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
The Marriage Pot
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

A century ago, it was easy to tell Catholics and Protestants apart in America. Unless they are coming out of church, it’s difficult to do so now. One major reason for this is the high rate of intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants over the last few generations. Is a similar trend taking place among Jews and gentiles today (excluding the Orthodox, who constitute a bit under 10% of the American Jewish population)? The data suggest so:

To oversimplify, half of Jews under the age of 50 are half-Jewish. That’s an oversimplification because it assumes Jewishness is ethnic rather than religious. There are of course those with one ethnically Jewish parent who consider themselves to be Jewish and others who have one ethnically Jewish parent but do not consider themselves to be Jewish at all. The latter will have been largely excluded from the survey this data is drawn from.

That technical consideration aside, this is a sea change from sixty or seventy years ago. It helps explain why there is some convergence in test scores among younger Jews and gentiles compared to older cohorts and also why younger Jews tend to be less politically left-leaning than older Jews do.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Jews, Polling, Religion 
Hide 101 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are ‘on to’ Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    • Thanks: Truth
    • Replies: @Caspar von Everec
    @Thomm

    Thank you for your words of wisdom rabbi. You tell those goyim! Its not like us brothers have a monopoly on Academia, media and finance that we use to exclusively promote our own brethren. Its not as if Jews are 6% of high performing high school students but 25% of Ivy leagure students. No...that would be anti semitism.

    Even more antisemitic would be the notion that 8 out of 10 of the largest political donors in the US are Jewish who use their money to push trannies and negrolatry at home while pushing wars for Israel abroad.

    , @notanon
    @Thomm


    But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.
     
    the banking mafia have been creating billions of dollars out of thin air every year since 1913

    enough to buy up all the media and corrupt 95% of the politicians

    not complicated.

    Replies: @Realist

    , @Sick of Orcs
    @Thomm


    But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    A few minutes later...

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN into a demoralized, controlled opposition....
     

    So which Thomm is correct, the one who believes Jewish control is mythical because headcount, or the Thomm who believes omniscient Jews set up Unz to demoralize Whites?
    , @anon
    @Thomm

    •Troll

    , @Rebel Roy
    @Thomm

    Thom you are an imbecile.Noone I knows complains about Jews being smarter or more hardworking,we correctly complain about them using corrupt and evil methods to cheat us out of what is rightly ours.They aren't smarter than us nor more industrious,thats ALL Jew propaganda.A tiny minority uses control of our countrys money supply and media to divide and keep us docile.So you can tell your bench partner at the local IDF hasbara center that the UNZ crowd ain't buying what you are selling.

    , @Rebel Roy
    @Thomm

    Thomm you think Ron Unz is controlled opposition?Have you read anything he has written?You must be thinking of(((Rupert Murdoch's)))Foxnews!

    Replies: @Thomm

    , @Yan Yansen
    @Thomm

    The Jews aren't sharing with you Indians no matter how much you fellate them.

  2. It helps explain why there is some convergence in test scores among younger Jews and gentiles compared to older cohorts

    You are probably right… though another (not mutually exclusive) explanation could be that those on top tend to have children who are less driven and more entitled than the previous generations. Life is often genetics + environment.

    Whatever the case may be, though, does that ever stop those on top from trying to turn their status into a permanent, inherited one, a de facto caste? That, I believe, was one of Ron Unz’s main critiques of the American “meritocracy” – that Jewish-dominated universities were scraping the bottom of the Jewish intellectual pool (however Jews are defined) to fill the elite slots to the exclusion of academically worthier gentiles (mostly Peasant-Americans and Chopstick-Americans).

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Twinkie

    Peasant-Americans and Chopstick-Americans

    Thank you, Twinkie. I like it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  3. This is something of a strange finding considering the higher Orthodox birth rate. At some point the green bars should even out, seems like.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Chrisnonymous

    If Orthodox fertility is only 3.3, as in the previous poll AE indicated, this wouldn't be surprising -- that's around 2.5x the fertility of Reform/secular Jews but the latter groups vastly outnumber the Orthodox still and their increasing tendency to outmarry will easily outweigh any effect from more Orthodox youth.

    I'm starting to think though that all of these surveys are vastly under-sampling the Ultra-Orthodox and mostly only capturing Modern Orthodox. Those two groups should probably be broken into separate categories.

    If Ultra-Orthodox are now 2/3 of the Orthodox population and their TFR is 6, and Modern Orthodox TFR is around 3, then that would suggest a total Orthodox TFR of 5. Maybe that's closer to reality? If the Ultra-Orthodox are only achieving 5 and Moderns are at 3, that would put Orthodox TFR at 4.3, which is close to an overall Orthodox estimate of 4.1 that I saw elsewhere from several years back.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  4. This is going to have disastrous consequences for white Americans, or should I say, it already has. These mischlings even though not direcltry identifying as Jews, are heavily steeped in the general Jewish milleu. They are extremely lefist and tend to be quite anti white to boot.

    See Sam Harris or Bill Maher for example. Both half Jews who don’t identify as Jewish but wage a never ending jihad on white christian civilization. Both are also bona fide neocons endlessly lawyering for the zionist state while promoting mass migration and miscegenation in the US.

    It also makes it more difficult for people to spot the Jews. One of the reasons Jews were able to infiltrate european societies is because they looked somewhat white and were mistaken by naive northwest euros as part of their collective. But they still held some distinct features like the huge nose, curly hair, beady eyes and so on.

    Intermixing with whites, blurs this line even further and make infiltration all the more easier. Look at some Israeli super models like Bar Rafaeli or Esti Ginzburg. They look more Aryan than any Italian or Spaniard. You would never guess they were Jews if you weren’t told so.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/david-beckhams-son-transformers-star-to-have-big-jewish-wedding/

    Here’s david Beckham’s son. You wouldn’t guess they’re Jewish at first glance.

    These mischlings are able to play fellow whites with far greater effectiveness and further push young whites towards self destructive leftism. Yet these same people will have no hesitation pulling their Jewish heritage when its time to apply to the Ivies or look for a job in media, finance, academia or entertainment.

    Again, just look at Bill Maher.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Caspar von Everec

    A married man, I am resisting the temptation to summon photographs of your supermodels!


    Again, just look at Bill Maher.
     
    I don't know a lot about Bill Maher: only the occasional video clip seen online. His virtue-signaling studio audience is obviously ridiculous and absurd, but I assume that Maher likes it that way or he'd have a different audience in his studio. Maher himself seems comparatively reasonable to me.

    I had not known that he was only half-Jewish. Since half-Jewish on his mother's side, that makes him Jewish as far as I know.


    These mischlings are able to play fellow whites with far greater effectiveness and further push young whites towards self destructive leftism. Yet these same people will have no hesitation pulling their Jewish heritage when its time to apply to the Ivies or look for a job in media, finance, academia or entertainment.
     
    Does this actually work for unconverted half-Jews whose fathers are Jewish? I am not aware that it does.

    Moreover, I cannot think of a single example of a quarter-Jew who is in on the conspiracy, unless the quarter-Jew or one of his parents is properly Jewish by matrilineal descent or by conversion. Can you? As far as I can tell, Jews themselves turn shoulders against such unconverted quarter-Jews. I am unaware that Jewry recognize such unconverted quarter-Jews at all.

    However, there is plenty I do not know. This is why I ask.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @Corvinus
    @Caspar von Everec

    "This is going to have disastrous consequences for white Americans, or should I say, it already has. These mischlings even though not direcltry identifying as Jews, are heavily steeped in the general Jewish milleu. They are extremely lefist and tend to be quite anti white to boot."

    What exactly does "anti-white" mean to you? In other words, how do you define it? What metrics are involved?

  5. @Thomm
    This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are 'on to' Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @notanon, @Sick of Orcs, @anon, @Rebel Roy, @Rebel Roy, @Yan Yansen

    Thank you for your words of wisdom rabbi. You tell those goyim! Its not like us brothers have a monopoly on Academia, media and finance that we use to exclusively promote our own brethren. Its not as if Jews are 6% of high performing high school students but 25% of Ivy leagure students. No…that would be anti semitism.

    Even more antisemitic would be the notion that 8 out of 10 of the largest political donors in the US are Jewish who use their money to push trannies and negrolatry at home while pushing wars for Israel abroad.

  6. a lot of politics revolves around men from non-western ethnic groups wanting blonde females

    so it is possible the cultural poisoning of the West was largely motivated by that and success would dissolve the original motivation but…

    it will be too late by then.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @notanon

    Highly doubtful. Jewish men want black haired (Asian) females. Most "blonde females" are fake blonde. Jewish peope know quaity when they see it and western fake blondes scream "low quality".

    Replies: @notanon

  7. @Thomm
    This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are 'on to' Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @notanon, @Sick of Orcs, @anon, @Rebel Roy, @Rebel Roy, @Yan Yansen

    But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    the banking mafia have been creating billions of dollars out of thin air every year since 1913

    enough to buy up all the media and corrupt 95% of the politicians

    not complicated.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @notanon

    If gentiles were smarter they would never have allowed this.

    Replies: @notanon

  8. @Thomm
    This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are 'on to' Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @notanon, @Sick of Orcs, @anon, @Rebel Roy, @Rebel Roy, @Yan Yansen

    But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    A few minutes later…

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN into a demoralized, controlled opposition….

    So which Thomm is correct, the one who believes Jewish control is mythical because headcount, or the Thomm who believes omniscient Jews set up Unz to demoralize Whites?

  9. Anonymous[152] • Disclaimer says:
    @notanon
    a lot of politics revolves around men from non-western ethnic groups wanting blonde females

    so it is possible the cultural poisoning of the West was largely motivated by that and success would dissolve the original motivation but...

    it will be too late by then.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Highly doubtful. Jewish men want black haired (Asian) females. Most “blonde females” are fake blonde. Jewish peope know quaity when they see it and western fake blondes scream “low quality”.

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Anonymous

    now, yes

    but the Asian female thing only started relatively recently around the same time as the US manufacturing base was being off-shored to China.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  10. @Thomm
    This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are 'on to' Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @notanon, @Sick of Orcs, @anon, @Rebel Roy, @Rebel Roy, @Yan Yansen

    •Troll

  11. @Chrisnonymous
    This is something of a strange finding considering the higher Orthodox birth rate. At some point the green bars should even out, seems like.

    Replies: @Wency

    If Orthodox fertility is only 3.3, as in the previous poll AE indicated, this wouldn’t be surprising — that’s around 2.5x the fertility of Reform/secular Jews but the latter groups vastly outnumber the Orthodox still and their increasing tendency to outmarry will easily outweigh any effect from more Orthodox youth.

    I’m starting to think though that all of these surveys are vastly under-sampling the Ultra-Orthodox and mostly only capturing Modern Orthodox. Those two groups should probably be broken into separate categories.

    If Ultra-Orthodox are now 2/3 of the Orthodox population and their TFR is 6, and Modern Orthodox TFR is around 3, then that would suggest a total Orthodox TFR of 5. Maybe that’s closer to reality? If the Ultra-Orthodox are only achieving 5 and Moderns are at 3, that would put Orthodox TFR at 4.3, which is close to an overall Orthodox estimate of 4.1 that I saw elsewhere from several years back.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Wency


    and their increasing tendency to outmarry will easily outweigh any effect from more Orthodox youth.
     
    But the data is about Jews with two Jewish parents. Those out-marrying are producing generations that don't get counted for this graph.

    Replies: @Wency

  12. The latter will have been largely excluded from the survey this data is drawn from

    This is a strong observation.

    Less than half of all adults under 29, who actually identify as Jews, have 2 Jewish parents.

    It gets stronger still, when you realise that children of converts like Ivanka Trump’s, will have “two Jewish parents”. As will children of previous Jewish mixes.

    This probably leaves the numbers as far less than half, if you’re talking about ethnicity.

  13. In my social/neighborhood circle, the number of couples in which both partners are Jewish is a bit under 50%. Overall the group is more right of center than not (although the lefties are way left), the only couple that somewhat regularly attends services is mixed, and although there are 2 passionate Israel supporters, the rest don’t really care – one of the Jewish guys has repeatedly said he couldn’t stand the place and their problems are no concern of the US. We live in a blue city in a red state, everyone is well inside of the top 10% of the income distribution.

  14. A graph including Ashkenazis would be more interesting.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Realist

    This graph is for the US. Almost all US Jews are Ashkenazi.

  15. @notanon
    @Thomm


    But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.
     
    the banking mafia have been creating billions of dollars out of thin air every year since 1913

    enough to buy up all the media and corrupt 95% of the politicians

    not complicated.

    Replies: @Realist

    If gentiles were smarter they would never have allowed this.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @notanon
    @Realist

    or less trusting

    i wonder if the banking mafia would have been less successful / damaging outside the context of high trust NW Euro societies?

    Replies: @Realist

  16. @Realist
    @notanon

    If gentiles were smarter they would never have allowed this.

    Replies: @notanon

    or less trusting

    i wonder if the banking mafia would have been less successful / damaging outside the context of high trust NW Euro societies?

    • Replies: @Realist
    @notanon


    or less trusting
     
    Well, being fooled once perhaps...but this has been going on for many decades.

    Fool me once shame on you
    Fool me twice shame on me
    Fool me a million times...WTF

    Many gentiles have been complicit with those Jews who will do anything to gain wealth and power.

    Efforts should have been enacted decades ago to forbid the excessive gain of wealth and power by individuals or groups of individuals...no matter their ethnicity.

    Situational awareness and pattern recognition are part of intelligence.

    Replies: @notanon, @SafeNow

  17. I’d be interested to see the breakdown on couples with one Jewish partner and the other non-Jewish. How many are (a) Jewish men marrying gentile women, (b) Jewish men marrying Asian women, and (c) Jewish women marrying gentile men?

    My guess is that (c) is the least likely matchup.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    The Jewish man / Asian woman phenomenon is real, and I think men are usually more open to outmarriage than women. But I still doubt your last point -- something like 2-3% of white marriages are interracial, and Jewish patterns aren't *that* different from white patterns more generally, especially among the sort of Jews who are inclined to marry gentiles.

    Henry Hill's wife from Goodfellas was, I believe, fully Jewish in real life. If you look at Jewesses in show biz, plenty of them have been linked to gentiles. I can only think of one Jewish guy in showbiz with an Asian wife -- Woody Allen.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Anonymous
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    Asians are gentiles.

  18. @Realist
    A graph including Ashkenazis would be more interesting.

    Replies: @Wency

    This graph is for the US. Almost all US Jews are Ashkenazi.

    • Thanks: Realist
  19. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    I'd be interested to see the breakdown on couples with one Jewish partner and the other non-Jewish. How many are (a) Jewish men marrying gentile women, (b) Jewish men marrying Asian women, and (c) Jewish women marrying gentile men?

    My guess is that (c) is the least likely matchup.

    Replies: @Wency, @Anonymous

    The Jewish man / Asian woman phenomenon is real, and I think men are usually more open to outmarriage than women. But I still doubt your last point — something like 2-3% of white marriages are interracial, and Jewish patterns aren’t *that* different from white patterns more generally, especially among the sort of Jews who are inclined to marry gentiles.

    Henry Hill’s wife from Goodfellas was, I believe, fully Jewish in real life. If you look at Jewesses in show biz, plenty of them have been linked to gentiles. I can only think of one Jewish guy in showbiz with an Asian wife — Woody Allen.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Wency

    I think men are usually more open to outmarriage than women.

    LOL

    Replies: @Wency

  20. Anonymous[273] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sgt. Joe Friday
    I'd be interested to see the breakdown on couples with one Jewish partner and the other non-Jewish. How many are (a) Jewish men marrying gentile women, (b) Jewish men marrying Asian women, and (c) Jewish women marrying gentile men?

    My guess is that (c) is the least likely matchup.

    Replies: @Wency, @Anonymous

    Asians are gentiles.

  21. @notanon
    @Realist

    or less trusting

    i wonder if the banking mafia would have been less successful / damaging outside the context of high trust NW Euro societies?

    Replies: @Realist

    or less trusting

    Well, being fooled once perhaps…but this has been going on for many decades.

    Fool me once shame on you
    Fool me twice shame on me
    Fool me a million times…WTF

    Many gentiles have been complicit with those Jews who will do anything to gain wealth and power.

    Efforts should have been enacted decades ago to forbid the excessive gain of wealth and power by individuals or groups of individuals…no matter their ethnicity.

    Situational awareness and pattern recognition are part of intelligence.

    • Replies: @notanon
    @Realist


    Many gentiles have been complicit with those Jews who will do anything to gain wealth and power.
     
    for sure

    my theory is war is expensive and empires are always at war hence always susceptible to people who suggest financial shenanigans that could pay for more soldiers

    (little knowing they are bringing about their own eventual doom)

    but my point was simply a high IQ but trusting person is probably easier to fool than an average IQ but distrusting person

    and either way we're in the process of seeing this tested out in real-time with south Asians.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @SafeNow
    @Realist

    “Situational awareness and pattern recognition are part of intelligence.”

    Great point. And, I think your point could be expanded to include other types of intelligence — there’s a psych theory that 8 kinds of intelligence exist. Jews seem to possess what I call the talking gene. This doesn’t make you a competent airline pilot or electrician etc. etc. Yet the U.S. loves and rewards the talking gene.

    Regarding the intermarriage topic: Jewish men who marry Asian women are getting the heck away from the talking gene. They are getting other qualities, yes, but they are getting away from a marriage of verbal combat.

  22. @Wency
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    The Jewish man / Asian woman phenomenon is real, and I think men are usually more open to outmarriage than women. But I still doubt your last point -- something like 2-3% of white marriages are interracial, and Jewish patterns aren't *that* different from white patterns more generally, especially among the sort of Jews who are inclined to marry gentiles.

    Henry Hill's wife from Goodfellas was, I believe, fully Jewish in real life. If you look at Jewesses in show biz, plenty of them have been linked to gentiles. I can only think of one Jewish guy in showbiz with an Asian wife -- Woody Allen.

    Replies: @iffen

    I think men are usually more open to outmarriage than women.

    LOL

    • Replies: @Wency
    @iffen

    Are you challenging it?

    There obviously isn't and can't be an overall difference in intermarriage between the sexes (without counting same-sex marriage). But I do think that, all else equal, women have a stronger preference for their own kind than men do, and I thought I saw stats on this before.

    Of course a preference like this would nowadays be harder to measure because the media has pushed intermarriage so hard and there is a cultural mandate that you pay it lip service.

    Even my super normie mother-in-law was recently observing out loud that every single advertisement seems to have a multiracial couple and was politely wondering what the deal was. I didn't want to get into a race thing, so I just told her that multiracial couples are statistically more likely to fail and the media likes to promote family breakdown because it's more profitable for them.

    Replies: @iffen, @Bill

  23. Ignore AE’s malignant obfuscation.

    Remember who did this to us.

    For seven hundred and eighty one years, the Spaniards remembered who opened the gates of Toledo.

    That is why they were able to survive the long night and eventually take back their country.

    We Americans must do likewise.

