trying to “goad” you. Just the opposite. You have potential and I am trying to enlighten you.

    You have legitimate grievances against a tiny number of Elites. You keep approaching the line where you can separate Elites from non-elites. Instead of making a break thru, you start lumping them together again.

    Blaming the innocent is very non-Christian behaviour. You seem to accept that there are multiple Jewish populations, many of them who oppose each other. Instead of smearing the entire population of “all Jews”, you could be much more effective by stating the actual subgroup you have issues with.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123

    I have read all of your reply with interest, yet for the moment may I respond to just this bit?


    Would you agree that there is a scientific difference between:
    • Individual anecdotes
    • Broad based evidence
     
    Yes, I would, though perhaps not in the way you mean.

    Much of the broad based evidence available these days is mendacious or at best tendentious. That is, if the evidence is not outright dishonest, then it is myopic and has the proverbial axe to grind. Twinkie recently wrote a relevant comment about that.

    So, yes, I want to believe in the broad based evidence, but so much of that is propaganda now, I've got to go with the individual anecdotes, regrettably.

    You already knew all that, of course. It is not as though you needed me to inform you that liars were lying! I mention it because you have asked.

    Replies: @A123

    , @dfordoom
    @A123


    Is there any Christian country where assimilation has been successful?
     
    We haven't had any real problems in Australia. Minor problems, but nothing like the sort of mess that some countries have. But we've always been a secular society.

    We're lucky enough not to have too many Christians. Our liberal Christians are of course a menace but thankfully they're not very numerous. And we have only small numbers of the crazy fundamentalists.

    We were incredibly lucky that by the time Australia was settled Britain had already been able to rid itself of most of the Puritan menace, so we didn't get Puritan settlers.
  122. A123 says:
    @anon
    @A123

    In the real world, Judeo-Christians

    Define the term "Judeo-Christians". Thanks. This is the third time you've been asked, by the way. Or
    maybe the fourth.

    Your lack of concern will lead to the end of Christianity,

    Real Christians know that is false.

    In the real world, the Constitution has a rare win.


    A Georgia law created to discourage the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement has been ruled as “unconstitutional,” in a move that activists are celebrating as a “major victory.”
     
    https://www.rt.com/usa/524702-abby-martin-bds-lawsuit-georgia/

    Replies: @A123

    You would be much more likely to obtain a response if you pick a handle for your comments and stick with it.

    The rapidly failing courts are establishing a right to “Lie for Allah” that does not exist in the Constitution. It is yet another defeat for God and a win for Satan/Allah/Lucifer.

    The definition is simple. Judeo-Christians are those who stand against Satan/Allah/Lucifer. Trying to break the coalition that stands against Evil is service to Allah.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @anon
    @A123

    You would be much more likely to obtain a response if you pick a handle for your comments and stick with it.

    Which fallacy is this?

    The rapidly failing courts are establishing a right to “Lie for Allah” that does not exist in the Constitution.

    You are ignorant of the 1st Amendment. Perhaps you didn't learn about the US Constitution in your school, wherever that was? Maybe it wasn't relevant to your culture and actual religion?

    The definition is simple. Judeo-Christians are those who stand against Satan/Allah/Lucifer.

    By that "definition", Soviet atheists were "Judeo-Christian", an absurd self-contradiction. Do you have an actual definition, or just this feeble fakeness?

    Where does actual Christian faith and truth fit into your fake "Judeo-Christianity'? The Nicene Creed, for example, how is it a part?

    Trying to break the coalition that stands against Evil is service to Allah.

    Childish nonsense.

    Now, define your term.

    Replies: @A123

  123. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Would you agree that there is a scientific difference between:
    • Individual anecdotes
    • Broad based evidence

    If so, which has more value in decision making?

    When you look at any Christian country with a significant Muslim minority you find statistical proof of non-assimilation.

    • In France, there are over 120 "no-go" zones unsafe for Christian entry.
    • In Sweden, 80% of the attempted sex crimes are committed by Muslim rape-ugees.
    • In the U.S., Muslims are 1% of the general population and 20% of the prison population.

    Is there any Christian country where assimilation has been successful?
    _____

    I am not trying to "goad" you. Just the opposite. You have potential and I am trying to enlighten you.