  24. @Thomm
    This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are 'on to' Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @notanon, @Sick of Orcs, @anon, @Rebel Roy, @Rebel Roy, @Yan Yansen

    Thom you are an imbecile.Noone I knows complains about Jews being smarter or more hardworking,we correctly complain about them using corrupt and evil methods to cheat us out of what is rightly ours.They aren’t smarter than us nor more industrious,thats ALL Jew propaganda.A tiny minority uses control of our countrys money supply and media to divide and keep us docile.So you can tell your bench partner at the local IDF hasbara center that the UNZ crowd ain’t buying what you are selling.

  25. @Thomm
    This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are 'on to' Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @notanon, @Sick of Orcs, @anon, @Rebel Roy, @Rebel Roy, @Yan Yansen

    Thomm you think Ron Unz is controlled opposition?Have you read anything he has written?You must be thinking of(((Rupert Murdoch’s)))Foxnews!

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rebel Roy


    Thomm you think Ron Unz is controlled opposition?Have you read anything he has written?You must be thinking of(((Rupert Murdoch’s)))Foxnews!
     
    er.... you are a moron. Ron Unz is not controlled opposition. Ron Unz is a Jew who is loyal only to other Jews, and has turned WN w*gg*rs like YOU into controlled opposition.

    What is funny is that you think you are 'on to' what Jews are doing, yet are being played by one all the same. You truly have no clue. I love it!

    Ron Unz's brand of Hasbara is called 'RUnzbara'.
  26. @Twinkie

    It helps explain why there is some convergence in test scores among younger Jews and gentiles compared to older cohorts
     
    You are probably right... though another (not mutually exclusive) explanation could be that those on top tend to have children who are less driven and more entitled than the previous generations. Life is often genetics + environment.

    Whatever the case may be, though, does that ever stop those on top from trying to turn their status into a permanent, inherited one, a de facto caste? That, I believe, was one of Ron Unz's main critiques of the American "meritocracy" - that Jewish-dominated universities were scraping the bottom of the Jewish intellectual pool (however Jews are defined) to fill the elite slots to the exclusion of academically worthier gentiles (mostly Peasant-Americans and Chopstick-Americans).

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    Peasant-Americans and Chopstick-Americans

    Thank you, Twinkie. I like it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Adam Smith

    I got the idea from someone else here who referred to blacks as "Basketball-Americans."

    So, I thought:

    Jews = "Wall Street-Americans"
    Flyover country whites = "Peasant-Americans"
    East Asians = "Chopstick-Americans"
    South Asians = "Curry-Americans" or "IT-Americans"

    I haven't thought up a good one for Hispanics. "Taco-Americans"? "Day Labor-Americans"?

    Replies: @anon

  27. @Adam Smith
    @Twinkie

    Peasant-Americans and Chopstick-Americans

    Thank you, Twinkie. I like it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I got the idea from someone else here who referred to blacks as “Basketball-Americans.”

    So, I thought:

    Jews = “Wall Street-Americans”
    Flyover country whites = “Peasant-Americans”
    East Asians = “Chopstick-Americans”
    South Asians = “Curry-Americans” or “IT-Americans”

    I haven’t thought up a good one for Hispanics. “Taco-Americans”? “Day Labor-Americans”?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Twinkie

    I haven’t thought up a good one for Hispanics.

    "Conquistador-Americans" is iSteve's label.

    "Aztec-Americans" is from someone else. It's too specific.

    "Home-Depot Americans" is too ambiguous, but close to "Day-Labor Americans" in definition.

    Replies: @res

  28. @Caspar von Everec
    This is going to have disastrous consequences for white Americans, or should I say, it already has. These mischlings even though not direcltry identifying as Jews, are heavily steeped in the general Jewish milleu. They are extremely lefist and tend to be quite anti white to boot.

    See Sam Harris or Bill Maher for example. Both half Jews who don't identify as Jewish but wage a never ending jihad on white christian civilization. Both are also bona fide neocons endlessly lawyering for the zionist state while promoting mass migration and miscegenation in the US.

    It also makes it more difficult for people to spot the Jews. One of the reasons Jews were able to infiltrate european societies is because they looked somewhat white and were mistaken by naive northwest euros as part of their collective. But they still held some distinct features like the huge nose, curly hair, beady eyes and so on.

    Intermixing with whites, blurs this line even further and make infiltration all the more easier. Look at some Israeli super models like Bar Rafaeli or Esti Ginzburg. They look more Aryan than any Italian or Spaniard. You would never guess they were Jews if you weren't told so.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/david-beckhams-son-transformers-star-to-have-big-jewish-wedding/

    Here's david Beckham's son. You wouldn't guess they're Jewish at first glance.

    These mischlings are able to play fellow whites with far greater effectiveness and further push young whites towards self destructive leftism. Yet these same people will have no hesitation pulling their Jewish heritage when its time to apply to the Ivies or look for a job in media, finance, academia or entertainment.

    Again, just look at Bill Maher.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Corvinus

    A married man, I am resisting the temptation to summon photographs of your supermodels!

    Again, just look at Bill Maher.

    I don’t know a lot about Bill Maher: only the occasional video clip seen online. His virtue-signaling studio audience is obviously ridiculous and absurd, but I assume that Maher likes it that way or he’d have a different audience in his studio. Maher himself seems comparatively reasonable to me.

    I had not known that he was only half-Jewish. Since half-Jewish on his mother’s side, that makes him Jewish as far as I know.

    These mischlings are able to play fellow whites with far greater effectiveness and further push young whites towards self destructive leftism. Yet these same people will have no hesitation pulling their Jewish heritage when its time to apply to the Ivies or look for a job in media, finance, academia or entertainment.

    Does this actually work for unconverted half-Jews whose fathers are Jewish? I am not aware that it does.

    Moreover, I cannot think of a single example of a quarter-Jew who is in on the conspiracy, unless the quarter-Jew or one of his parents is properly Jewish by matrilineal descent or by conversion. Can you? As far as I can tell, Jews themselves turn shoulders against such unconverted quarter-Jews. I am unaware that Jewry recognize such unconverted quarter-Jews at all.

    However, there is plenty I do not know. This is why I ask.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Moreover, I cannot think of a single example of a quarter-Jew who is in on the conspiracy, unless the quarter-Jew or one of his parents is properly Jewish by matrilineal descent or by conversion. Can you?
     
    Well, I'm not sure what your criteria are for "in on the conspiracy", but I wonder if the most damned of all quarter-Jews, Vladimir Lenin, might meet it. And his descent came from his mother's father.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  29. @Rebel Roy
    @Thomm

    Thomm you think Ron Unz is controlled opposition?Have you read anything he has written?You must be thinking of(((Rupert Murdoch's)))Foxnews!

    Replies: @Thomm

    Thomm you think Ron Unz is controlled opposition?Have you read anything he has written?You must be thinking of(((Rupert Murdoch’s)))Foxnews!

    er…. you are a moron. Ron Unz is not controlled opposition. Ron Unz is a Jew who is loyal only to other Jews, and has turned WN w*gg*rs like YOU into controlled opposition.

    What is funny is that you think you are ‘on to’ what Jews are doing, yet are being played by one all the same. You truly have no clue. I love it!

    Ron Unz’s brand of Hasbara is called ‘RUnzbara’.

  30. @iffen
    @Wency

    I think men are usually more open to outmarriage than women.

    LOL

    Replies: @Wency

    Are you challenging it?

    There obviously isn’t and can’t be an overall difference in intermarriage between the sexes (without counting same-sex marriage). But I do think that, all else equal, women have a stronger preference for their own kind than men do, and I thought I saw stats on this before.

    Of course a preference like this would nowadays be harder to measure because the media has pushed intermarriage so hard and there is a cultural mandate that you pay it lip service.

    Even my super normie mother-in-law was recently observing out loud that every single advertisement seems to have a multiracial couple and was politely wondering what the deal was. I didn’t want to get into a race thing, so I just told her that multiracial couples are statistically more likely to fail and the media likes to promote family breakdown because it’s more profitable for them.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Wency

    the media likes to promote family breakdown because it’s more profitable for them.

    LOL

    Historically, men frequently "married" out.

    Replies: @216

    , @Bill
    @Wency


    There obviously isn’t and can’t be an overall difference in intermarriage between the sexes (without counting same-sex marriage). But I do think that, all else equal, women have a stronger preference for their own kind than men do, and I thought I saw stats on this before.
     
    How would one test this? It wouldn't be too convincing to show that women say they want to in-marry more if they don't in-marry more. Maybe one would look at relative SES? If men who out-marry tend to marry down relative to men who in-marry, that would show that men are paying for the privilege and women are getting paid to do it.

    Replies: @Wency

  31. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Caspar von Everec

    A married man, I am resisting the temptation to summon photographs of your supermodels!


    Again, just look at Bill Maher.
     
    I don't know a lot about Bill Maher: only the occasional video clip seen online. His virtue-signaling studio audience is obviously ridiculous and absurd, but I assume that Maher likes it that way or he'd have a different audience in his studio. Maher himself seems comparatively reasonable to me.

    I had not known that he was only half-Jewish. Since half-Jewish on his mother's side, that makes him Jewish as far as I know.


    These mischlings are able to play fellow whites with far greater effectiveness and further push young whites towards self destructive leftism. Yet these same people will have no hesitation pulling their Jewish heritage when its time to apply to the Ivies or look for a job in media, finance, academia or entertainment.
     
    Does this actually work for unconverted half-Jews whose fathers are Jewish? I am not aware that it does.

    Moreover, I cannot think of a single example of a quarter-Jew who is in on the conspiracy, unless the quarter-Jew or one of his parents is properly Jewish by matrilineal descent or by conversion. Can you? As far as I can tell, Jews themselves turn shoulders against such unconverted quarter-Jews. I am unaware that Jewry recognize such unconverted quarter-Jews at all.

    However, there is plenty I do not know. This is why I ask.

    Replies: @Wency

    Moreover, I cannot think of a single example of a quarter-Jew who is in on the conspiracy, unless the quarter-Jew or one of his parents is properly Jewish by matrilineal descent or by conversion. Can you?

    Well, I’m not sure what your criteria are for “in on the conspiracy”, but I wonder if the most damned of all quarter-Jews, Vladimir Lenin, might meet it. And his descent came from his mother’s father.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency


    Well, I’m not sure what your criteria are for “in on the conspiracy”, but I wonder if the most damned of all quarter-Jews, Vladimir Lenin, might meet it. And his descent came from his mother’s father.
     
    I suppose that I do not know much about Lenin. He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.

    Family histories are complex and Lenin's family history has presumably had an outsized impact on history, so I ought to learn more about it on your recommendation. However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.

    The simplest way to tell if someone is Jewish is to ask Jews. I don't have a better way to tell.

    But, yes, let me take your notice under advisement. If I adopted it, it would cause me a bit of a crisis in the blog, since James Alex Fields, Jr., the Charlottesville prisoner, is likewise of Jewish descent via his mother's father, if I recall correctly; but reality is not required to conform to my preconceptions, is it?

    Replies: @Wency

  32. anon[251] • Disclaimer says:

    There is of course an irrepressible Darwinian logic to high jewish outmarriage that portends less virulent jewish leftism and perhaps a slight increase in Gentile IQ in the future (when it will be too late to save the country anyhow).

    But I wouldn’t be so sanguine (or obfuscatory). Two realities push against this notion that jewish outmarriage is anything like White religio-ethnic intermarriage. One, jewish outmarriage rarely results in the union following the precepts of Christ; jewish cultural and institutionatl power is at its zenith, and that coupled with matrilinearity mean that outmarried jews tend to continue passing on jewish traditions and jewish sensibilities to the mischling issue.

    Two, and more pertinently, when jews outmarry they typcially assortatively marry Gentile soylibs who very nearly match in furor their jewish spouses’ leftism. Since ideology is partly heritable, this means in practice that the needle on jewish leftist influence hardly budges.

    And religiosity has nothing to do with jewish leftism, outside of the orthodox. Younger secular jews may not identify with their religion, but they sure as hell identify with the tikkun olam anti-Whiteism that tags along with judaism.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  33. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Moreover, I cannot think of a single example of a quarter-Jew who is in on the conspiracy, unless the quarter-Jew or one of his parents is properly Jewish by matrilineal descent or by conversion. Can you?
     
    Well, I'm not sure what your criteria are for "in on the conspiracy", but I wonder if the most damned of all quarter-Jews, Vladimir Lenin, might meet it. And his descent came from his mother's father.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Well, I’m not sure what your criteria are for “in on the conspiracy”, but I wonder if the most damned of all quarter-Jews, Vladimir Lenin, might meet it. And his descent came from his mother’s father.

    I suppose that I do not know much about Lenin. He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.

    Family histories are complex and Lenin’s family history has presumably had an outsized impact on history, so I ought to learn more about it on your recommendation. However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.

    The simplest way to tell if someone is Jewish is to ask Jews. I don’t have a better way to tell.

    But, yes, let me take your notice under advisement. If I adopted it, it would cause me a bit of a crisis in the blog, since James Alex Fields, Jr., the Charlottesville prisoner, is likewise of Jewish descent via his mother’s father, if I recall correctly; but reality is not required to conform to my preconceptions, is it?

    • Replies: @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.
     
    Fair enough, and my Slavic heritage probably has something to do with why I take an outsized interest in the Russian Revolution, as did my father before me.

    To be sure, Lenin might not have even known about his heritage (that Jewish grandfather was a Christian convert), and his parents seem to have discouraged his radicalism . But in this endeavor they failed, as his older brother too was a radical, executed at a young age for an attempt to assassinate the Czar.

    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed. Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter -- I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.

    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.
     
    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin's motives seemed to be "pure", but what to make of this? He was prepared to say anything, do anything, violate any common standard of decency, betray any laws of God or men, betray Russia itself, and order the execution of children -- all to advance an evil philosophy. But he thought he was doing it for the people's own benefit, not his own. This goes to a point I was making in another discussion, that acting in "good faith" is overrated.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @Dissident

  34. @Anonymous
    @notanon

    Highly doubtful. Jewish men want black haired (Asian) females. Most "blonde females" are fake blonde. Jewish peope know quaity when they see it and western fake blondes scream "low quality".

    Replies: @notanon

    now, yes

    but the Asian female thing only started relatively recently around the same time as the US manufacturing base was being off-shored to China.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @notanon

    Not so.

    Chinese women have been the prime catch for Ashkenazi Jewish men for thousands of years. They even imported them all the way to Russia back in the 2nd millennium.


    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/04/16/zuckerberg-chan-moonves-chen-jewish-chinese-intermarriage-has-ancient-precedents/


    The authors also found a branch of M33c they call M33c2 that’s shared in their data pool between a Han Chinese person from the Sichuan province and fourteen Ashkenazim with maternal roots in towns that are now located in Belarus, Russia, western Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and Hungary. They estimate M33c2 entered the Ashkenazi population in medieval times no later than the year 1400.

    A Jewish merchant who traversed the trade routes connecting the East and the West is plausibly the man who formed the relationship with the Chinese woman to produce one or more half-Ashkenazi half-Chinese children, including at least one daughter who was raised Jewish, married a Jew, and passed M33c2 along to successive generations.

    And he wasn’t alone, for there are two other mitochondrial DNA haplogroups from East Asia — called A and N9a3 — that are likewise found in Eastern European Ashkenazi maternal lineages. However, the genetic evidence suggests those women lived in more northern territories, perhaps even in eastern Siberia.
     

  35. @Realist
    @notanon


    or less trusting
     
    Well, being fooled once perhaps...but this has been going on for many decades.

    Fool me once shame on you
    Fool me twice shame on me
    Fool me a million times...WTF

    Many gentiles have been complicit with those Jews who will do anything to gain wealth and power.

    Efforts should have been enacted decades ago to forbid the excessive gain of wealth and power by individuals or groups of individuals...no matter their ethnicity.

    Situational awareness and pattern recognition are part of intelligence.

    Replies: @notanon, @SafeNow

    Many gentiles have been complicit with those Jews who will do anything to gain wealth and power.

    for sure

    my theory is war is expensive and empires are always at war hence always susceptible to people who suggest financial shenanigans that could pay for more soldiers

    (little knowing they are bringing about their own eventual doom)

    but my point was simply a high IQ but trusting person is probably easier to fool than an average IQ but distrusting person

    and either way we’re in the process of seeing this tested out in real-time with south Asians.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @notanon

    "but my point was simply a high IQ but trusting person is probably easier to fool than an average IQ but distrusting person,"

    I would say no, given how a high IQ person is able to employ reason and break down the message they are asked to "trust" in.

    Replies: @res

  36. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency


    Well, I’m not sure what your criteria are for “in on the conspiracy”, but I wonder if the most damned of all quarter-Jews, Vladimir Lenin, might meet it. And his descent came from his mother’s father.
     
    I suppose that I do not know much about Lenin. He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.

    Family histories are complex and Lenin's family history has presumably had an outsized impact on history, so I ought to learn more about it on your recommendation. However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.

    The simplest way to tell if someone is Jewish is to ask Jews. I don't have a better way to tell.

    But, yes, let me take your notice under advisement. If I adopted it, it would cause me a bit of a crisis in the blog, since James Alex Fields, Jr., the Charlottesville prisoner, is likewise of Jewish descent via his mother's father, if I recall correctly; but reality is not required to conform to my preconceptions, is it?

    Replies: @Wency

    He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.

    Fair enough, and my Slavic heritage probably has something to do with why I take an outsized interest in the Russian Revolution, as did my father before me.

    To be sure, Lenin might not have even known about his heritage (that Jewish grandfather was a Christian convert), and his parents seem to have discouraged his radicalism . But in this endeavor they failed, as his older brother too was a radical, executed at a young age for an attempt to assassinate the Czar.

    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed. Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter — I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.

    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.

    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin’s motives seemed to be “pure”, but what to make of this? He was prepared to say anything, do anything, violate any common standard of decency, betray any laws of God or men, betray Russia itself, and order the execution of children — all to advance an evil philosophy. But he thought he was doing it for the people’s own benefit, not his own. This goes to a point I was making in another discussion, that acting in “good faith” is overrated.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Wency

    Lenin was a Chernyshevsky character come to life.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency



    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.
     
    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin’s motives seemed to be “pure”, but what to make of this?
     
    I fumbled my English composition. You read it right but I wrote it wrong. (A Jew would not have fumbled the English composition as I did, incidentally. Jews are better at this than gentiles are.)

    I only meant that I assume that quarter Jews belong to us not to them, until someone shows me otherwise. Regarding Lenin specifically, I would defer to you.

    , @iffen
    @Wency

    acting in “good faith” is overrated.

    I don't apply this to something like this comment section. Political activities certainly. For example, to me Dissident seems authentic and comments in good faith. OTOH, this new commenter TL seems inauthentic, but I reserve judgement whether he is acting in good faith. If he is Hasbara, paid or amateur, then he could be considered to be acting politically in "good faith" but I would reject his comments as in good faith because he would be concealing an essential element of his world view.

    , @Dissident
    @Wency


    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed.
     
    "And yet"? You were under the impression that either Trotsky or Marx were "part of a brotherhood of Jews"?

    Karl Marx was baptized as a child, as his father had been as an adult. As insincere as these baptisms may have been, Karl Marx very clearly rejected Judaism. ( Jews who embraced Judaism or any positive Jewish identity of any strength would never have conceded to baptism at all.)


    Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

    The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

    ~ Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question
     

    Leon Trotsky? Lev Davidovich Bronstein was attending a completely secular school in Odessa by the age of nine; by seventeen, he had embraced Marxism.

    Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter — I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.
     
    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR's history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.

    Replies: @res, @iffen

  37. Additional demographic info from Badwhitelandia.

    There are 180 thousand self-identifying Jews today in Russia
    https://fb.ru/article/426381/skolko-evreev-v-rossii-protsentnoe-sootnoshenie-tochnoe-kolichestvo

    According to Russia’s head rabbi, there’s in fact a million Jews in Russia, but nine-tenth are in stealth-mode
    https://stmegi.com/posts/84156/feor-podschitala-kolichestvo-rossiyskikh-evreev/

    Genetic research shows that 4% of Russia’s population has at least one Jewish grandparent, and 8% at least one great-grandparent
    https://ria.ru/20181018/1530905388.html

    These numbers are at the their lowest point in modern history. At the end of the 19th century, *1 in 10 inhabitants of the Russian Empire were Jews. Almost 70% of world Jewry at that point* https://isralove.org/load/2-1-0-3220

    50% of the urban population of Belarus and Lithuania was Jewish, 30% in the Ukraine.
    https://weekend.rambler.ru/other/41538884-skolko-evreev-zhilo-v-rossiyskoy-imperii-nakanune-revolyutsii/

    Mostly the inheritance of the Tsars absorbing their part of the dismembered Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (Austro-Hungary got most of the other portion of Polish-Lithuanian Jews during this partition)

    Since then, waves of emigration from Russia have been filtering them out, first from Tsarist Russia, then from Soviet Russia, then from post-Soviet Russia. Most of the initial “Russian neighborhoods” in America or France were in fact Jewish neighborhoods. https://litbook.ru/article/2878/

    Yet throughout the USSR’s history, the majority of the Soviet intelligentsia were Jews–academics, singers, scientists, the teams responsible for TV shows and cinema. It is they who carried out the majority of the efforts to liberalize the USSR in its final decades, and then dispersed into all directions once the Iron Curtain fell.

    Those who emigrated during Tsarism include the parents of Isaac Asimov. A woman names Alisa Rosenbaum, who emigrated from early Bolshevist Soviet Russia, became known as Ayn Rand in her new homeland.

    Today roughly there are
    180K (or around 200K by other data) self-identifying Jews in Russia
    About 800K theoretical group periphery
    About 5.8 million have at least a quarter of Jewish blood
    About 11.7 million have at least an eight of Jewish blood

    The vast “silent majority”, appear to be completely normal Russians. The visible minority are more or less equally divided into “progressive dismantlers/zionists” and “aggressively nationalist Russians” like Solovyov and Zhirinovski. https://www.unz.com/aanglin/as-jews-call-for-increased-competition-with-china-they-continue-to-shut-down-racist-ap-courses/#comment-4715912

    The vast majority of the dismantlers, zionists, and financial predators appear to have been filtered out of Russia almost immediately after the collapse of the USSR, and have settled either in Israel, or the West.

    Summary–
    1) Тhe Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth became rich and strong and attracted most of the world’s Jews. Soon the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth collapsed. The remains were eaten up by its Germanic neighbors from the west and by Russia from the east.
    2) Tsarist Russia thus abruptly became home to 70% of the world’s Jews. Soon Tsarist Russia collapsed.
    3) Many of the collapsed Tsarist Russia Jews went onward to the West, but those that remained in Russia participated in early Bolshevism.
    4) Soon enough bolshevism collapsed, Stalin purged many of the early enthusiasts, and the rest became a discontented Soviet intelligentsia.
    5) Soon enough the USSR collapsed, and the Jewish intelligentsia left for the West.
    6)?

    Not only communism is “Jewish”. Libertarianism is also Jewish, and Neoconservatism is also Jewish. Evangelical Protestantism is also Jewish. An enormous number of today’s Western political, financial, and artistic elites are descendants of Jews who emigrated from Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia, or post-Soviet Russia.

    Not a few of today’s Western elite Jews hate Russia (as Andrew Anglin has repeatedly noted in his amusing style) and shape the West’s Russian foreign policy through a filter based on an inherited aversion to Tsarist Cossacks or Stalinist commisars slapping them around.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Thanks: Malla
    • Replies: @Rahan
    @Rahan

    It takes a special type of talent to allow one's Jews to shape one's Middle Eastern policy, to allow one's Russian immigrants and their descendants to shape one's Russia policy, and to allow one's Taiwanese immigrants and their descendants to shape one's mainland China policy.

    And to allow one's gay judges and politicians to shape one's policy on homosexuality.

    A very special type of talent indeed.

  38. @Rahan
    Additional demographic info from Badwhitelandia.

    There are 180 thousand self-identifying Jews today in Russia
    https://fb.ru/article/426381/skolko-evreev-v-rossii-protsentnoe-sootnoshenie-tochnoe-kolichestvo

    According to Russia's head rabbi, there's in fact a million Jews in Russia, but nine-tenth are in stealth-mode
    https://stmegi.com/posts/84156/feor-podschitala-kolichestvo-rossiyskikh-evreev/

    Genetic research shows that 4% of Russia's population has at least one Jewish grandparent, and 8% at least one great-grandparent
    https://ria.ru/20181018/1530905388.html

    These numbers are at the their lowest point in modern history. At the end of the 19th century, *1 in 10 inhabitants of the Russian Empire were Jews. Almost 70% of world Jewry at that point* https://isralove.org/load/2-1-0-3220

    50% of the urban population of Belarus and Lithuania was Jewish, 30% in the Ukraine.
    https://weekend.rambler.ru/other/41538884-skolko-evreev-zhilo-v-rossiyskoy-imperii-nakanune-revolyutsii/

    Mostly the inheritance of the Tsars absorbing their part of the dismembered Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (Austro-Hungary got most of the other portion of Polish-Lithuanian Jews during this partition)

    Since then, waves of emigration from Russia have been filtering them out, first from Tsarist Russia, then from Soviet Russia, then from post-Soviet Russia. Most of the initial "Russian neighborhoods" in America or France were in fact Jewish neighborhoods. https://litbook.ru/article/2878/

    Yet throughout the USSR's history, the majority of the Soviet intelligentsia were Jews--academics, singers, scientists, the teams responsible for TV shows and cinema. It is they who carried out the majority of the efforts to liberalize the USSR in its final decades, and then dispersed into all directions once the Iron Curtain fell.

    Those who emigrated during Tsarism include the parents of Isaac Asimov. A woman names Alisa Rosenbaum, who emigrated from early Bolshevist Soviet Russia, became known as Ayn Rand in her new homeland.

    Today roughly there are
    180K (or around 200K by other data) self-identifying Jews in Russia
    About 800K theoretical group periphery
    About 5.8 million have at least a quarter of Jewish blood
    About 11.7 million have at least an eight of Jewish blood

    The vast "silent majority", appear to be completely normal Russians. The visible minority are more or less equally divided into "progressive dismantlers/zionists" and "aggressively nationalist Russians" like Solovyov and Zhirinovski. https://www.unz.com/aanglin/as-jews-call-for-increased-competition-with-china-they-continue-to-shut-down-racist-ap-courses/#comment-4715912

    The vast majority of the dismantlers, zionists, and financial predators appear to have been filtered out of Russia almost immediately after the collapse of the USSR, and have settled either in Israel, or the West.

    Summary--
    1) Тhe Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth became rich and strong and attracted most of the world's Jews. Soon the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth collapsed. The remains were eaten up by its Germanic neighbors from the west and by Russia from the east.
    2) Tsarist Russia thus abruptly became home to 70% of the world's Jews. Soon Tsarist Russia collapsed.
    3) Many of the collapsed Tsarist Russia Jews went onward to the West, but those that remained in Russia participated in early Bolshevism.
    4) Soon enough bolshevism collapsed, Stalin purged many of the early enthusiasts, and the rest became a discontented Soviet intelligentsia.
    5) Soon enough the USSR collapsed, and the Jewish intelligentsia left for the West.
    6)?

    Not only communism is "Jewish". Libertarianism is also Jewish, and Neoconservatism is also Jewish. Evangelical Protestantism is also Jewish. An enormous number of today's Western political, financial, and artistic elites are descendants of Jews who emigrated from Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia, or post-Soviet Russia.

    Not a few of today's Western elite Jews hate Russia (as Andrew Anglin has repeatedly noted in his amusing style) and shape the West's Russian foreign policy through a filter based on an inherited aversion to Tsarist Cossacks or Stalinist commisars slapping them around.

    Replies: @Rahan

    It takes a special type of talent to allow one’s Jews to shape one’s Middle Eastern policy, to allow one’s Russian immigrants and their descendants to shape one’s Russia policy, and to allow one’s Taiwanese immigrants and their descendants to shape one’s mainland China policy.

    And to allow one’s gay judges and politicians to shape one’s policy on homosexuality.

    A very special type of talent indeed.

  39. @Twinkie
    @Adam Smith

    I got the idea from someone else here who referred to blacks as "Basketball-Americans."

    So, I thought:

    Jews = "Wall Street-Americans"
    Flyover country whites = "Peasant-Americans"
    East Asians = "Chopstick-Americans"
    South Asians = "Curry-Americans" or "IT-Americans"

    I haven't thought up a good one for Hispanics. "Taco-Americans"? "Day Labor-Americans"?

    Replies: @anon

    I haven’t thought up a good one for Hispanics.

    “Conquistador-Americans” is iSteve’s label.

    “Aztec-Americans” is from someone else. It’s too specific.

    “Home-Depot Americans” is too ambiguous, but close to “Day-Labor Americans” in definition.

    • Replies: @res
    @anon


    “Conquistador-Americans” is iSteve’s label.
     
    That one is also too specific. I think iSteve means very Spanish Hispanics by it. The opposite of Aztec-Americans. With there being a large middle ground between the two.

    Conquistador-Americans is useful because
    1. It highlights the silliness of "Hispanic" as a group.
    2. That group is better represented in the American elite than other Hispanics.

    Replies: @anon, @Wency

  40. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.
     
    Fair enough, and my Slavic heritage probably has something to do with why I take an outsized interest in the Russian Revolution, as did my father before me.

    To be sure, Lenin might not have even known about his heritage (that Jewish grandfather was a Christian convert), and his parents seem to have discouraged his radicalism . But in this endeavor they failed, as his older brother too was a radical, executed at a young age for an attempt to assassinate the Czar.

    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed. Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter -- I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.

    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.
     
    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin's motives seemed to be "pure", but what to make of this? He was prepared to say anything, do anything, violate any common standard of decency, betray any laws of God or men, betray Russia itself, and order the execution of children -- all to advance an evil philosophy. But he thought he was doing it for the people's own benefit, not his own. This goes to a point I was making in another discussion, that acting in "good faith" is overrated.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @Dissident

    Lenin was a Chernyshevsky character come to life.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @nebulafox

    I haven't read What Is to Be Done (and don't imagine I ever will), but from what I know of it, I agree, and expect it probably isn't accidental, as the book was popular in his circles and he seems to have modeled himself in that vein, the self-sacrificing and single-minded socialist ascetic.

  41. @Realist
    @notanon


    or less trusting
     
    Well, being fooled once perhaps...but this has been going on for many decades.

    Fool me once shame on you
    Fool me twice shame on me
    Fool me a million times...WTF

    Many gentiles have been complicit with those Jews who will do anything to gain wealth and power.

    Efforts should have been enacted decades ago to forbid the excessive gain of wealth and power by individuals or groups of individuals...no matter their ethnicity.

    Situational awareness and pattern recognition are part of intelligence.

    Replies: @notanon, @SafeNow

    “Situational awareness and pattern recognition are part of intelligence.”

    Great point. And, I think your point could be expanded to include other types of intelligence — there’s a psych theory that 8 kinds of intelligence exist. Jews seem to possess what I call the talking gene. This doesn’t make you a competent airline pilot or electrician etc. etc. Yet the U.S. loves and rewards the talking gene.

    Regarding the intermarriage topic: Jewish men who marry Asian women are getting the heck away from the talking gene. They are getting other qualities, yes, but they are getting away from a marriage of verbal combat.

  42. @Wency
    @iffen

    Are you challenging it?

    There obviously isn't and can't be an overall difference in intermarriage between the sexes (without counting same-sex marriage). But I do think that, all else equal, women have a stronger preference for their own kind than men do, and I thought I saw stats on this before.

    Of course a preference like this would nowadays be harder to measure because the media has pushed intermarriage so hard and there is a cultural mandate that you pay it lip service.

    Even my super normie mother-in-law was recently observing out loud that every single advertisement seems to have a multiracial couple and was politely wondering what the deal was. I didn't want to get into a race thing, so I just told her that multiracial couples are statistically more likely to fail and the media likes to promote family breakdown because it's more profitable for them.

    Replies: @iffen, @Bill

    the media likes to promote family breakdown because it’s more profitable for them.

    LOL

    Historically, men frequently “married” out.

    • Replies: @216
    @iffen

    It's a curious notion, one which portends an uncertain outcome in the near future.

    A sizeable number of right-wing men will have to marry out, otherwise they won't likely be able to marry at all.

  43. @Caspar von Everec
    This is going to have disastrous consequences for white Americans, or should I say, it already has. These mischlings even though not direcltry identifying as Jews, are heavily steeped in the general Jewish milleu. They are extremely lefist and tend to be quite anti white to boot.

    See Sam Harris or Bill Maher for example. Both half Jews who don't identify as Jewish but wage a never ending jihad on white christian civilization. Both are also bona fide neocons endlessly lawyering for the zionist state while promoting mass migration and miscegenation in the US.

    It also makes it more difficult for people to spot the Jews. One of the reasons Jews were able to infiltrate european societies is because they looked somewhat white and were mistaken by naive northwest euros as part of their collective. But they still held some distinct features like the huge nose, curly hair, beady eyes and so on.

    Intermixing with whites, blurs this line even further and make infiltration all the more easier. Look at some Israeli super models like Bar Rafaeli or Esti Ginzburg. They look more Aryan than any Italian or Spaniard. You would never guess they were Jews if you weren't told so.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/david-beckhams-son-transformers-star-to-have-big-jewish-wedding/

    Here's david Beckham's son. You wouldn't guess they're Jewish at first glance.

    These mischlings are able to play fellow whites with far greater effectiveness and further push young whites towards self destructive leftism. Yet these same people will have no hesitation pulling their Jewish heritage when its time to apply to the Ivies or look for a job in media, finance, academia or entertainment.

    Again, just look at Bill Maher.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Corvinus

    “This is going to have disastrous consequences for white Americans, or should I say, it already has. These mischlings even though not direcltry identifying as Jews, are heavily steeped in the general Jewish milleu. They are extremely lefist and tend to be quite anti white to boot.”

    What exactly does “anti-white” mean to you? In other words, how do you define it? What metrics are involved?

  44. @notanon
    @Realist


    Many gentiles have been complicit with those Jews who will do anything to gain wealth and power.
     
    for sure

    my theory is war is expensive and empires are always at war hence always susceptible to people who suggest financial shenanigans that could pay for more soldiers

    (little knowing they are bringing about their own eventual doom)

    but my point was simply a high IQ but trusting person is probably easier to fool than an average IQ but distrusting person

    and either way we're in the process of seeing this tested out in real-time with south Asians.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “but my point was simply a high IQ but trusting person is probably easier to fool than an average IQ but distrusting person,”

    I would say no, given how a high IQ person is able to employ reason and break down the message they are asked to “trust” in.

    • Replies: @res
    @Corvinus

    I think that one is a good marker for how accurate your judgment is. Thanks.

  45. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.
     
    Fair enough, and my Slavic heritage probably has something to do with why I take an outsized interest in the Russian Revolution, as did my father before me.

    To be sure, Lenin might not have even known about his heritage (that Jewish grandfather was a Christian convert), and his parents seem to have discouraged his radicalism . But in this endeavor they failed, as his older brother too was a radical, executed at a young age for an attempt to assassinate the Czar.

    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed. Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter -- I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.

    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.
     
    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin's motives seemed to be "pure", but what to make of this? He was prepared to say anything, do anything, violate any common standard of decency, betray any laws of God or men, betray Russia itself, and order the execution of children -- all to advance an evil philosophy. But he thought he was doing it for the people's own benefit, not his own. This goes to a point I was making in another discussion, that acting in "good faith" is overrated.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @Dissident

    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.

    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin’s motives seemed to be “pure”, but what to make of this?

    I fumbled my English composition. You read it right but I wrote it wrong. (A Jew would not have fumbled the English composition as I did, incidentally. Jews are better at this than gentiles are.)

    I only meant that I assume that quarter Jews belong to us not to them, until someone shows me otherwise. Regarding Lenin specifically, I would defer to you.

  46. @nebulafox
    @Wency

    Lenin was a Chernyshevsky character come to life.

    Replies: @Wency

    I haven’t read What Is to Be Done (and don’t imagine I ever will), but from what I know of it, I agree, and expect it probably isn’t accidental, as the book was popular in his circles and he seems to have modeled himself in that vein, the self-sacrificing and single-minded socialist ascetic.

  47. @iffen
    @Wency

    the media likes to promote family breakdown because it’s more profitable for them.

    LOL

    Historically, men frequently "married" out.

    Replies: @216

    It’s a curious notion, one which portends an uncertain outcome in the near future.

    A sizeable number of right-wing men will have to marry out, otherwise they won’t likely be able to marry at all.

  48. @Thomm
    This is another reason that the extreme hate that WN w*gg*rs have for Jews is outdated, since Jews have been diluting themselves for decades, while merging into the white mainstream.

    Virtually every complaint that WN w*gg*rs have about Jews is the same as what blacks have about whites (they are too smart, too hardworking, and too well-organized and united). Well, actually, it is worse since Jews are very few in number. At least blacks can claim that whites outnumber them. But the WNs would have you believe that Jews can have so much control over gentiles despite being outnumbered over 30 to 1.

    What is funny is how this website, which is specifically for the purpose of organizing WN w*gg*rs into a demoralized, controlled opposition that can be amped up for Jewish benefit as needed, is full of people who think they actually are 'on to' Jewish schemes, even though they have fallen for the narrative or TUR while not seeing the true purpose. I love it!

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @notanon, @Sick of Orcs, @anon, @Rebel Roy, @Rebel Roy, @Yan Yansen

    The Jews aren’t sharing with you Indians no matter how much you fellate them.

    • LOL: iffen
  49. @Wency
    @iffen

    Are you challenging it?

    There obviously isn't and can't be an overall difference in intermarriage between the sexes (without counting same-sex marriage). But I do think that, all else equal, women have a stronger preference for their own kind than men do, and I thought I saw stats on this before.

    Of course a preference like this would nowadays be harder to measure because the media has pushed intermarriage so hard and there is a cultural mandate that you pay it lip service.

    Even my super normie mother-in-law was recently observing out loud that every single advertisement seems to have a multiracial couple and was politely wondering what the deal was. I didn't want to get into a race thing, so I just told her that multiracial couples are statistically more likely to fail and the media likes to promote family breakdown because it's more profitable for them.

    Replies: @iffen, @Bill

    There obviously isn’t and can’t be an overall difference in intermarriage between the sexes (without counting same-sex marriage). But I do think that, all else equal, women have a stronger preference for their own kind than men do, and I thought I saw stats on this before.

    How would one test this? It wouldn’t be too convincing to show that women say they want to in-marry more if they don’t in-marry more. Maybe one would look at relative SES? If men who out-marry tend to marry down relative to men who in-marry, that would show that men are paying for the privilege and women are getting paid to do it.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Bill

    My thought was just ask people what they think, I thought I had seen polls on this before.

    You might also learn something looking at stats from dating sites, and that might be where I picked something up as well.

    I suppose one other indicator is that white men and white women are probably of roughly equal SMV, and white men outmarry more. Though I suppose you could argue it's not an equal comparison because Asian women are more marriageable than black men.

  50. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @notanon
    @Anonymous

    now, yes

    but the Asian female thing only started relatively recently around the same time as the US manufacturing base was being off-shored to China.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Not so.

    Chinese women have been the prime catch for Ashkenazi Jewish men for thousands of years. They even imported them all the way to Russia back in the 2nd millennium.

    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/04/16/zuckerberg-chan-moonves-chen-jewish-chinese-intermarriage-has-ancient-precedents/

    The authors also found a branch of M33c they call M33c2 that’s shared in their data pool between a Han Chinese person from the Sichuan province and fourteen Ashkenazim with maternal roots in towns that are now located in Belarus, Russia, western Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and Hungary. They estimate M33c2 entered the Ashkenazi population in medieval times no later than the year 1400.

    A Jewish merchant who traversed the trade routes connecting the East and the West is plausibly the man who formed the relationship with the Chinese woman to produce one or more half-Ashkenazi half-Chinese children, including at least one daughter who was raised Jewish, married a Jew, and passed M33c2 along to successive generations.

    And he wasn’t alone, for there are two other mitochondrial DNA haplogroups from East Asia — called A and N9a3 — that are likewise found in Eastern European Ashkenazi maternal lineages. However, the genetic evidence suggests those women lived in more northern territories, perhaps even in eastern Siberia.

  51. @Bill
    @Wency


    There obviously isn’t and can’t be an overall difference in intermarriage between the sexes (without counting same-sex marriage). But I do think that, all else equal, women have a stronger preference for their own kind than men do, and I thought I saw stats on this before.
     
    How would one test this? It wouldn't be too convincing to show that women say they want to in-marry more if they don't in-marry more. Maybe one would look at relative SES? If men who out-marry tend to marry down relative to men who in-marry, that would show that men are paying for the privilege and women are getting paid to do it.

    Replies: @Wency

    My thought was just ask people what they think, I thought I had seen polls on this before.

    You might also learn something looking at stats from dating sites, and that might be where I picked something up as well.

    I suppose one other indicator is that white men and white women are probably of roughly equal SMV, and white men outmarry more. Though I suppose you could argue it’s not an equal comparison because Asian women are more marriageable than black men.

  52. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.
     
    Fair enough, and my Slavic heritage probably has something to do with why I take an outsized interest in the Russian Revolution, as did my father before me.

    To be sure, Lenin might not have even known about his heritage (that Jewish grandfather was a Christian convert), and his parents seem to have discouraged his radicalism . But in this endeavor they failed, as his older brother too was a radical, executed at a young age for an attempt to assassinate the Czar.

    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed. Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter -- I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.

    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.
     
    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin's motives seemed to be "pure", but what to make of this? He was prepared to say anything, do anything, violate any common standard of decency, betray any laws of God or men, betray Russia itself, and order the execution of children -- all to advance an evil philosophy. But he thought he was doing it for the people's own benefit, not his own. This goes to a point I was making in another discussion, that acting in "good faith" is overrated.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @Dissident

    acting in “good faith” is overrated.

    I don’t apply this to something like this comment section. Political activities certainly. For example, to me Dissident seems authentic and comments in good faith. OTOH, this new commenter TL seems inauthentic, but I reserve judgement whether he is acting in good faith. If he is Hasbara, paid or amateur, then he could be considered to be acting politically in “good faith” but I would reject his comments as in good faith because he would be concealing an essential element of his world view.

  53. @Wency
    @Chrisnonymous

    If Orthodox fertility is only 3.3, as in the previous poll AE indicated, this wouldn't be surprising -- that's around 2.5x the fertility of Reform/secular Jews but the latter groups vastly outnumber the Orthodox still and their increasing tendency to outmarry will easily outweigh any effect from more Orthodox youth.

    I'm starting to think though that all of these surveys are vastly under-sampling the Ultra-Orthodox and mostly only capturing Modern Orthodox. Those two groups should probably be broken into separate categories.

    If Ultra-Orthodox are now 2/3 of the Orthodox population and their TFR is 6, and Modern Orthodox TFR is around 3, then that would suggest a total Orthodox TFR of 5. Maybe that's closer to reality? If the Ultra-Orthodox are only achieving 5 and Moderns are at 3, that would put Orthodox TFR at 4.3, which is close to an overall Orthodox estimate of 4.1 that I saw elsewhere from several years back.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    and their increasing tendency to outmarry will easily outweigh any effect from more Orthodox youth.

    But the data is about Jews with two Jewish parents. Those out-marrying are producing generations that don’t get counted for this graph.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Chrisnonymous

    I don't follow the disconnect. The graph shows that the young are less likely to have 2 Jewish parents than the old. Among the youngest cohort 49% are the result of two Jewish parents so 51% are the product of one Jewish parent and one gentile, which absolutely is being counted here. This is because liberal Jews are more likely to outmarry now than in the past, and this effect is currently larger than the effect from Orthodox Jews increasing as a proportion of Jews.

  54. res says:
    @anon
    @Twinkie

    I haven’t thought up a good one for Hispanics.

    "Conquistador-Americans" is iSteve's label.

    "Aztec-Americans" is from someone else. It's too specific.

    "Home-Depot Americans" is too ambiguous, but close to "Day-Labor Americans" in definition.

    Replies: @res

    “Conquistador-Americans” is iSteve’s label.

    That one is also too specific. I think iSteve means very Spanish Hispanics by it. The opposite of Aztec-Americans. With there being a large middle ground between the two.

    Conquistador-Americans is useful because
    1. It highlights the silliness of “Hispanic” as a group.
    2. That group is better represented in the American elite than other Hispanics.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @anon
    @res

    Conquistador-Americans is useful because
    1. It highlights the silliness of “Hispanic” as a group.


    Yes. However, that term has been around long enough that it has some degree of acceptance among the Spanish-surnamed.

    2. That group is better represented in the American elite than other Hispanics.

    That reminds me, current Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush is running for Attorney General of Texas. He's openly accepting support from Trump, much to the annoyance of his daddy, ¡Jeb! Bush. No word on if this bothers his uncle, G. W. Bush, or not.

    Replies: @res

    , @Wency
    @res

    Yes, Conquistador-Americans ranks as one of Steve's most clever turns of phrase, because it highlights the ridiculousness of a colonial class claiming the status of the colonized. It would be like Elon Musk claiming discrimination as an African-American, which wouldn't be allowed. Yet somehow white Hispanics get away with this, I guess because mestizos are more passive towards such things than blacks would be.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  55. @Corvinus
    @notanon

    "but my point was simply a high IQ but trusting person is probably easier to fool than an average IQ but distrusting person,"

    I would say no, given how a high IQ person is able to employ reason and break down the message they are asked to "trust" in.

    Replies: @res

    I think that one is a good marker for how accurate your judgment is. Thanks.

  56. anon[333] • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    @anon


    “Conquistador-Americans” is iSteve’s label.
     
    That one is also too specific. I think iSteve means very Spanish Hispanics by it. The opposite of Aztec-Americans. With there being a large middle ground between the two.

    Conquistador-Americans is useful because
    1. It highlights the silliness of "Hispanic" as a group.
    2. That group is better represented in the American elite than other Hispanics.

    Replies: @anon, @Wency

    Conquistador-Americans is useful because
    1. It highlights the silliness of “Hispanic” as a group.

    Yes. However, that term has been around long enough that it has some degree of acceptance among the Spanish-surnamed.

    2. That group is better represented in the American elite than other Hispanics.

    That reminds me, current Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush is running for Attorney General of Texas. He’s openly accepting support from Trump, much to the annoyance of his daddy, ¡Jeb! Bush. No word on if this bothers his uncle, G. W. Bush, or not.

    • Replies: @res
    @anon


    However, that term has been around long enough that it has some degree of acceptance among the Spanish-surnamed.
     
    Do you have any references about the history? I did not find a search for "conquistador american" very useful and got nothing from Google Ngrams.

    That reminds me, current Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush is running for Attorney General of Texas. He’s openly accepting support from Trump, much to the annoyance of his daddy, ¡Jeb! Bush. No word on if this bothers his uncle, G. W. Bush, or not.
     
    Interesting. Would like to hear more about this.
  57. @Chrisnonymous
    @Wency


    and their increasing tendency to outmarry will easily outweigh any effect from more Orthodox youth.
     
    But the data is about Jews with two Jewish parents. Those out-marrying are producing generations that don't get counted for this graph.

    Replies: @Wency

    I don’t follow the disconnect. The graph shows that the young are less likely to have 2 Jewish parents than the old. Among the youngest cohort 49% are the result of two Jewish parents so 51% are the product of one Jewish parent and one gentile, which absolutely is being counted here. This is because liberal Jews are more likely to outmarry now than in the past, and this effect is currently larger than the effect from Orthodox Jews increasing as a proportion of Jews.

  58. @res
    @anon


    “Conquistador-Americans” is iSteve’s label.
     
    That one is also too specific. I think iSteve means very Spanish Hispanics by it. The opposite of Aztec-Americans. With there being a large middle ground between the two.

    Conquistador-Americans is useful because
    1. It highlights the silliness of "Hispanic" as a group.
    2. That group is better represented in the American elite than other Hispanics.

    Replies: @anon, @Wency

    Yes, Conquistador-Americans ranks as one of Steve’s most clever turns of phrase, because it highlights the ridiculousness of a colonial class claiming the status of the colonized. It would be like Elon Musk claiming discrimination as an African-American, which wouldn’t be allowed. Yet somehow white Hispanics get away with this, I guess because mestizos are more passive towards such things than blacks would be.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Wency

    They're right. Mestizos identify with their conquering side, because what person would identify with their conquered side?

    It is funny that American blacks, all descendants of the most Chad slave owners, sweet tea drinkers, of all time, prefer to fantasise as slaves.

    Who did most white Americans' ancestors enslave? Basically no one. That is some basic b*tch sh*t, unlike the African-Americans' Dixie paternal line.

    Replies: @anon

  59. @Wency
    @res

    Yes, Conquistador-Americans ranks as one of Steve's most clever turns of phrase, because it highlights the ridiculousness of a colonial class claiming the status of the colonized. It would be like Elon Musk claiming discrimination as an African-American, which wouldn't be allowed. Yet somehow white Hispanics get away with this, I guess because mestizos are more passive towards such things than blacks would be.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    They’re right. Mestizos identify with their conquering side, because what person would identify with their conquered side?

    It is funny that American blacks, all descendants of the most Chad slave owners, sweet tea drinkers, of all time, prefer to fantasise as slaves.

    Who did most white Americans’ ancestors enslave? Basically no one. That is some basic b*tch sh*t, unlike the African-Americans’ Dixie paternal line.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Mestizos identify with their conquering side, because what person would identify with their conquered side?

    Mexicans identify with both sides. Mestizaje is a bit complex.

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/mestizaje

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  60. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Wency

    They're right. Mestizos identify with their conquering side, because what person would identify with their conquered side?

    It is funny that American blacks, all descendants of the most Chad slave owners, sweet tea drinkers, of all time, prefer to fantasise as slaves.

    Who did most white Americans' ancestors enslave? Basically no one. That is some basic b*tch sh*t, unlike the African-Americans' Dixie paternal line.

    Replies: @anon

    Mestizos identify with their conquering side, because what person would identify with their conquered side?

    Mexicans identify with both sides. Mestizaje is a bit complex.

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/mestizaje

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    I was being facetious, but I appreciate the clarification.

  61. @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Mestizos identify with their conquering side, because what person would identify with their conquered side?

    Mexicans identify with both sides. Mestizaje is a bit complex.

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/mestizaje

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I was being facetious, but I appreciate the clarification.

  62. res says:
    @anon
    @res

    Conquistador-Americans is useful because
    1. It highlights the silliness of “Hispanic” as a group.


    Yes. However, that term has been around long enough that it has some degree of acceptance among the Spanish-surnamed.

    2. That group is better represented in the American elite than other Hispanics.

    That reminds me, current Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush is running for Attorney General of Texas. He's openly accepting support from Trump, much to the annoyance of his daddy, ¡Jeb! Bush. No word on if this bothers his uncle, G. W. Bush, or not.

    Replies: @res

    However, that term has been around long enough that it has some degree of acceptance among the Spanish-surnamed.

    Do you have any references about the history? I did not find a search for “conquistador american” very useful and got nothing from Google Ngrams.

    That reminds me, current Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush is running for Attorney General of Texas. He’s openly accepting support from Trump, much to the annoyance of his daddy, ¡Jeb! Bush. No word on if this bothers his uncle, G. W. Bush, or not.

    Interesting. Would like to hear more about this.

  63. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    He is just too distant from me—spatially, temporally, philologically and culturally—and for some reason has never seized my imagination.
     
    Fair enough, and my Slavic heritage probably has something to do with why I take an outsized interest in the Russian Revolution, as did my father before me.

    To be sure, Lenin might not have even known about his heritage (that Jewish grandfather was a Christian convert), and his parents seem to have discouraged his radicalism . But in this endeavor they failed, as his older brother too was a radical, executed at a young age for an attempt to assassinate the Czar.

    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed. Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter -- I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.

    However, maybe I am missing the plot, but just prefer to assume that most persons have decent motives until they show me otherwise.
     
    We can say that, as a Marxist true believer and one monomaniacally obsessed with revolution even by Bolshevik standards, Lenin's motives seemed to be "pure", but what to make of this? He was prepared to say anything, do anything, violate any common standard of decency, betray any laws of God or men, betray Russia itself, and order the execution of children -- all to advance an evil philosophy. But he thought he was doing it for the people's own benefit, not his own. This goes to a point I was making in another discussion, that acting in "good faith" is overrated.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @Dissident

    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed.

    And yet“? You were under the impression that either Trotsky or Marx were “part of a brotherhood of Jews”?

    [MORE]

    Karl Marx was baptized as a child, as his father had been as an adult. As insincere as these baptisms may have been, Karl Marx very clearly rejected Judaism. ( Jews who embraced Judaism or any positive Jewish identity of any strength would never have conceded to baptism at all.)

    Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

    The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

    ~ Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question

    Leon Trotsky? Lev Davidovich Bronstein was attending a completely secular school in Odessa by the age of nine; by seventeen, he had embraced Marxism.

    Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter — I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.

    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR’s history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.

    • Replies: @res
    @Dissident


    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR’s history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.
     
    Let's try bringing some data to this mass of opinion.

    https://www.hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=ee191282_2

    On page 362 we see that in 1919 Jews were 200,00 people out of 95,000,000 in Soviet Russia (0.21%) and 3,300,000 out of 30,000,000 in Ukraine (11.0%) as well as 76,202 out of 10,295,200 in Russia in Asia (0.74%). The other regions were smaller so I will ignore them and estimate the Jewish population of Russia overall as 3,576,000 out of 135,295,000 or 2.6% (interesting how closely that number matches the current day US).

    Your last sentence was very carefully worded. Nicely done. "At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists" hardly seems like the right metric given how small a minority they were. For example, according to Wikipedia in 1922 there were about 400,000 Bolsheviks in Russia. Since that was about a ninth of the Jewish population it would hardly be even possible for a majority of Jews to be Bolsheviks.

    How about we try a variation: "what proportion of Bolsheviks were Jewish" and compare that to their population proportion? This is not exactly that, but seems close enough to be meaningful.

    https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/4988/lenin-and-maimonides/

    She notes that among the Russian Empire’s 136 million people, only 5 percent were Jews, but Jews constituted about 50 percent of the membership of revolutionary parties. In 1903, Chaim Weizmann explained to Theodor Herzl: “It is a fearful spectacle . . . to observe the major part of our youth—and no one would describe them as the worst part—offering themselves for sacrifice as though seized by a fever.”
     
    10x overrepresentation (using their 5% figure, 20x using 2.6% above).

    Also not the same, but interesting nonetheless.

    https://www.jpost.com/magazine/was-the-russian-revolution-jewish-514323

    The Central Committee of the USSR is instructive as an indicator of the prominence of Jews in leadership positions. In the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and its Central Committee elected in August 1917, we find that five of the committee’s 21 members were Jewish. This included Trotsky, Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Sverdlov and Grigori Sokolnikov. Except for Sverdlov, they were all from Ukraine. The next year they were joined by Kamenev and Radek. Jews made up 20% of the central committees until 1921, when there were no Jews on this leading governing body.
     
    So using the 2.6% figure (since 1917 is close to 1919) we see 7x overrepresentation.

    From the same source. I suspect this is a variation of the quote from the other source above, but included for additional support.

    When Theodor Herzl visited the Russian Empire in 1903, he met Count Witte, the minister of finance. According to Leonard Schapiro, who authored The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in 1961, Herzl found that “50% of the membership of the revolutionary parties was Jewish.”
     

    Replies: @iffen, @Patrick McNally

    , @iffen
    @Dissident

    apostate Jews

    I don't believe that this is influential with many anti-Semites. The problem is not so much the religion as it's the people most likely to practice or reject the religion.

    Replies: @Wency

  64. res says:
    @Dissident
    @Wency


    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed.
     
    "And yet"? You were under the impression that either Trotsky or Marx were "part of a brotherhood of Jews"?

    Karl Marx was baptized as a child, as his father had been as an adult. As insincere as these baptisms may have been, Karl Marx very clearly rejected Judaism. ( Jews who embraced Judaism or any positive Jewish identity of any strength would never have conceded to baptism at all.)


    Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

    The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

    ~ Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question
     

    Leon Trotsky? Lev Davidovich Bronstein was attending a completely secular school in Odessa by the age of nine; by seventeen, he had embraced Marxism.

    Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter — I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.
     
    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR's history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.

    Replies: @res, @iffen

    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR’s history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.

    Let’s try bringing some data to this mass of opinion.

    https://www.hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=ee191282_2

    On page 362 we see that in 1919 Jews were 200,00 people out of 95,000,000 in Soviet Russia (0.21%) and 3,300,000 out of 30,000,000 in Ukraine (11.0%) as well as 76,202 out of 10,295,200 in Russia in Asia (0.74%). The other regions were smaller so I will ignore them and estimate the Jewish population of Russia overall as 3,576,000 out of 135,295,000 or 2.6% (interesting how closely that number matches the current day US).

    Your last sentence was very carefully worded. Nicely done. “At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists” hardly seems like the right metric given how small a minority they were. For example, according to Wikipedia in 1922 there were about 400,000 Bolsheviks in Russia. Since that was about a ninth of the Jewish population it would hardly be even possible for a majority of Jews to be Bolsheviks.

    How about we try a variation: “what proportion of Bolsheviks were Jewish” and compare that to their population proportion? This is not exactly that, but seems close enough to be meaningful.

    https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/4988/lenin-and-maimonides/

    She notes that among the Russian Empire’s 136 million people, only 5 percent were Jews, but Jews constituted about 50 percent of the membership of revolutionary parties. In 1903, Chaim Weizmann explained to Theodor Herzl: “It is a fearful spectacle . . . to observe the major part of our youth—and no one would describe them as the worst part—offering themselves for sacrifice as though seized by a fever.”