    You have legitimate grievances against a tiny number of Elites. You keep approaching the line where you can separate Elites from non-elites. Instead of making a break thru, you start lumping them together again.

    Blaming the innocent is very non-Christian behaviour. You seem to accept that there are multiple Jewish populations, many of them who oppose each other. Instead of smearing the entire population of "all Jews", you could be much more effective by stating the actual subgroup you have issues with.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    I have read all of your reply with interest, yet for the moment may I respond to just this bit?

    Would you agree that there is a scientific difference between:
    • Individual anecdotes
    • Broad based evidence

    Yes, I would, though perhaps not in the way you mean.

    Much of the broad based evidence available these days is mendacious or at best tendentious. That is, if the evidence is not outright dishonest, then it is myopic and has the proverbial axe to grind. Twinkie recently wrote a relevant comment about that.

    So, yes, I want to believe in the broad based evidence, but so much of that is propaganda now, I’ve got to go with the individual anecdotes, regrettably.

    You already knew all that, of course. It is not as though you needed me to inform you that liars were lying! I mention it because you have asked.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The dethreading bug strikes again. #126 was intended for for you.

    Here is an anecdote that may help shape your opinion: (1)


    Young Swedish woman kicked unconscious after ‘looking at’ immigrant men

    On Friday 21 May, while walking her dog, Amanda, 27, from Umeå, in Sweden, was beaten by a group of "young men". She justified wanting to speak out about the incident, suggesting that in these cases, victims should rather remain silent.
     
    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://freewestmedia.com/2021/05/25/young-swedish-woman-kicked-unconscious-after-looking-at-immigrant-men/
  124. A123 says:

    Much of the broad based evidence available these days is mendacious or at best tendentious. … You already knew all that, of course. It is not as though you needed me to inform you that liars were lying! I mention it because you have asked.

    I concur. Broad sources should not be trusted based on size. You have to look deeper to see if what they report makes sense.

    While you further consider my post, please keep in mind that the mendacious liars (government & media) intentionally cover up Muslim crimes against Christians in places like France & Sweden. The limited amount of evidence that I am able to produce is the TRUTH that escaped the censors.
    _____

    I do not remember if I have mentioned this site to you before:

    https://gatesofvienna.net/2021/05/gates-of-vienna-news-feed-5-24-2021/

    They do a decent job collecting the facts about crimes against Christians. Stories that are ignored by the large U.S. media outlets.

    PEACE 😇

  125. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123
    @anon

    You would be much more likely to obtain a response if you pick a handle for your comments and stick with it.

    The rapidly failing courts are establishing a right to "Lie for Allah" that does not exist in the Constitution. It is yet another defeat for God and a win for Satan/Allah/Lucifer.

    The definition is simple. Judeo-Christians are those who stand against Satan/Allah/Lucifer. Trying to break the coalition that stands against Evil is service to Allah.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon

    You would be much more likely to obtain a response if you pick a handle for your comments and stick with it.

    Which fallacy is this?

    The rapidly failing courts are establishing a right to “Lie for Allah” that does not exist in the Constitution.

    You are ignorant of the 1st Amendment. Perhaps you didn’t learn about the US Constitution in your school, wherever that was? Maybe it wasn’t relevant to your culture and actual religion?

    The definition is simple. Judeo-Christians are those who stand against Satan/Allah/Lucifer.

    By that “definition”, Soviet atheists were “Judeo-Christian”, an absurd self-contradiction. Do you have an actual definition, or just this feeble fakeness?

    Where does actual Christian faith and truth fit into your fake “Judeo-Christianity’? The Nicene Creed, for example, how is it a part?

    Trying to break the coalition that stands against Evil is service to Allah.

    Childish nonsense.

    Now, define your term.

    • Replies: @A123
    @anon

    Your puerile gibbering is why I ignore "anon" posters.

    As you have nothing to offer I bid you adieu.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon

  126. @anon
    @A123

    You would be much more likely to obtain a response if you pick a handle for your comments and stick with it.

    Which fallacy is this?

    The rapidly failing courts are establishing a right to “Lie for Allah” that does not exist in the Constitution.

    You are ignorant of the 1st Amendment. Perhaps you didn't learn about the US Constitution in your school, wherever that was? Maybe it wasn't relevant to your culture and actual religion?