    10x overrepresentation (using their 5% figure, 20x using 2.6% above).

    Also not the same, but interesting nonetheless.

    https://www.jpost.com/magazine/was-the-russian-revolution-jewish-514323

    The Central Committee of the USSR is instructive as an indicator of the prominence of Jews in leadership positions. In the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and its Central Committee elected in August 1917, we find that five of the committee’s 21 members were Jewish. This included Trotsky, Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Sverdlov and Grigori Sokolnikov. Except for Sverdlov, they were all from Ukraine. The next year they were joined by Kamenev and Radek. Jews made up 20% of the central committees until 1921, when there were no Jews on this leading governing body.

    So using the 2.6% figure (since 1917 is close to 1919) we see 7x overrepresentation.

    From the same source. I suspect this is a variation of the quote from the other source above, but included for additional support.

    When Theodor Herzl visited the Russian Empire in 1903, he met Count Witte, the minister of finance. According to Leonard Schapiro, who authored The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in 1961, Herzl found that “50% of the membership of the revolutionary parties was Jewish.”

    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    I wonder if the Revolution of 1917 would have occurred had there been no Jews in Russia.

    , @Patrick McNally
    @res

    Now you're introducing 2 other types of lies into this hoax. First you're going from talking about what was originally concerned with the Bolsheviks to now speaking of all forms of Left-wing parties. Second you're conflating party leadership which requires some degree of literacy with general political sentiment. Both of these types of misdirection draw a false picture.

    There is no question that the overwhelming majority supported the overthrow of both the Czarist monarchy and broader class of land-owners on which it was based. The first outbreak of revolution in 1905 was not started by any party at all. It was actually a government agent Gapon who led a workers' procession up to the palace to deliver a petition where they were shot at by the troops. This then triggered a completely spontaneous explosion of rebellion which spread across the country very rapidly. Only a deluded fool imagines that such events were somehow orchestrated by Jews. Again in 1917 it was obvious to anyone that the country was in rebellion. None of this was created by Jews.

    The reason that you're able to cite various figures about alleged percentages of Jewish revolutionaries is because this is a count of all of the various professional Leftist organizations. A professional organization will necessarily select for people who have some education. In Czarist Russia the educated people who paid attention to the revolutionary temperament that was building among the masses of Russians tended to be ethnic minorities. Poles like Felix Dzerzhinsky, Georgians like Joseph Stalin, and so on. The most literate sectors of the native Russian intelligentsia tended to lag behind and defaulted on their chance to lead the revolution. But there was no question that the majority of Russians who lacked an education did indeed support the general demand for revolution.

    Beyond that, or course, trying to count in all forms of Left-wing Russian Jews as "Bolshevik" will further distort things. The record of the Russian Civil War makes it clear that repeatedly when the Whites briefly captured a town from the Bolsheviks they were welcomed by all the Jewish shop-keepers who were glad to be rid of the Bolsheviks. Then the Whites would launch a pogrom against these same Jews and later when the Bolsheviks reclaimed the town they would of course now be welcomed by the remaining Jews. Most people, both Russian and Jewish, were glad to see the overthrow of Czardom. But there is no evidence of Jews having leaned towards the Bolsheviks until it became an issue of either this or widespread pogroms.

    The elections to the Constituent Assembly which were held in early 1918 are an especially enlightening event on these matters. Before overturning Kerensky in the November Revolution Lenin had been calling for elections to the Constituent Assembly. Kerensky tried to delay as much as possible, but once he was chased out the elections were held. These elections made it clear that only the Left-wing parties had any popular support at all. The Bolsheviks had failed to win a majority and were actually the losers of the election, but the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Popular Socialists together had won easily. As it happens, these were exactly the Left-wing parties which most Left-wing Jews had tended to support before 1917.

    The Bolsheviks proceeded to dismiss the Constituent Assembly with Trotsky making a statement that has since been much quoted as "Go where you belong, to the dustbin of history!" The newly elected government of the Constituent Assembly retreated towards the east where they eventually all arrested, executed or assassinated by Admiral Kolchak's forces. Whereas these Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Popular Socialists were able to draw popular support, Kolchak was not. Kolchak was simply representing the old class of landowners of Czarist Russia who freely massacred the rebellious peasants that had been seizing ;and all across the countryside. Kolchak was easily defeated by the Bolsheviks because the overwhelming majority of Russians rejected him.

    Any actual government that would have been capable of holding popular support in Russia at this time would have necessarily had at least as many Jews in it as the Bolsheviks ever had. The issue was not of Jews being more revolutionary than Russians. That is far more true. It was simply a matter of Jews providing more educated people who took up the revolutionary cause which the overwhelming majority of Russians supported. Since many more Jews tended to be Menshevik, Social Revolutionary or Popular Socialist then were Bolshevik, and since a coalition of these parties was the only type of force that could ever have held any popular support as an alternative to the Bolsheviks, it follows that any working alternative would have even more Jews. This would only have changed as more Russians became educated and were able to join the new government, which exactly what people like Trotsky advocated for anyway.

    Replies: @res

  65. @Dissident
    @Wency


    So Lenin was not part of a brotherhood of Jews, and Jews would not have seen him as one of their own, so to speak. And yet his closest associate was one Leon Trotsky, and he was as devoted a disciple of Karl Marx as ever existed.
     
    "And yet"? You were under the impression that either Trotsky or Marx were "part of a brotherhood of Jews"?

    Karl Marx was baptized as a child, as his father had been as an adult. As insincere as these baptisms may have been, Karl Marx very clearly rejected Judaism. ( Jews who embraced Judaism or any positive Jewish identity of any strength would never have conceded to baptism at all.)


    Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

    The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

    ~ Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question
     

    Leon Trotsky? Lev Davidovich Bronstein was attending a completely secular school in Odessa by the age of nine; by seventeen, he had embraced Marxism.

    Which really speaks to my whole approach to this matter — I mostly just note and try to understand Jewish tendencies where I see them, both good and ill, and I move on.
     
    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR's history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.

    Replies: @res, @iffen

    apostate Jews

    I don’t believe that this is influential with many anti-Semites. The problem is not so much the religion as it’s the people most likely to practice or reject the religion.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @iffen

    Yes, the entire "Judeo-Bolshevism" line of claims is linked to Jewish ethnicity, not at all the religion. Really the whole of post-1917 anti-Semitism is arguing that there are Jewish cultural or genetic tendencies that are politically destructive to the host population. Arguments against the Jewish religion per se belong to a different era.

    At present I land in a more nuanced place. Jewish resentment against Czarism strikes me as mostly justified, and putting myself in their shoes, I don't know that I'd have any higher opinion of a monarchy that had targeted my ancestors with the same sorts of policies. The Jews were incorporated into the Russian Empire by conquest, and there were virtually no ideas on the Russian right that had anything to offer them. So there's no easy way out of this problem, and there's plenty of blame to go all around, both within Russia and outside of it.

    The Romanovs probably deserved to lose power and no one at the beginning of 1917 could be faulted for thinking there was a lot of room for improvement in Russia. But because the people who ended up in charge were fanatics who thought there was nothing of value in the whole of tradition, people who were prepared to burn the whole thing down for the sake of remaining true to the Revolution, Russia ended up with something worse than the Romanovs.

    It's also worth observing that almost everyone agrees the best chance to save, improve, and ultimately reform Romanov Russia was Stolypin -- even Lenin believed this -- and Stolypin's assassin was Jewish (even if there are conspiracy theories involving the Okhrana). Though interestingly, the only real English-language biography of Stolypin, and apparently a highly sympathetic one, was written by a Jew as well (Abraham Ascher). I've been meaning to read it but haven't gotten there.

    While I've seen the sorts of stats before that Res is citing above, I've never seen anyone come up with stats of known perpetrators of violent revolutionary terror in late Romanov Russia. On the one hand, these seem to be disproportionately Jewish, especially in the 20th century, though the assassination of Czar Alexander II in the late 19th century was perpetrated entirely by gentiles (and the known failed assassinations involved gentiles as well). So I'm not sure how it all breaks down.

    Replies: @res, @iffen

  66. @res
    @Dissident


    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR’s history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.
     
    Let's try bringing some data to this mass of opinion.

    https://www.hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=ee191282_2

    On page 362 we see that in 1919 Jews were 200,00 people out of 95,000,000 in Soviet Russia (0.21%) and 3,300,000 out of 30,000,000 in Ukraine (11.0%) as well as 76,202 out of 10,295,200 in Russia in Asia (0.74%). The other regions were smaller so I will ignore them and estimate the Jewish population of Russia overall as 3,576,000 out of 135,295,000 or 2.6% (interesting how closely that number matches the current day US).

    Your last sentence was very carefully worded. Nicely done. "At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists" hardly seems like the right metric given how small a minority they were. For example, according to Wikipedia in 1922 there were about 400,000 Bolsheviks in Russia. Since that was about a ninth of the Jewish population it would hardly be even possible for a majority of Jews to be Bolsheviks.

    How about we try a variation: "what proportion of Bolsheviks were Jewish" and compare that to their population proportion? This is not exactly that, but seems close enough to be meaningful.

    https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/4988/lenin-and-maimonides/

    She notes that among the Russian Empire’s 136 million people, only 5 percent were Jews, but Jews constituted about 50 percent of the membership of revolutionary parties. In 1903, Chaim Weizmann explained to Theodor Herzl: “It is a fearful spectacle . . . to observe the major part of our youth—and no one would describe them as the worst part—offering themselves for sacrifice as though seized by a fever.”
     
    10x overrepresentation (using their 5% figure, 20x using 2.6% above).

    Also not the same, but interesting nonetheless.

    https://www.jpost.com/magazine/was-the-russian-revolution-jewish-514323

    The Central Committee of the USSR is instructive as an indicator of the prominence of Jews in leadership positions. In the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and its Central Committee elected in August 1917, we find that five of the committee’s 21 members were Jewish. This included Trotsky, Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Sverdlov and Grigori Sokolnikov. Except for Sverdlov, they were all from Ukraine. The next year they were joined by Kamenev and Radek. Jews made up 20% of the central committees until 1921, when there were no Jews on this leading governing body.
     
    So using the 2.6% figure (since 1917 is close to 1919) we see 7x overrepresentation.

    From the same source. I suspect this is a variation of the quote from the other source above, but included for additional support.

    When Theodor Herzl visited the Russian Empire in 1903, he met Count Witte, the minister of finance. According to Leonard Schapiro, who authored The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in 1961, Herzl found that “50% of the membership of the revolutionary parties was Jewish.”
     

    Replies: @iffen, @Patrick McNally

    I wonder if the Revolution of 1917 would have occurred had there been no Jews in Russia.

  67. @iffen
    @Dissident

    apostate Jews

    I don't believe that this is influential with many anti-Semites. The problem is not so much the religion as it's the people most likely to practice or reject the religion.

    Replies: @Wency

    Yes, the entire “Judeo-Bolshevism” line of claims is linked to Jewish ethnicity, not at all the religion. Really the whole of post-1917 anti-Semitism is arguing that there are Jewish cultural or genetic tendencies that are politically destructive to the host population. Arguments against the Jewish religion per se belong to a different era.

    At present I land in a more nuanced place. Jewish resentment against Czarism strikes me as mostly justified, and putting myself in their shoes, I don’t know that I’d have any higher opinion of a monarchy that had targeted my ancestors with the same sorts of policies. The Jews were incorporated into the Russian Empire by conquest, and there were virtually no ideas on the Russian right that had anything to offer them. So there’s no easy way out of this problem, and there’s plenty of blame to go all around, both within Russia and outside of it.

    The Romanovs probably deserved to lose power and no one at the beginning of 1917 could be faulted for thinking there was a lot of room for improvement in Russia. But because the people who ended up in charge were fanatics who thought there was nothing of value in the whole of tradition, people who were prepared to burn the whole thing down for the sake of remaining true to the Revolution, Russia ended up with something worse than the Romanovs.

    It’s also worth observing that almost everyone agrees the best chance to save, improve, and ultimately reform Romanov Russia was Stolypin — even Lenin believed this — and Stolypin’s assassin was Jewish (even if there are conspiracy theories involving the Okhrana). Though interestingly, the only real English-language biography of Stolypin, and apparently a highly sympathetic one, was written by a Jew as well (Abraham Ascher). I’ve been meaning to read it but haven’t gotten there.

    While I’ve seen the sorts of stats before that Res is citing above, I’ve never seen anyone come up with stats of known perpetrators of violent revolutionary terror in late Romanov Russia. On the one hand, these seem to be disproportionately Jewish, especially in the 20th century, though the assassination of Czar Alexander II in the late 19th century was perpetrated entirely by gentiles (and the known failed assassinations involved gentiles as well). So I’m not sure how it all breaks down.

    • Replies: @res
    @Wency

    Thanks for the thoughtful comment on a contentious topic. Hard to disagree with what you say there IMHO.

    FWIW, I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution more telling than their actual roles.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @iffen
    @Wency

    the whole of post-1917 anti-Semitism is arguing that there are Jewish cultural or genetic tendencies that are politically destructive to the host population.

    Yes, it really puts them in a very bad spot to say that their very existence is an existential threat to non-Jews.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  68. @Wency
    @iffen

    Yes, the entire "Judeo-Bolshevism" line of claims is linked to Jewish ethnicity, not at all the religion. Really the whole of post-1917 anti-Semitism is arguing that there are Jewish cultural or genetic tendencies that are politically destructive to the host population. Arguments against the Jewish religion per se belong to a different era.

    At present I land in a more nuanced place. Jewish resentment against Czarism strikes me as mostly justified, and putting myself in their shoes, I don't know that I'd have any higher opinion of a monarchy that had targeted my ancestors with the same sorts of policies. The Jews were incorporated into the Russian Empire by conquest, and there were virtually no ideas on the Russian right that had anything to offer them. So there's no easy way out of this problem, and there's plenty of blame to go all around, both within Russia and outside of it.

    The Romanovs probably deserved to lose power and no one at the beginning of 1917 could be faulted for thinking there was a lot of room for improvement in Russia. But because the people who ended up in charge were fanatics who thought there was nothing of value in the whole of tradition, people who were prepared to burn the whole thing down for the sake of remaining true to the Revolution, Russia ended up with something worse than the Romanovs.

    It's also worth observing that almost everyone agrees the best chance to save, improve, and ultimately reform Romanov Russia was Stolypin -- even Lenin believed this -- and Stolypin's assassin was Jewish (even if there are conspiracy theories involving the Okhrana). Though interestingly, the only real English-language biography of Stolypin, and apparently a highly sympathetic one, was written by a Jew as well (Abraham Ascher). I've been meaning to read it but haven't gotten there.

    While I've seen the sorts of stats before that Res is citing above, I've never seen anyone come up with stats of known perpetrators of violent revolutionary terror in late Romanov Russia. On the one hand, these seem to be disproportionately Jewish, especially in the 20th century, though the assassination of Czar Alexander II in the late 19th century was perpetrated entirely by gentiles (and the known failed assassinations involved gentiles as well). So I'm not sure how it all breaks down.

    Replies: @res, @iffen

    Thanks for the thoughtful comment on a contentious topic. Hard to disagree with what you say there IMHO.

    FWIW, I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution more telling than their actual roles.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution more telling than their actual roles.

    It's difficult for any partisan to acknowledge the bad on his side. We all want to put our best foot forward whether as individuals or group identity.

    Replies: @res

  69. I had a friend whose father was Jewish and mother Catholic. He was raised Catholic but taught that he should never go to confession without

    [MORE]
    bringing a lawyer with him.

    Just a light interlude of what I hope was some comic relief. I hope, G-d willing, to followup yet on some of the discussions in progress. Meanwhile…Relation to the topic of the thread should be obvious.

    Might the next one be part-Asian as well?
    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/bar-mitzvah-picture-id78722520?s=2048×2048

    • LOL: iffen
  70. @res
    @Wency

    Thanks for the thoughtful comment on a contentious topic. Hard to disagree with what you say there IMHO.

    FWIW, I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution more telling than their actual roles.

    Replies: @iffen

    I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution more telling than their actual roles.

    It’s difficult for any partisan to acknowledge the bad on his side. We all want to put our best foot forward whether as individuals or group identity.

    • Replies: @res
    @iffen

    Yes. But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Replies: @iffen

  71. @Wency
    @iffen

    Yes, the entire "Judeo-Bolshevism" line of claims is linked to Jewish ethnicity, not at all the religion. Really the whole of post-1917 anti-Semitism is arguing that there are Jewish cultural or genetic tendencies that are politically destructive to the host population. Arguments against the Jewish religion per se belong to a different era.

    At present I land in a more nuanced place. Jewish resentment against Czarism strikes me as mostly justified, and putting myself in their shoes, I don't know that I'd have any higher opinion of a monarchy that had targeted my ancestors with the same sorts of policies. The Jews were incorporated into the Russian Empire by conquest, and there were virtually no ideas on the Russian right that had anything to offer them. So there's no easy way out of this problem, and there's plenty of blame to go all around, both within Russia and outside of it.

    The Romanovs probably deserved to lose power and no one at the beginning of 1917 could be faulted for thinking there was a lot of room for improvement in Russia. But because the people who ended up in charge were fanatics who thought there was nothing of value in the whole of tradition, people who were prepared to burn the whole thing down for the sake of remaining true to the Revolution, Russia ended up with something worse than the Romanovs.

    It's also worth observing that almost everyone agrees the best chance to save, improve, and ultimately reform Romanov Russia was Stolypin -- even Lenin believed this -- and Stolypin's assassin was Jewish (even if there are conspiracy theories involving the Okhrana). Though interestingly, the only real English-language biography of Stolypin, and apparently a highly sympathetic one, was written by a Jew as well (Abraham Ascher). I've been meaning to read it but haven't gotten there.

    While I've seen the sorts of stats before that Res is citing above, I've never seen anyone come up with stats of known perpetrators of violent revolutionary terror in late Romanov Russia. On the one hand, these seem to be disproportionately Jewish, especially in the 20th century, though the assassination of Czar Alexander II in the late 19th century was perpetrated entirely by gentiles (and the known failed assassinations involved gentiles as well). So I'm not sure how it all breaks down.

    Replies: @res, @iffen

    the whole of post-1917 anti-Semitism is arguing that there are Jewish cultural or genetic tendencies that are politically destructive to the host population.

    Yes, it really puts them in a very bad spot to say that their very existence is an existential threat to non-Jews.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    Yes, it really puts them in a very bad spot to say that their very existence is an existential threat to non-Jews.

    Their absurd, hyperbolic efforts to obfuscate the question and destroy any gentile who mentions it are chiefly what make U.S. Jews a threat.

    If any Jews are reading (Dissident is, at least): just cut it out. I am a textbook case of an anti-Semite created by nothing whatsoever other than persistent, nefarious, cruel Jewish efforts to suppress anti-Semitism. Y'all need to learn something from my case. If you don't, then there are going to be a lot more like me, very soon.

    Jay Fink and Ron Unz have the right pattern. It's not that hard.