    The definition is simple. Judeo-Christians are those who stand against Satan/Allah/Lucifer.

    By that "definition", Soviet atheists were "Judeo-Christian", an absurd self-contradiction. Do you have an actual definition, or just this feeble fakeness?

    Where does actual Christian faith and truth fit into your fake "Judeo-Christianity'? The Nicene Creed, for example, how is it a part?

    Trying to break the coalition that stands against Evil is service to Allah.

    Childish nonsense.

    Now, define your term.

    Replies: @A123

    Your puerile gibbering is why I ignore “anon” posters.

    As you have nothing to offer I bid you adieu.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @anon
    @A123

    Running away in fear is probably your best option.

    Thanks for demonstrating that "Judeo-Christian" is a fake, made up term with zero semantic content, that is used solely for propaganda purposes.

  127. @A123
    @anon

    Your puerile gibbering is why I ignore "anon" posters.

    As you have nothing to offer I bid you adieu.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon

    Running away in fear is probably your best option.

    Thanks for demonstrating that “Judeo-Christian” is a fake, made up term with zero semantic content, that is used solely for propaganda purposes.

  128. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123

    I have read all of your reply with interest, yet for the moment may I respond to just this bit?


    Would you agree that there is a scientific difference between:
    • Individual anecdotes
    • Broad based evidence
     
    Yes, I would, though perhaps not in the way you mean.

    Much of the broad based evidence available these days is mendacious or at best tendentious. That is, if the evidence is not outright dishonest, then it is myopic and has the proverbial axe to grind. Twinkie recently wrote a relevant comment about that.

    So, yes, I want to believe in the broad based evidence, but so much of that is propaganda now, I've got to go with the individual anecdotes, regrettably.

    You already knew all that, of course. It is not as though you needed me to inform you that liars were lying! I mention it because you have asked.

    Replies: @A123

    The dethreading bug strikes again. #126 was intended for for you.

    Here is an anecdote that may help shape your opinion: (1)

    Young Swedish woman kicked unconscious after ‘looking at’ immigrant men

    On Friday 21 May, while walking her dog, Amanda, 27, from Umeå, in Sweden, was beaten by a group of “young men”. She justified wanting to speak out about the incident, suggesting that in these cases, victims should rather remain silent.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://freewestmedia.com/2021/05/25/young-swedish-woman-kicked-unconscious-after-looking-at-immigrant-men/

  129. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Introducing antisemitic arguments immediately causes 99% of white people to stop listening to your arguments, even when your arguments (when shorn of the antisemitic elements) happen to be entirely valid and correct.
     
    In the United States, the 99% is a gross exaggeration; but whatever the figure might be, my goal is to reduce it. If that weren't working, then I wouldn't be doing it; but it is indeed working, because once attention is drawn to that Jews run all the broadcast networks, seven of the eight colleges of the Ivy League, the law firm that pressed an unfair personal-injury claim against them, and so on, people can't stop thinking about it.

    Besides, persons who know me (including you, at least with respect to my online persona) know that I am a mild, reasonable, decent, fair person. That is why my dean (who did not know me and, incredibly, never once met me face to face) had to resort to subterfuge to purge me; for once she had set the bureaucratic wheels in motion to grind me up and spit me out, one tenured professor after another after another—Democrats, every one of them—complained to her and asked her to stop, despite the Revolution and the massive general resistance against MAGA and Trump.

    Look around you in this blog. Do you see many who have stopped listening to my arguments? I can name four or five who have stopped; but one or two even of those seem to have started again. Many more disagree, but have hardly stopped listening.

    The reason is that relationships are superior to optics. The truth (or one's perception thereof) is superior to lies. I shall name the Jew because I believe that it is the right thing to do, and I believe it to be important.

    If you want optics, then shave, brush the teeth, comb the hair, iron the shirt and polish the shoes; but don't trim the truth (or one's perception thereof) so far that the principal point is obscured.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    but don’t trim the truth (or one’s perception thereof) so far that the principal point is obscured.

    But are you so sure of the truth? Look at the various insanities that are destroying society. A lot of them seem to have little to do with Jewish conspiracies.

    Take the climate change madness. This seems to be driven by a combination of factors. One factor is corrupt scientists using climate change as a means of getting more funding. But mostly it’s a mass hysteria event of the kind that has been so common in the past couple of centuries. The climate change madness is also driven by opportunistic and foolish politicians. I don’t see a huge Jewish conspiracy here.

    Take immigration. There are all kinds of lobby groups pushing for immigration. I’ve mentioned the corporate sector and the farming lobby elsewhere. Jews have certainly been active in pushing immigration but they have not been the only ones. But a major driving force behind immigration has been Christian churches. Christian churches of all denominations have been enthusiastic supporters of open borders. Why do you refuse to Name the Christian?

    Take feminism. American feminism started as a Puritan Christian movement and the most destructive strain of American feminism has always been the Puritan-influenced strain. Why do you refuse to Name the Puritan?

    Take the LGBTwhatever stuff. Sure there are Jews involved but there are a hell of a lot of non-Jews involved. The LGBTwhatever crowd has to a disturbing extent been aided and abetted by Christians who are desperately virtue-signalling and desperately trying to appear caring and sharing.

    Take foreign policy. You can blame Jews for some of the craziness of US foreign policy in the Middle East. You can blame Jews to some extent for the hysterical Russophobia, but Russophobia isn’t entirely confined to Jews. And what does the craziness of US foreign policy towards China have to do with the Jews? A fair amount of the foreign policy craziness emanates from the military-industrial complex and corrupt politicians. And a fair amount of the foreign policy craziness coimes from Evangelical Christians.

    So when you look at the major society-destroying problems, most of them don’t seem to be entirely or even primarily the work of Jews. Christians have done just as much harm, if not more.

    The problem with antisemitism is that once you decide that everything is the fault of the Jews it distorts your thinking and it leads you to ignore other groups that have done just as much if not more harm.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    .... once you decide that everything is the fault of the Jews ...
     
    I have not decided that. I hardly know anyone that has.

    Why do you refuse to Name the Christian?
     
    Because I am one, so to Name the Christian is not my job. Many are already Naming the Christian. They do not need my help, and it's too easy, anyway. No risk.

    One takes little flak for Naming the Christian. It is Naming the Jew that draws the flak. As one commenter here has recently observed, the flak tells the pilot he is probably over the target.

    As far as the rest of your remarks go, one could quibble but the remarks are accurate enough that quibbling seems unnecessary. However, one would prefer that an interlocutor acknowledge his opponent's principal points. A123 acknowledges them, after all, as in at least one instance does @iffen, both of whom disagree with me.

    It would hardly have occurred to me to doubt the gas chamber at Auschwitz, nor to pay the slightest heed to chemist Germar Rudolf's professional questions regarding physical evidence of gassing, had authorities not imprisoned and ruined Rudolf on Jewry's behalf for asking the questions. Ever-mounting Jewish paranoia and Jews' desperate, heavy-handed measures to silence criticism have taught me that what they say about Joseph Goebbels' propaganda has little to do with whatever Goebbels might have done during the 1930s, and everything to do with what Jews like Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Bob Chapek and Jeff Zucker are doing to Americans like me and my family right now.

    The surest way to turn me into a critic is to harass, subvert, sanction and criminalize criticism. This is what Jews have achieved with me. Now I've got my teeth in, they don't like it, and until they relent, I'm not letting go.


    But are you so sure of the truth?
     
    No. Far from it. So much that is sourced from authority is disinformation now, how could anyone be sure?
  130. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Would you agree that there is a scientific difference between:
    • Individual anecdotes
    • Broad based evidence

    If so, which has more value in decision making?

    When you look at any Christian country with a significant Muslim minority you find statistical proof of non-assimilation.

    • In France, there are over 120 "no-go" zones unsafe for Christian entry.
    • In Sweden, 80% of the attempted sex crimes are committed by Muslim rape-ugees.
    • In the U.S., Muslims are 1% of the general population and 20% of the prison population.

    Is there any Christian country where assimilation has been successful?
    _____

    I am not trying to "goad" you. Just the opposite. You have potential and I am trying to enlighten you.

    You have legitimate grievances against a tiny number of Elites. You keep approaching the line where you can separate Elites from non-elites. Instead of making a break thru, you start lumping them together again.

    Blaming the innocent is very non-Christian behaviour. You seem to accept that there are multiple Jewish populations, many of them who oppose each other. Instead of smearing the entire population of "all Jews", you could be much more effective by stating the actual subgroup you have issues with.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    Is there any Christian country where assimilation has been successful?