  72. @iffen
    @Wency

    the whole of post-1917 anti-Semitism is arguing that there are Jewish cultural or genetic tendencies that are politically destructive to the host population.

    Yes, it really puts them in a very bad spot to say that their very existence is an existential threat to non-Jews.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes, it really puts them in a very bad spot to say that their very existence is an existential threat to non-Jews.

    Their absurd, hyperbolic efforts to obfuscate the question and destroy any gentile who mentions it are chiefly what make U.S. Jews a threat.

    If any Jews are reading (Dissident is, at least): just cut it out. I am a textbook case of an anti-Semite created by nothing whatsoever other than persistent, nefarious, cruel Jewish efforts to suppress anti-Semitism. Y’all need to learn something from my case. If you don’t, then there are going to be a lot more like me, very soon.

    Jay Fink and Ron Unz have the right pattern. It’s not that hard.

  73. @iffen
    @res

    I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution more telling than their actual roles.

    It's difficult for any partisan to acknowledge the bad on his side. We all want to put our best foot forward whether as individuals or group identity.

    Replies: @res

    Yes. But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    I think that it is can be very difficult to "know" when someone is "lying" as opposed to acting on their beliefs.

    Replies: @res

  74. @res
    @iffen

    Yes. But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Replies: @iffen

    people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    I think that it is can be very difficult to “know” when someone is “lying” as opposed to acting on their beliefs.

    • Replies: @res
    @iffen

    That is true. I consider the nature of the underlying objective reality to be the key difference. And how the people involved react when presented with information/data which contradicts their untrue or misleading statements.

    Replies: @res

  75. @iffen
    @res

    people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    I think that it is can be very difficult to "know" when someone is "lying" as opposed to acting on their beliefs.

    Replies: @res

    That is true. I consider the nature of the underlying objective reality to be the key difference. And how the people involved react when presented with information/data which contradicts their untrue or misleading statements.

    • Replies: @res
    @res

    Along those lines, note Patrick McNally's response to my other comment and the complete lack of data therein as well as the use of strawmen. The tag team aspect of this exchange is also telling IMHO.

    Replies: @Wency, @iffen

  76. @res
    @Dissident


    The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism or any form of Communism was the disproportionately high number of their adherents who were apostate Jews; Jews who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR’s history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.
     
    Let's try bringing some data to this mass of opinion.

    https://www.hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=ee191282_2

    On page 362 we see that in 1919 Jews were 200,00 people out of 95,000,000 in Soviet Russia (0.21%) and 3,300,000 out of 30,000,000 in Ukraine (11.0%) as well as 76,202 out of 10,295,200 in Russia in Asia (0.74%). The other regions were smaller so I will ignore them and estimate the Jewish population of Russia overall as 3,576,000 out of 135,295,000 or 2.6% (interesting how closely that number matches the current day US).

    Your last sentence was very carefully worded. Nicely done. "At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists" hardly seems like the right metric given how small a minority they were. For example, according to Wikipedia in 1922 there were about 400,000 Bolsheviks in Russia. Since that was about a ninth of the Jewish population it would hardly be even possible for a majority of Jews to be Bolsheviks.

    How about we try a variation: "what proportion of Bolsheviks were Jewish" and compare that to their population proportion? This is not exactly that, but seems close enough to be meaningful.

    https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/4988/lenin-and-maimonides/

    She notes that among the Russian Empire’s 136 million people, only 5 percent were Jews, but Jews constituted about 50 percent of the membership of revolutionary parties. In 1903, Chaim Weizmann explained to Theodor Herzl: “It is a fearful spectacle . . . to observe the major part of our youth—and no one would describe them as the worst part—offering themselves for sacrifice as though seized by a fever.”
     
    10x overrepresentation (using their 5% figure, 20x using 2.6% above).

    Also not the same, but interesting nonetheless.

    https://www.jpost.com/magazine/was-the-russian-revolution-jewish-514323

    The Central Committee of the USSR is instructive as an indicator of the prominence of Jews in leadership positions. In the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and its Central Committee elected in August 1917, we find that five of the committee’s 21 members were Jewish. This included Trotsky, Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Sverdlov and Grigori Sokolnikov. Except for Sverdlov, they were all from Ukraine. The next year they were joined by Kamenev and Radek. Jews made up 20% of the central committees until 1921, when there were no Jews on this leading governing body.
     
    So using the 2.6% figure (since 1917 is close to 1919) we see 7x overrepresentation.

    From the same source. I suspect this is a variation of the quote from the other source above, but included for additional support.

    When Theodor Herzl visited the Russian Empire in 1903, he met Count Witte, the minister of finance. According to Leonard Schapiro, who authored The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in 1961, Herzl found that “50% of the membership of the revolutionary parties was Jewish.”
     

    Replies: @iffen, @Patrick McNally

    Now you’re introducing 2 other types of lies into this hoax. First you’re going from talking about what was originally concerned with the Bolsheviks to now speaking of all forms of Left-wing parties. Second you’re conflating party leadership which requires some degree of literacy with general political sentiment. Both of these types of misdirection draw a false picture.

    There is no question that the overwhelming majority supported the overthrow of both the Czarist monarchy and broader class of land-owners on which it was based. The first outbreak of revolution in 1905 was not started by any party at all. It was actually a government agent Gapon who led a workers’ procession up to the palace to deliver a petition where they were shot at by the troops. This then triggered a completely spontaneous explosion of rebellion which spread across the country very rapidly. Only a deluded fool imagines that such events were somehow orchestrated by Jews. Again in 1917 it was obvious to anyone that the country was in rebellion. None of this was created by Jews.

    The reason that you’re able to cite various figures about alleged percentages of Jewish revolutionaries is because this is a count of all of the various professional Leftist organizations. A professional organization will necessarily select for people who have some education. In Czarist Russia the educated people who paid attention to the revolutionary temperament that was building among the masses of Russians tended to be ethnic minorities. Poles like Felix Dzerzhinsky, Georgians like Joseph Stalin, and so on. The most literate sectors of the native Russian intelligentsia tended to lag behind and defaulted on their chance to lead the revolution. But there was no question that the majority of Russians who lacked an education did indeed support the general demand for revolution.

    Beyond that, or course, trying to count in all forms of Left-wing Russian Jews as “Bolshevik” will further distort things. The record of the Russian Civil War makes it clear that repeatedly when the Whites briefly captured a town from the Bolsheviks they were welcomed by all the Jewish shop-keepers who were glad to be rid of the Bolsheviks. Then the Whites would launch a pogrom against these same Jews and later when the Bolsheviks reclaimed the town they would of course now be welcomed by the remaining Jews. Most people, both Russian and Jewish, were glad to see the overthrow of Czardom. But there is no evidence of Jews having leaned towards the Bolsheviks until it became an issue of either this or widespread pogroms.

    The elections to the Constituent Assembly which were held in early 1918 are an especially enlightening event on these matters. Before overturning Kerensky in the November Revolution Lenin had been calling for elections to the Constituent Assembly. Kerensky tried to delay as much as possible, but once he was chased out the elections were held. These elections made it clear that only the Left-wing parties had any popular support at all. The Bolsheviks had failed to win a majority and were actually the losers of the election, but the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Popular Socialists together had won easily. As it happens, these were exactly the Left-wing parties which most Left-wing Jews had tended to support before 1917.

    The Bolsheviks proceeded to dismiss the Constituent Assembly with Trotsky making a statement that has since been much quoted as “Go where you belong, to the dustbin of history!” The newly elected government of the Constituent Assembly retreated towards the east where they eventually all arrested, executed or assassinated by Admiral Kolchak’s forces. Whereas these Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Popular Socialists were able to draw popular support, Kolchak was not. Kolchak was simply representing the old class of landowners of Czarist Russia who freely massacred the rebellious peasants that had been seizing ;and all across the countryside. Kolchak was easily defeated by the Bolsheviks because the overwhelming majority of Russians rejected him.

    Any actual government that would have been capable of holding popular support in Russia at this time would have necessarily had at least as many Jews in it as the Bolsheviks ever had. The issue was not of Jews being more revolutionary than Russians. That is far more true. It was simply a matter of Jews providing more educated people who took up the revolutionary cause which the overwhelming majority of Russians supported. Since many more Jews tended to be Menshevik, Social Revolutionary or Popular Socialist then were Bolshevik, and since a coalition of these parties was the only type of force that could ever have held any popular support as an alternative to the Bolsheviks, it follows that any working alternative would have even more Jews. This would only have changed as more Russians became educated and were able to join the new government, which exactly what people like Trotsky advocated for anyway.

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Thanks: iffen
    • Replies: @res
    @Patrick McNally


    Now you’re introducing 2 other types of lies into this hoax. First you’re going from talking about what was originally concerned with the Bolsheviks to now speaking of all forms of Left-wing parties. Second you’re conflating party leadership which requires some degree of literacy with general political sentiment. Both of these types of misdirection draw a false picture.
     
    I specifically said the quotes I gave were not the same as the metric I wanted. They were the closest I could get. If you have better data, then please present it. But please do present data, not just endless words.

    Only a deluded fool imagines that such events were somehow orchestrated by Jews. Again in 1917 it was obvious to anyone that the country was in rebellion. None of this was created by Jews.
     
    I never said any such thing. Please stop with the strawmen.

    Do you dispute the truth of anything I did say? If so, please point that out using quotes from my comments.

    P.S. Thanks for the background. This topic is not an area of expertise for me. My goal is to point out statements I consider intentionally misleading (like "At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists") and bring real data to the conversation rather than just endless words.
  77. res says:
    @Patrick McNally
    @res

    Now you're introducing 2 other types of lies into this hoax. First you're going from talking about what was originally concerned with the Bolsheviks to now speaking of all forms of Left-wing parties. Second you're conflating party leadership which requires some degree of literacy with general political sentiment. Both of these types of misdirection draw a false picture.

    There is no question that the overwhelming majority supported the overthrow of both the Czarist monarchy and broader class of land-owners on which it was based. The first outbreak of revolution in 1905 was not started by any party at all. It was actually a government agent Gapon who led a workers' procession up to the palace to deliver a petition where they were shot at by the troops. This then triggered a completely spontaneous explosion of rebellion which spread across the country very rapidly. Only a deluded fool imagines that such events were somehow orchestrated by Jews. Again in 1917 it was obvious to anyone that the country was in rebellion. None of this was created by Jews.

    The reason that you're able to cite various figures about alleged percentages of Jewish revolutionaries is because this is a count of all of the various professional Leftist organizations. A professional organization will necessarily select for people who have some education. In Czarist Russia the educated people who paid attention to the revolutionary temperament that was building among the masses of Russians tended to be ethnic minorities. Poles like Felix Dzerzhinsky, Georgians like Joseph Stalin, and so on. The most literate sectors of the native Russian intelligentsia tended to lag behind and defaulted on their chance to lead the revolution. But there was no question that the majority of Russians who lacked an education did indeed support the general demand for revolution.

    Beyond that, or course, trying to count in all forms of Left-wing Russian Jews as "Bolshevik" will further distort things. The record of the Russian Civil War makes it clear that repeatedly when the Whites briefly captured a town from the Bolsheviks they were welcomed by all the Jewish shop-keepers who were glad to be rid of the Bolsheviks. Then the Whites would launch a pogrom against these same Jews and later when the Bolsheviks reclaimed the town they would of course now be welcomed by the remaining Jews. Most people, both Russian and Jewish, were glad to see the overthrow of Czardom. But there is no evidence of Jews having leaned towards the Bolsheviks until it became an issue of either this or widespread pogroms.

    The elections to the Constituent Assembly which were held in early 1918 are an especially enlightening event on these matters. Before overturning Kerensky in the November Revolution Lenin had been calling for elections to the Constituent Assembly. Kerensky tried to delay as much as possible, but once he was chased out the elections were held. These elections made it clear that only the Left-wing parties had any popular support at all. The Bolsheviks had failed to win a majority and were actually the losers of the election, but the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Popular Socialists together had won easily. As it happens, these were exactly the Left-wing parties which most Left-wing Jews had tended to support before 1917.

    The Bolsheviks proceeded to dismiss the Constituent Assembly with Trotsky making a statement that has since been much quoted as "Go where you belong, to the dustbin of history!" The newly elected government of the Constituent Assembly retreated towards the east where they eventually all arrested, executed or assassinated by Admiral Kolchak's forces. Whereas these Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Popular Socialists were able to draw popular support, Kolchak was not. Kolchak was simply representing the old class of landowners of Czarist Russia who freely massacred the rebellious peasants that had been seizing ;and all across the countryside. Kolchak was easily defeated by the Bolsheviks because the overwhelming majority of Russians rejected him.

    Any actual government that would have been capable of holding popular support in Russia at this time would have necessarily had at least as many Jews in it as the Bolsheviks ever had. The issue was not of Jews being more revolutionary than Russians. That is far more true. It was simply a matter of Jews providing more educated people who took up the revolutionary cause which the overwhelming majority of Russians supported. Since many more Jews tended to be Menshevik, Social Revolutionary or Popular Socialist then were Bolshevik, and since a coalition of these parties was the only type of force that could ever have held any popular support as an alternative to the Bolsheviks, it follows that any working alternative would have even more Jews. This would only have changed as more Russians became educated and were able to join the new government, which exactly what people like Trotsky advocated for anyway.

    Replies: @res

    Now you’re introducing 2 other types of lies into this hoax. First you’re going from talking about what was originally concerned with the Bolsheviks to now speaking of all forms of Left-wing parties. Second you’re conflating party leadership which requires some degree of literacy with general political sentiment. Both of these types of misdirection draw a false picture.

    I specifically said the quotes I gave were not the same as the metric I wanted. They were the closest I could get. If you have better data, then please present it. But please do present data, not just endless words.

    Only a deluded fool imagines that such events were somehow orchestrated by Jews. Again in 1917 it was obvious to anyone that the country was in rebellion. None of this was created by Jews.

    I never said any such thing. Please stop with the strawmen.

    Do you dispute the truth of anything I did say? If so, please point that out using quotes from my comments.

    P.S. Thanks for the background. This topic is not an area of expertise for me. My goal is to point out statements I consider intentionally misleading (like “At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists”) and bring real data to the conversation rather than just endless words.

  78. @res
    @iffen

    That is true. I consider the nature of the underlying objective reality to be the key difference. And how the people involved react when presented with information/data which contradicts their untrue or misleading statements.

    Replies: @res

    Along those lines, note Patrick McNally’s response to my other comment and the complete lack of data therein as well as the use of strawmen. The tag team aspect of this exchange is also telling IMHO.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @res

    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you're trying to defend?

    I'll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I'm not sure what the argument is they think you're making: that Bolshevism was largely a Jewish phenomenon and emblematic of the sort of problems that Jews have caused and will continue to cause in the US and elsewhere? Or maybe just that associating Bolshevism with Jews is an unfair assault on the character of the Jewish people?

    Either way, I didn't see anyone come out and say it. I'll admit I hate this style of argument.

    For my part, I see the leftist parties in Russia as a high-low alliance, not so dissimilar from today's Democratic Party. You had a class of snobby urban intellectuals and students who were the same sort of person as leftist true believers everywhere, only more murderous. And yes, disproportionately Jewish. But the leftists also had more peasant support than the more moderate parties, and they garnered this support on the basis of resentment and lies.

    However, my understanding is that Jews (and German-Russians) really disproportionately supported the liberal capitalist moderates (i.e. the Kadets) more than they supported anyone else, and the Kadets probably offered the best option for Russia of the parties that were on the table at that stage.

    Replies: @iffen, @res, @iffen

    , @iffen
    @res

    The tag team aspect of this exchange is also telling

    Dissident is a "Righteous Jew", he wouldn’t go there.

    Does McNally’s comment fit your description of:

    I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution

    But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Are we there yet?

    Before I go back and re-read the comments, I say that res only supplied us with the “facts” concerning the Jewish fraction of the Bolsheviks. I don’t remember him saying anything like FTJs, he just posted information.

    Replies: @res

  79. @res
    @res

    Along those lines, note Patrick McNally's response to my other comment and the complete lack of data therein as well as the use of strawmen. The tag team aspect of this exchange is also telling IMHO.

    Replies: @Wency, @iffen

    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you’re trying to defend?

    I’ll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I’m not sure what the argument is they think you’re making: that Bolshevism was largely a Jewish phenomenon and emblematic of the sort of problems that Jews have caused and will continue to cause in the US and elsewhere? Or maybe just that associating Bolshevism with Jews is an unfair assault on the character of the Jewish people?

    Either way, I didn’t see anyone come out and say it. I’ll admit I hate this style of argument.

    For my part, I see the leftist parties in Russia as a high-low alliance, not so dissimilar from today’s Democratic Party. You had a class of snobby urban intellectuals and students who were the same sort of person as leftist true believers everywhere, only more murderous. And yes, disproportionately Jewish. But the leftists also had more peasant support than the more moderate parties, and they garnered this support on the basis of resentment and lies.

    However, my understanding is that Jews (and German-Russians) really disproportionately supported the liberal capitalist moderates (i.e. the Kadets) more than they supported anyone else, and the Kadets probably offered the best option for Russia of the parties that were on the table at that stage.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Wency

    I’ll admit I hate this style of argument

    No problem. All of us will just conform to the style that is in your head.

    , @res
    @Wency


    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you’re trying to defend?
     
    I would say two points.

    1. "At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists" was a misleading statement. Given that from a numerical analysis that was impossible at least for Bolsheviks. I dislike that type of rhetoric. And call it out when I see it.

    2. Jews were overrepresented (relative to population proportion) among Bolsheviks.

    2. is primarily there to support 1.

    I’ll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I’m not sure what the argument is they think you’re making
     
    Agreed. At this point it looks to me that they are trying to pretend Jews had almost nothing to do with the Russian Revolution (yes, that is an overstatement, but by a distressingly small margin IMHO). If anyone dislikes that statement, perhaps supply a clear version of your thesis?

    As I have noted in multiple comments above, I care more about the style and tactics of the responses than the topic here. I find it educational to see how people respond to contradictory data. It is depressing how seldom people engage with my data and even more depressing how seldom they add to it (for OR against).

    One of the reasons I complain about all words and no data is it is difficult for me to validate my level of trust for the source without something concrete.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @iffen
    @Wency


    I’ll admit I hate this style of argument
    No problem. All of us will just conform to the style that is in your head.
     
    I apologize for the tone of this comment. I have re-read the comments and see that I misread this part of your comment. I can see now that you were talking about arguments over ascribed implied positions (strawmen as it were). I am annoyed by someone who joins a discussion or argument and then declares that they don't like the style or basis of the discussion. I can clearly see that your comment doesn't fail into that category. I should have known I was off with my thought because of the quality of your many previous comments.
  80. @res
    @res

    Along those lines, note Patrick McNally's response to my other comment and the complete lack of data therein as well as the use of strawmen. The tag team aspect of this exchange is also telling IMHO.

    Replies: @Wency, @iffen

    The tag team aspect of this exchange is also telling

    Dissident is a “Righteous Jew”, he wouldn’t go there.

    Does McNally’s comment fit your description of:

    I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution

    But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Are we there yet?

    Before I go back and re-read the comments, I say that res only supplied us with the “facts” concerning the Jewish fraction of the Bolsheviks. I don’t remember him saying anything like FTJs, he just posted information.