    We haven’t had any real problems in Australia. Minor problems, but nothing like the sort of mess that some countries have. But we’ve always been a secular society.

    We’re lucky enough not to have too many Christians. Our liberal Christians are of course a menace but thankfully they’re not very numerous. And we have only small numbers of the crazy fundamentalists.

    We were incredibly lucky that by the time Australia was settled Britain had already been able to rid itself of most of the Puritan menace, so we didn’t get Puritan settlers.

  131. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    but don’t trim the truth (or one’s perception thereof) so far that the principal point is obscured.
     
    But are you so sure of the truth? Look at the various insanities that are destroying society. A lot of them seem to have little to do with Jewish conspiracies.

    Take the climate change madness. This seems to be driven by a combination of factors. One factor is corrupt scientists using climate change as a means of getting more funding. But mostly it's a mass hysteria event of the kind that has been so common in the past couple of centuries. The climate change madness is also driven by opportunistic and foolish politicians. I don't see a huge Jewish conspiracy here.

    Take immigration. There are all kinds of lobby groups pushing for immigration. I've mentioned the corporate sector and the farming lobby elsewhere. Jews have certainly been active in pushing immigration but they have not been the only ones. But a major driving force behind immigration has been Christian churches. Christian churches of all denominations have been enthusiastic supporters of open borders. Why do you refuse to Name the Christian?

    Take feminism. American feminism started as a Puritan Christian movement and the most destructive strain of American feminism has always been the Puritan-influenced strain. Why do you refuse to Name the Puritan?

    Take the LGBTwhatever stuff. Sure there are Jews involved but there are a hell of a lot of non-Jews involved. The LGBTwhatever crowd has to a disturbing extent been aided and abetted by Christians who are desperately virtue-signalling and desperately trying to appear caring and sharing.

    Take foreign policy. You can blame Jews for some of the craziness of US foreign policy in the Middle East. You can blame Jews to some extent for the hysterical Russophobia, but Russophobia isn't entirely confined to Jews. And what does the craziness of US foreign policy towards China have to do with the Jews? A fair amount of the foreign policy craziness emanates from the military-industrial complex and corrupt politicians. And a fair amount of the foreign policy craziness coimes from Evangelical Christians.

    So when you look at the major society-destroying problems, most of them don't seem to be entirely or even primarily the work of Jews. Christians have done just as much harm, if not more.

    The problem with antisemitism is that once you decide that everything is the fault of the Jews it distorts your thinking and it leads you to ignore other groups that have done just as much if not more harm.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    …. once you decide that everything is the fault of the Jews …

    I have not decided that. I hardly know anyone that has.

    Why do you refuse to Name the Christian?

    Because I am one, so to Name the Christian is not my job. Many are already Naming the Christian. They do not need my help, and it’s too easy, anyway. No risk.

    One takes little flak for Naming the Christian. It is Naming the Jew that draws the flak. As one commenter here has recently observed, the flak tells the pilot he is probably over the target.

    [MORE]

    As far as the rest of your remarks go, one could quibble but the remarks are accurate enough that quibbling seems unnecessary. However, one would prefer that an interlocutor acknowledge his opponent’s principal points. A123 acknowledges them, after all, as in at least one instance does , both of whom disagree with me.

    It would hardly have occurred to me to doubt the gas chamber at Auschwitz, nor to pay the slightest heed to chemist Germar Rudolf’s professional questions regarding physical evidence of gassing, had authorities not imprisoned and ruined Rudolf on Jewry’s behalf for asking the questions. Ever-mounting Jewish paranoia and Jews’ desperate, heavy-handed measures to silence criticism have taught me that what they say about Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda has little to do with whatever Goebbels might have done during the 1930s, and everything to do with what Jews like Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Bob Chapek and Jeff Zucker are doing to Americans like me and my family right now.

    The surest way to turn me into a critic is to harass, subvert, sanction and criminalize criticism. This is what Jews have achieved with me. Now I’ve got my teeth in, they don’t like it, and until they relent, I’m not letting go.

    But are you so sure of the truth?

    No. Far from it. So much that is sourced from authority is disinformation now, how could anyone be sure?

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