    • Replies: @res
    @iffen


    But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Are we there yet?
     
    Pretty much. Though it remains to be seen where this goes. Over in this comment in another thread:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/an-age-when-vibrators-are-sold-on-the-high-street/#comment-4740852
    Dissident requested the comments for this post in particular stay open until June 30th. So I wonder what he has in mind. And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Before I go back and re-read the comments, I say that res only supplied us with the “facts” concerning the Jewish fraction of the Bolsheviks. I don’t remember him saying anything like FTJs, he just posted information.
     
    I am interested in your opinion on that. That was my goal, but sometimes I overstep.

    A fair reading of this thread should probably include a look at this recent comment from Dissident and at least some of the surrounding conversation.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734191

    Replies: @iffen

  81. @Wency
    @res

    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you're trying to defend?

    I'll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I'm not sure what the argument is they think you're making: that Bolshevism was largely a Jewish phenomenon and emblematic of the sort of problems that Jews have caused and will continue to cause in the US and elsewhere? Or maybe just that associating Bolshevism with Jews is an unfair assault on the character of the Jewish people?

    Either way, I didn't see anyone come out and say it. I'll admit I hate this style of argument.

    For my part, I see the leftist parties in Russia as a high-low alliance, not so dissimilar from today's Democratic Party. You had a class of snobby urban intellectuals and students who were the same sort of person as leftist true believers everywhere, only more murderous. And yes, disproportionately Jewish. But the leftists also had more peasant support than the more moderate parties, and they garnered this support on the basis of resentment and lies.

    However, my understanding is that Jews (and German-Russians) really disproportionately supported the liberal capitalist moderates (i.e. the Kadets) more than they supported anyone else, and the Kadets probably offered the best option for Russia of the parties that were on the table at that stage.

    Replies: @iffen, @res, @iffen

    I’ll admit I hate this style of argument

    No problem. All of us will just conform to the style that is in your head.

  82. If you want to tout Einstein, then you need to acknowledge Trotsky.

    Nuff said.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @iffen

    They're both in the list of the "100 most popular Ashkenazi Jews"; as measured by visits to their Wikipedia profiles.

    There are also more frequent and more prominent references to Jewishness on Trotsky's profile than on Einstein's.

    https://www.amazon.com/Focus-Ashkenazi-Einstein-Johansson-Ehrenreich-ebook/dp/B0796V3YXK?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    Replies: @iffen

  83. res says:
    @Wency
    @res

    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you're trying to defend?

    I'll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I'm not sure what the argument is they think you're making: that Bolshevism was largely a Jewish phenomenon and emblematic of the sort of problems that Jews have caused and will continue to cause in the US and elsewhere? Or maybe just that associating Bolshevism with Jews is an unfair assault on the character of the Jewish people?

    Either way, I didn't see anyone come out and say it. I'll admit I hate this style of argument.

    For my part, I see the leftist parties in Russia as a high-low alliance, not so dissimilar from today's Democratic Party. You had a class of snobby urban intellectuals and students who were the same sort of person as leftist true believers everywhere, only more murderous. And yes, disproportionately Jewish. But the leftists also had more peasant support than the more moderate parties, and they garnered this support on the basis of resentment and lies.

    However, my understanding is that Jews (and German-Russians) really disproportionately supported the liberal capitalist moderates (i.e. the Kadets) more than they supported anyone else, and the Kadets probably offered the best option for Russia of the parties that were on the table at that stage.

    Replies: @iffen, @res, @iffen

    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you’re trying to defend?

    I would say two points.

    1. “At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists” was a misleading statement. Given that from a numerical analysis that was impossible at least for Bolsheviks. I dislike that type of rhetoric. And call it out when I see it.

    2. Jews were overrepresented (relative to population proportion) among Bolsheviks.

    2. is primarily there to support 1.

    I’ll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I’m not sure what the argument is they think you’re making

    Agreed. At this point it looks to me that they are trying to pretend Jews had almost nothing to do with the Russian Revolution (yes, that is an overstatement, but by a distressingly small margin IMHO). If anyone dislikes that statement, perhaps supply a clear version of your thesis?

    As I have noted in multiple comments above, I care more about the style and tactics of the responses than the topic here. I find it educational to see how people respond to contradictory data. It is depressing how seldom people engage with my data and even more depressing how seldom they add to it (for OR against).

    One of the reasons I complain about all words and no data is it is difficult for me to validate my level of trust for the source without something concrete.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @res


    As I have noted in multiple comments above, I care more about the style and tactics of the responses than the topic here. I find it educational to see how people respond to contradictory data. It is depressing how seldom people engage with my data and even more depressing how seldom they add to it (for OR against).
     
    You'd have more of a chance to present data if you assumed management of the blog. (It's not mine to award, but as far as I know, your management would not very sharply break from the spirit of AE's management. Moreover, as far as I know, most existing commenters here like, respect and trust you. I would like it at any rate if you stepped in, if you had the desire to do it. Whether AE would like it is not for me to say.)
  84. res says:
    @iffen
    @res

    The tag team aspect of this exchange is also telling

    Dissident is a "Righteous Jew", he wouldn’t go there.

    Does McNally’s comment fit your description of:

    I tend to find the attempts at denying the role of Jews in the Russian Revolution

    But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Are we there yet?

    Before I go back and re-read the comments, I say that res only supplied us with the “facts” concerning the Jewish fraction of the Bolsheviks. I don’t remember him saying anything like FTJs, he just posted information.

    Replies: @res

    But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Are we there yet?

    Pretty much. Though it remains to be seen where this goes. Over in this comment in another thread:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/an-age-when-vibrators-are-sold-on-the-high-street/#comment-4740852
    Dissident requested the comments for this post in particular stay open until June 30th. So I wonder what he has in mind. And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Before I go back and re-read the comments, I say that res only supplied us with the “facts” concerning the Jewish fraction of the Bolsheviks. I don’t remember him saying anything like FTJs, he just posted information.

    I am interested in your opinion on that. That was my goal, but sometimes I overstep.

    A fair reading of this thread should probably include a look at this recent comment from Dissident and at least some of the surrounding conversation.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734191

    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    I am interested in your opinion on that. That was my goal, but sometimes I overstep.

    My interest is piqued now.

    I have read some of the related comments. They were new to me as I don't usually read Sailer's comment section.

    I boasted in a comment not long ago that I had a list of all the UR anti-Semites. Now I have to go and read more of your comments and see if I made a mistake in not having your name on it. The JQ is complex. For instance, using the term JQ could get me labeled, no?

    I'll get back with a more substantial comment.

    Replies: @res

  85. @res
    @Wency


    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you’re trying to defend?
     
    I would say two points.

    1. "At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists" was a misleading statement. Given that from a numerical analysis that was impossible at least for Bolsheviks. I dislike that type of rhetoric. And call it out when I see it.

    2. Jews were overrepresented (relative to population proportion) among Bolsheviks.

    2. is primarily there to support 1.

    I’ll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I’m not sure what the argument is they think you’re making
     
    Agreed. At this point it looks to me that they are trying to pretend Jews had almost nothing to do with the Russian Revolution (yes, that is an overstatement, but by a distressingly small margin IMHO). If anyone dislikes that statement, perhaps supply a clear version of your thesis?

    As I have noted in multiple comments above, I care more about the style and tactics of the responses than the topic here. I find it educational to see how people respond to contradictory data. It is depressing how seldom people engage with my data and even more depressing how seldom they add to it (for OR against).

    One of the reasons I complain about all words and no data is it is difficult for me to validate my level of trust for the source without something concrete.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    As I have noted in multiple comments above, I care more about the style and tactics of the responses than the topic here. I find it educational to see how people respond to contradictory data. It is depressing how seldom people engage with my data and even more depressing how seldom they add to it (for OR against).

    You’d have more of a chance to present data if you assumed management of the blog. (It’s not mine to award, but as far as I know, your management would not very sharply break from the spirit of AE’s management. Moreover, as far as I know, most existing commenters here like, respect and trust you. I would like it at any rate if you stepped in, if you had the desire to do it. Whether AE would like it is not for me to say.)

  86. @iffen
    If you want to tout Einstein, then you need to acknowledge Trotsky.

    Nuff said.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    They’re both in the list of the “100 most popular Ashkenazi Jews”; as measured by visits to their Wikipedia profiles.

    There are also more frequent and more prominent references to Jewishness on Trotsky’s profile than on Einstein’s.

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Triteleia Laxa

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    You are on my CTI list and have been after I read 15-20 or your comments. You seem to be some sort of Hasbara type, but that's okay and not the reason for ignore. You do not have any substance in your comments. I am looking at this one because I was reading comments pertaining to the Jewspiracy trying to take down res.

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    Some people, mostly (((people))) will tout Einstein types and ignore or disavow (he done got Baptized!) the Trotsky types.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @res

  87. @Wency
    @res

    I guess my question on this would be, what is the precise point you're trying to defend?

    I'll suppose that Dissident and McNally are perceiving and trying to answer an implied argument, but I'm not sure what the argument is they think you're making: that Bolshevism was largely a Jewish phenomenon and emblematic of the sort of problems that Jews have caused and will continue to cause in the US and elsewhere? Or maybe just that associating Bolshevism with Jews is an unfair assault on the character of the Jewish people?

    Either way, I didn't see anyone come out and say it. I'll admit I hate this style of argument.

    For my part, I see the leftist parties in Russia as a high-low alliance, not so dissimilar from today's Democratic Party. You had a class of snobby urban intellectuals and students who were the same sort of person as leftist true believers everywhere, only more murderous. And yes, disproportionately Jewish. But the leftists also had more peasant support than the more moderate parties, and they garnered this support on the basis of resentment and lies.

    However, my understanding is that Jews (and German-Russians) really disproportionately supported the liberal capitalist moderates (i.e. the Kadets) more than they supported anyone else, and the Kadets probably offered the best option for Russia of the parties that were on the table at that stage.

    Replies: @iffen, @res, @iffen

    I’ll admit I hate this style of argument
    No problem. All of us will just conform to the style that is in your head.

    I apologize for the tone of this comment. I have re-read the comments and see that I misread this part of your comment. I can see now that you were talking about arguments over ascribed implied positions (strawmen as it were). I am annoyed by someone who joins a discussion or argument and then declares that they don’t like the style or basis of the discussion. I can clearly see that your comment doesn’t fail into that category. I should have known I was off with my thought because of the quality of your many previous comments.

    • Thanks: Wency
  88. @Triteleia Laxa
    @iffen

    They're both in the list of the "100 most popular Ashkenazi Jews"; as measured by visits to their Wikipedia profiles.

    There are also more frequent and more prominent references to Jewishness on Trotsky's profile than on Einstein's.

    https://www.amazon.com/Focus-Ashkenazi-Einstein-Johansson-Ehrenreich-ebook/dp/B0796V3YXK?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    Replies: @iffen

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    You are on my CTI list and have been after I read 15-20 or your comments. You seem to be some sort of Hasbara type, but that’s okay and not the reason for ignore. You do not have any substance in your comments. I am looking at this one because I was reading comments pertaining to the Jewspiracy trying to take down res.

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    Some people, mostly (((people))) will tout Einstein types and ignore or disavow (he done got Baptized!) the Trotsky types.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @iffen

    Ignoring your insults...


    Some people, mostly (((people))) will tout Einstein types and ignore or disavow (he done got Baptized!) the Trotsky types
     
    A cursory reference to "some people" is much less weighty than my reference to the world's most popular source of information. I'd be embarrassed making such an argument.

    Also, I've never heard that Trotsky got baptised. I went to his house in Mexico City, where it is a very popular tourist attraction, but didn't see mention of it. I've also quickly Googled for it and can't find any sources. If he did get baptised, there certainly doesn't seem to be any effort to make it known.

    Or maybe there is a secret conspiracy of baptismers working worldwide to obfuscate the truth? 🤣
    , @res
    @iffen

    Disavowed is a better description than unacknowledged or ignored IMHO.

    Replies: @iffen

  89. @iffen
    @Triteleia Laxa

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    You are on my CTI list and have been after I read 15-20 or your comments. You seem to be some sort of Hasbara type, but that's okay and not the reason for ignore. You do not have any substance in your comments. I am looking at this one because I was reading comments pertaining to the Jewspiracy trying to take down res.

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    Some people, mostly (((people))) will tout Einstein types and ignore or disavow (he done got Baptized!) the Trotsky types.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @res

    Ignoring your insults…

    Some people, mostly (((people))) will tout Einstein types and ignore or disavow (he done got Baptized!) the Trotsky types

    A cursory reference to “some people” is much less weighty than my reference to the world’s most popular source of information. I’d be embarrassed making such an argument.

    Also, I’ve never heard that Trotsky got baptised. I went to his house in Mexico City, where it is a very popular tourist attraction, but didn’t see mention of it. I’ve also quickly Googled for it and can’t find any sources. If he did get baptised, there certainly doesn’t seem to be any effort to make it known.

    Or maybe there is a secret conspiracy of baptismers working worldwide to obfuscate the truth? 🤣

    • LOL: iffen
  90. @res
    @iffen


    But the degree to which people are willing to mislead and lie to do so (it varies) is what is telling.

    Are we there yet?
     
    Pretty much. Though it remains to be seen where this goes. Over in this comment in another thread:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/an-age-when-vibrators-are-sold-on-the-high-street/#comment-4740852
    Dissident requested the comments for this post in particular stay open until June 30th. So I wonder what he has in mind. And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Before I go back and re-read the comments, I say that res only supplied us with the “facts” concerning the Jewish fraction of the Bolsheviks. I don’t remember him saying anything like FTJs, he just posted information.
     
    I am interested in your opinion on that. That was my goal, but sometimes I overstep.

    A fair reading of this thread should probably include a look at this recent comment from Dissident and at least some of the surrounding conversation.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734191

    Replies: @iffen

    I am interested in your opinion on that. That was my goal, but sometimes I overstep.

    My interest is piqued now.

    I have read some of the related comments. They were new to me as I don’t usually read Sailer’s comment section.

    I boasted in a comment not long ago that I had a list of all the UR anti-Semites. Now I have to go and read more of your comments and see if I made a mistake in not having your name on it. The JQ is complex. For instance, using the term JQ could get me labeled, no?

    I’ll get back with a more substantial comment.

    • Replies: @res
    @iffen


    My interest is piqued now.
     
    One thing I should clarify. I had misinterpreted FTJ as initials of someone (or a class of arguments less extreme than you meant). Sometimes my brain locks on an idea. Usually a new day looking at it fresh helps, as it did there.

    I'd like to think I don't ever do THAT, but am still interested in your take. When I said overstep I meant losing my objectivity (e.g. no longer "just presenting data") and becoming very cranky about certain forms of behavior. Arguably these recent threads fall into that category. If you have a way of looking for my exchanges with Jack D those would be a good place to start. Though you would still have to sort through many which are not about the JQ. Which seems to be both a fairly innocuous shorthand for the overall discussion of Jews in our society (my intent here) and something much darker. Depending on who is using it. Using terms like that is dangerous--for everyone.

    P.S. For everyone, I have 1.4 million words worth of comments on this site. You really don't need to do much speculation about what I really think. Just look for it.

  91. @iffen
    @Triteleia Laxa

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    You are on my CTI list and have been after I read 15-20 or your comments. You seem to be some sort of Hasbara type, but that's okay and not the reason for ignore. You do not have any substance in your comments. I am looking at this one because I was reading comments pertaining to the Jewspiracy trying to take down res.

    In what way do you think Trotsky is unacknowledged?

    Some people, mostly (((people))) will tout Einstein types and ignore or disavow (he done got Baptized!) the Trotsky types.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @res

    Disavowed is a better description than unacknowledged or ignored IMHO.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    Disavowed is a better description than unacknowledged or ignored IMHO.

    If one accepts that "being a Jew" is simply whether one practices some sort of Judaism, then disavow, as in apostate, is better and more accurate. If, as I think, "being a Jew" can't be completely incapsulated by religious practice, then ignored or unacknowledged could be appropriate.

    Replies: @res

  92. @res
    @iffen

    Disavowed is a better description than unacknowledged or ignored IMHO.

    Replies: @iffen

    Disavowed is a better description than unacknowledged or ignored IMHO.

    If one accepts that “being a Jew” is simply whether one practices some sort of Judaism, then disavow, as in apostate, is better and more accurate. If, as I think, “being a Jew” can’t be completely incapsulated by religious practice, then ignored or unacknowledged could be appropriate.

    • Replies: @res
    @iffen

    Good point. Those subtle differences matter. I was thinking more in the "claimed by the group socially" rather than the religious sense, but your take was helpful. I consider the active sense of disavowed the key difference from the passive ignored or unacknowledged.

    The thing that annoys me is examples of what I know as Schrödinger’s Ethnicity. Which can be used for multiple groups (e.g. Hispanics and blacks, though there is a Jewish specific variant, Schrödinger’s Tribe). For example, see this discussion.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/in-show-of-solidarity-with-mexico-sombrero-wearing-lord-mayor-magid-magid-bans-trump-from-sheffield/#comment-2403430

    The basic idea is if someone does something good then they are loudly claimed (with varying degrees of justification!) as part of the group. If they do something bad then they are No True Scotsmanned (with varying degrees of justification!) out of the group. There are variants where people not in a group do something similar (consider the racial assignment in the popular press of George Zimmerman as white Hispanic. You can be sure if he had done something they considered praiseworthy there would be no white qualifier) for propaganda purposes.

    I think I am just using more words to restate your original basic Einstein/Trotsky point though.

    Replies: @iffen

  93. res says:
    @iffen
    @res

    I am interested in your opinion on that. That was my goal, but sometimes I overstep.

    My interest is piqued now.

    I have read some of the related comments. They were new to me as I don't usually read Sailer's comment section.

    I boasted in a comment not long ago that I had a list of all the UR anti-Semites. Now I have to go and read more of your comments and see if I made a mistake in not having your name on it. The JQ is complex. For instance, using the term JQ could get me labeled, no?

    I'll get back with a more substantial comment.

    Replies: @res

    My interest is piqued now.

    One thing I should clarify. I had misinterpreted FTJ as initials of someone (or a class of arguments less extreme than you meant). Sometimes my brain locks on an idea. Usually a new day looking at it fresh helps, as it did there.

    I’d like to think I don’t ever do THAT, but am still interested in your take. When I said overstep I meant losing my objectivity (e.g. no longer “just presenting data”) and becoming very cranky about certain forms of behavior. Arguably these recent threads fall into that category. If you have a way of looking for my exchanges with Jack D those would be a good place to start. Though you would still have to sort through many which are not about the JQ. Which seems to be both a fairly innocuous shorthand for the overall discussion of Jews in our society (my intent here) and something much darker. Depending on who is using it. Using terms like that is dangerous–for everyone.

    P.S. For everyone, I have 1.4 million words worth of comments on this site. You really don’t need to do much speculation about what I really think. Just look for it.

  94. res says:
    @iffen
    @res

    Disavowed is a better description than unacknowledged or ignored IMHO.

    If one accepts that "being a Jew" is simply whether one practices some sort of Judaism, then disavow, as in apostate, is better and more accurate. If, as I think, "being a Jew" can't be completely incapsulated by religious practice, then ignored or unacknowledged could be appropriate.

    Replies: @res

    Good point. Those subtle differences matter. I was thinking more in the “claimed by the group socially” rather than the religious sense, but your take was helpful. I consider the active sense of disavowed the key difference from the passive ignored or unacknowledged.

    The thing that annoys me is examples of what I know as Schrödinger’s Ethnicity. Which can be used for multiple groups (e.g. Hispanics and blacks, though there is a Jewish specific variant, Schrödinger’s Tribe). For example, see this discussion.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/in-show-of-solidarity-with-mexico-sombrero-wearing-lord-mayor-magid-magid-bans-trump-from-sheffield/#comment-2403430

    The basic idea is if someone does something good then they are loudly claimed (with varying degrees of justification!) as part of the group. If they do something bad then they are No True Scotsmanned (with varying degrees of justification!) out of the group. There are variants where people not in a group do something similar (consider the racial assignment in the popular press of George Zimmerman as white Hispanic. You can be sure if he had done something they considered praiseworthy there would be no white qualifier) for propaganda purposes.

    I think I am just using more words to restate your original basic Einstein/Trotsky point though.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    I used to wonder why Jews had been kicked out of so many places. I don’t really wonder so much anymore.

    Really? You have no idea?

    This is a trope comment frequently made by serious anti-Semites. (The Jews made me do it!)

    certain “typical” styles of argument.

    Again, another anti-Semitic trope. It is difficult for me to see how one could demonstrate a style of argument that would identify Jews.

    Are Jews more prone to deceitfulness, especially when dealing with non-Jews?

    I read a couple pages of your comments (Gawd, you are prolific!) and I didn’t find any smoking guns, but I consider the above two to be loaded pistols. When we get to the fine grain details of anti-Semitism, its definition, and who and what qualifies gets to be really dicey. I am not sure that we are not just dealing with normal biases and prejudices that we all have. I include me in all and at some level it is not "useful" in trying to sort it out.

    And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Would this be typical of Dissident or Jews?

    Many of the comments in question have many ladened words: misleading, lies, hoax, etc. I’m not sure that they are applicable by you or directed toward you. Also, it seems to me that with words like context being bandied about, some have pegged you as a soft anti-Semite and read your comments accordingly.

    Specifically on the Bolsheviks and Jews question.

    It is especially important in the discussions of the JQ. The original Hitler foamed at the mouth for many years about the Judeo-Bolsheviks, and it is prominent in the current anti-Semite milieu. You presented the facts about the rate of Jewish participation in the Bolshevik dictatorship. I can “see” how a Jewish person might approach your comment with a little skepticism and caution because the existence of Jewish Bolsheviks is such a prominent part of current anti-Semitism. Specifically, your post on the % of Jews in the Bolshevik camp was not anti-Semitic. But, if you start posting that comment every few weeks I will have to reconsider.

    Consider the blog that appears above AE’s. AFAIK know he reports factual material. But it is 99% black on white aggression. He’s just presenting “the facts.” Should we leave it there and not draw any generalizations about his biases?

    Replies: @res

  95. @res
    @iffen

    Good point. Those subtle differences matter. I was thinking more in the "claimed by the group socially" rather than the religious sense, but your take was helpful. I consider the active sense of disavowed the key difference from the passive ignored or unacknowledged.

    The thing that annoys me is examples of what I know as Schrödinger’s Ethnicity. Which can be used for multiple groups (e.g. Hispanics and blacks, though there is a Jewish specific variant, Schrödinger’s Tribe). For example, see this discussion.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/in-show-of-solidarity-with-mexico-sombrero-wearing-lord-mayor-magid-magid-bans-trump-from-sheffield/#comment-2403430

    The basic idea is if someone does something good then they are loudly claimed (with varying degrees of justification!) as part of the group. If they do something bad then they are No True Scotsmanned (with varying degrees of justification!) out of the group. There are variants where people not in a group do something similar (consider the racial assignment in the popular press of George Zimmerman as white Hispanic. You can be sure if he had done something they considered praiseworthy there would be no white qualifier) for propaganda purposes.

    I think I am just using more words to restate your original basic Einstein/Trotsky point though.

    Replies: @iffen

    I used to wonder why Jews had been kicked out of so many places. I don’t really wonder so much anymore.

    Really? You have no idea?

    This is a trope comment frequently made by serious anti-Semites. (The Jews made me do it!)

    certain “typical” styles of argument.

    Again, another anti-Semitic trope. It is difficult for me to see how one could demonstrate a style of argument that would identify Jews.

    Are Jews more prone to deceitfulness, especially when dealing with non-Jews?

    I read a couple pages of your comments (Gawd, you are prolific!) and I didn’t find any smoking guns, but I consider the above two to be loaded pistols. When we get to the fine grain details of anti-Semitism, its definition, and who and what qualifies gets to be really dicey. I am not sure that we are not just dealing with normal biases and prejudices that we all have. I include me in all and at some level it is not “useful” in trying to sort it out.

    And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Would this be typical of Dissident or Jews?

    Many of the comments in question have many ladened words: misleading, lies, hoax, etc. I’m not sure that they are applicable by you or directed toward you. Also, it seems to me that with words like context being bandied about, some have pegged you as a soft anti-Semite and read your comments accordingly.

    Specifically on the Bolsheviks and Jews question.

    It is especially important in the discussions of the JQ. The original Hitler foamed at the mouth for many years about the Judeo-Bolsheviks, and it is prominent in the current anti-Semite milieu. You presented the facts about the rate of Jewish participation in the Bolshevik dictatorship. I can “see” how a Jewish person might approach your comment with a little skepticism and caution because the existence of Jewish Bolsheviks is such a prominent part of current anti-Semitism. Specifically, your post on the % of Jews in the Bolshevik camp was not anti-Semitic. But, if you start posting that comment every few weeks I will have to reconsider.

    Consider the blog that appears above AE’s. AFAIK know he reports factual material. But it is 99% black on white aggression. He’s just presenting “the facts.” Should we leave it there and not draw any generalizations about his biases?

    • Replies: @res
    @iffen

    Thanks for replying. On the whole I would say that is a fairly reasonable take (especially as JQ conversations go). Let's discuss some of it. I'll add some links because I do consider context to be important.


    I used to wonder why Jews had been kicked out of so many places. I don’t really wonder so much anymore.

    Really? You have no idea?

    This is a trope comment frequently made by serious anti-Semites. (The Jews made me do it!)
     

    I consider it somewhat dishonest that you left out the sentence immediately following that: "Even if I don’t think that is the right solution."

    Did you mean had rather than have? I will respond further after you clarify. Source was
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4735765


    certain “typical” styles of argument.

    Again, another anti-Semitic trope. It is difficult for me to see how one could demonstrate a style of argument that would identify Jews.

    Are Jews more prone to deceitfulness, especially when dealing with non-Jews?
     

    Source was https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734761

    One style of argument I would identify as typical of Jews is the highly verbal, data light comments we have seen throughout this thread. I understand that is a stereotype and is by no means either universal to Jews or restricted to them, but it does seem to be more common. A particular example is the word game I keep harping on to which I said "Nicely done" (sarcastic, but truly felt) in my reply to Dissident above.

    Regarding deceitfulness, that is an interesting one. I would say that Jews tend to be more deceitful to non-Jews (their outgroup) than European whites are to other European whites (an ingroup interaction for me). So I usually process that as a simple more deceitful. But in justice the non/Jew version is probably in line with most levels of deceit between outgroups. There is also the issue that I think smart and highly verbal Jews tend to be better at deceit than most people. Which makes it more impactful.


    When we get to the fine grain details of anti-Semitism, its definition, and who and what qualifies gets to be really dicey. I am not sure that we are not just dealing with normal biases and prejudices that we all have. I include me in all and at some level it is not “useful” in trying to sort it out.
     
    Well said. That is how I see it. One of the reasons I don't like the term "anti-Semite" is the endless shifting definitions roughly between the poles of "said something some Jew does not like" and "all Jews should die."

    And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Would this be typical of Dissident or Jews?
     

    It would be typical of the Unz Review ; ) Similar to the people who drop rebuttal comments on stale threads in the hope that they go unnoticed.

    It would also be typical of people who specifically asked for a longer deadline. Why do that if you don't intend to say something? And once there, why not make your comment right before the deadline. That is a brutally effective tactic. I would consider that kind of gamesmanship somewhat typical of Jews, but actually consider that something of a compliment since it is smart and effective. I called out the possibility in an attempt to preempt it or at least lessen the rhetorical effectiveness if it does happen.

    FWIW I am sensitized to that here because in a couple of contentious exchanges here AE has closed comments with a timing which gave the person I was arguing with the last word.


    Many of the comments in question have many ladened words: misleading, lies, hoax, etc. I’m not sure that they are applicable by you or directed toward you. Also, it seems to me that with words like context being bandied about, some have pegged you as a soft anti-Semite and read your comments accordingly.

    Specifically on the Bolsheviks and Jews question.
     

    Clearly I would say those were incorrectly directed at me. And I further believe I have backed up my points on that in contrast to the people who are using those words (do you disagree with that?).

    That said, we are back to the definition of anti-Semite. In this case with the qualifier "soft." Let's try an example.

    I consider disparate impact a good topic for elucidating subtleties here. I object to the outsized role of elite Jews in pushing disparate impact doctrine (you would think Jews would be sensitive to blood libels in general, but they seem to have no hesitancy doing it to others here). Disparate impact doctrine in its current form holds that any underrepresentation is prima facie evidence of racism (when it is blacks being underrepresented relative to whites, or sexism when it is women being underrepresented compared to men).

    Given the possibility of other reasons (differing average abilities and/or personal preferences, which usually are real influences) I consider that a blood libel against whites. It is also incredibly hypocritical given the unwillingness to have an honest conversation about how overrepresented Jews are in many areas in the US.

    Do you consider what I wrote there as being a soft anti-Semite? There is your answer, because I consider those two paragraphs representative of how I see the JQ. I would be much more tolerant of various Jewish advocates commenting on the Unz Review if they were willing to state their positions that clearly. It would do good for everyone to understand how the manner of the seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites looks to anyone familiar with the idea of psychological projection.


    I can “see” how a Jewish person might approach your comment with a little skepticism and caution because the existence of Jewish Bolsheviks is such a prominent part of current anti-Semitism. Specifically, your post on the % of Jews in the Bolshevik camp was not anti-Semitic. But, if you start posting that comment every few weeks I will have to reconsider.
     
    Your last sentence is a key point here. That is not (and is unlikely to become) true for % of Bolsheviks who were Jewish (not a primary area of interest or expertise for me). I do talk a fair bit about disparate impact though. And how one sees that could have a strong influence on perceptions of me.

    It is also worth noting that JQ conversations tend to be frequent and contentious on the Unz Review which increases the number of times I engage with the topics and tends to result in fairly high volumes of comments for each engagement. But even so, I think an honest look at my comment history indicates it is not a focus of mine (interested in your take here, in particular realize how often the JQ comments derive from other conversations, such as the basic disparate impact conversation). Some sample topics I consider much more important: individual differences, intelligence, and genetics. The JQ tends to come up in conjunction with Current Year US politics and policy.

    One thing to note. This is of course unknowable and unverifiable for anyone else here, but the JQ is not something I spend a lot of time either thinking about or discussing in real life. The Unz Review is one of the few places where there are relatively honest conversations on the topic and multiple points of view are present. I am very clear on the importance of judging individuals for themselves rather than their group(s). I do have some teeth gritting moments though when friends and other people I encounter in real life embody some of the stereotypes a bit too well for my taste (some of the other stereotypes I like though so it tends to even out). Just as I am sure others have some teeth gritting moments dealing with various aspects of my personality.

    Worth applying a similar metric to the Jewish advocates here, BTW.


    Consider the blog that appears above AE’s. AFAIK know he reports factual material. But it is 99% black on white aggression. He’s just presenting “the facts.” Should we leave it there and not draw any generalizations about his biases?
     
    Good case study (not a good match for me, but illustrative). We can draw generalizations, but that does not mean it is reasonable to respond to every post of his with "Racist!" rather than engaging with the facts he presents. Take another read through the responses to me. That is exactly what you see in many of them. Though some use more sophisticated language.

    Again, worth considering using that lens on the behavior of others in this conversation.

    Thanks for a thoughtful conversation on a contentious topic. My prolificness here is in large part due to how many people (including myself at times) have difficulty with that ; )

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen

  96. res says:
    @iffen
    @res

    I used to wonder why Jews had been kicked out of so many places. I don’t really wonder so much anymore.

    Really? You have no idea?

    This is a trope comment frequently made by serious anti-Semites. (The Jews made me do it!)

    certain “typical” styles of argument.

    Again, another anti-Semitic trope. It is difficult for me to see how one could demonstrate a style of argument that would identify Jews.

    Are Jews more prone to deceitfulness, especially when dealing with non-Jews?

    I read a couple pages of your comments (Gawd, you are prolific!) and I didn’t find any smoking guns, but I consider the above two to be loaded pistols. When we get to the fine grain details of anti-Semitism, its definition, and who and what qualifies gets to be really dicey. I am not sure that we are not just dealing with normal biases and prejudices that we all have. I include me in all and at some level it is not "useful" in trying to sort it out.

    And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Would this be typical of Dissident or Jews?

    Many of the comments in question have many ladened words: misleading, lies, hoax, etc. I’m not sure that they are applicable by you or directed toward you. Also, it seems to me that with words like context being bandied about, some have pegged you as a soft anti-Semite and read your comments accordingly.

    Specifically on the Bolsheviks and Jews question.

    It is especially important in the discussions of the JQ. The original Hitler foamed at the mouth for many years about the Judeo-Bolsheviks, and it is prominent in the current anti-Semite milieu. You presented the facts about the rate of Jewish participation in the Bolshevik dictatorship. I can “see” how a Jewish person might approach your comment with a little skepticism and caution because the existence of Jewish Bolsheviks is such a prominent part of current anti-Semitism. Specifically, your post on the % of Jews in the Bolshevik camp was not anti-Semitic. But, if you start posting that comment every few weeks I will have to reconsider.

    Consider the blog that appears above AE’s. AFAIK know he reports factual material. But it is 99% black on white aggression. He’s just presenting “the facts.” Should we leave it there and not draw any generalizations about his biases?

    Replies: @res

    Thanks for replying. On the whole I would say that is a fairly reasonable take (especially as JQ conversations go). Let’s discuss some of it. I’ll add some links because I do consider context to be important.

    I used to wonder why Jews had been kicked out of so many places. I don’t really wonder so much anymore.

    Really? You have no idea?

    This is a trope comment frequently made by serious anti-Semites. (The Jews made me do it!)

    I consider it somewhat dishonest that you left out the sentence immediately following that: “Even if I don’t think that is the right solution.”

    Did you mean had rather than have? I will respond further after you clarify. Source was
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4735765

    certain “typical” styles of argument.

    Again, another anti-Semitic trope. It is difficult for me to see how one could demonstrate a style of argument that would identify Jews.

    Are Jews more prone to deceitfulness, especially when dealing with non-Jews?

    Source was https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734761

    One style of argument I would identify as typical of Jews is the highly verbal, data light comments we have seen throughout this thread. I understand that is a stereotype and is by no means either universal to Jews or restricted to them, but it does seem to be more common. A particular example is the word game I keep harping on to which I said “Nicely done” (sarcastic, but truly felt) in my reply to Dissident above.

    Regarding deceitfulness, that is an interesting one. I would say that Jews tend to be more deceitful to non-Jews (their outgroup) than European whites are to other European whites (an ingroup interaction for me). So I usually process that as a simple more deceitful. But in justice the non/Jew version is probably in line with most levels of deceit between outgroups. There is also the issue that I think smart and highly verbal Jews tend to be better at deceit than most people. Which makes it more impactful.

    When we get to the fine grain details of anti-Semitism, its definition, and who and what qualifies gets to be really dicey. I am not sure that we are not just dealing with normal biases and prejudices that we all have. I include me in all and at some level it is not “useful” in trying to sort it out.

    Well said. That is how I see it. One of the reasons I don’t like the term “anti-Semite” is the endless shifting definitions roughly between the poles of “said something some Jew does not like” and “all Jews should die.”

    And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Would this be typical of Dissident or Jews?

    It would be typical of the Unz Review ; ) Similar to the people who drop rebuttal comments on stale threads in the hope that they go unnoticed.

    It would also be typical of people who specifically asked for a longer deadline. Why do that if you don’t intend to say something? And once there, why not make your comment right before the deadline. That is a brutally effective tactic. I would consider that kind of gamesmanship somewhat typical of Jews, but actually consider that something of a compliment since it is smart and effective. I called out the possibility in an attempt to preempt it or at least lessen the rhetorical effectiveness if it does happen.

    FWIW I am sensitized to that here because in a couple of contentious exchanges here AE has closed comments with a timing which gave the person I was arguing with the last word.

    Many of the comments in question have many ladened words: misleading, lies, hoax, etc. I’m not sure that they are applicable by you or directed toward you. Also, it seems to me that with words like context being bandied about, some have pegged you as a soft anti-Semite and read your comments accordingly.

    Specifically on the Bolsheviks and Jews question.

    Clearly I would say those were incorrectly directed at me. And I further believe I have backed up my points on that in contrast to the people who are using those words (do you disagree with that?).

    That said, we are back to the definition of anti-Semite. In this case with the qualifier “soft.” Let’s try an example.

    I consider disparate impact a good topic for elucidating subtleties here. I object to the outsized role of elite Jews in pushing disparate impact doctrine (you would think Jews would be sensitive to blood libels in general, but they seem to have no hesitancy doing it to others here). Disparate impact doctrine in its current form holds that any underrepresentation is prima facie evidence of racism (when it is blacks being underrepresented relative to whites, or sexism when it is women being underrepresented compared to men).

    Given the possibility of other reasons (differing average abilities and/or personal preferences, which usually are real influences) I consider that a blood libel against whites. It is also incredibly hypocritical given the unwillingness to have an honest conversation about how overrepresented Jews are in many areas in the US.

    Do you consider what I wrote there as being a soft anti-Semite? There is your answer, because I consider those two paragraphs representative of how I see the JQ. I would be much more tolerant of various Jewish advocates commenting on the Unz Review if they were willing to state their positions that clearly. It would do good for everyone to understand how the manner of the seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites looks to anyone familiar with the idea of psychological projection.

    I can “see” how a Jewish person might approach your comment with a little skepticism and caution because the existence of Jewish Bolsheviks is such a prominent part of current anti-Semitism. Specifically, your post on the % of Jews in the Bolshevik camp was not anti-Semitic. But, if you start posting that comment every few weeks I will have to reconsider.

    Your last sentence is a key point here. That is not (and is unlikely to become) true for % of Bolsheviks who were Jewish (not a primary area of interest or expertise for me). I do talk a fair bit about disparate impact though. And how one sees that could have a strong influence on perceptions of me.

    It is also worth noting that JQ conversations tend to be frequent and contentious on the Unz Review which increases the number of times I engage with the topics and tends to result in fairly high volumes of comments for each engagement. But even so, I think an honest look at my comment history indicates it is not a focus of mine (interested in your take here, in particular realize how often the JQ comments derive from other conversations, such as the basic disparate impact conversation). Some sample topics I consider much more important: individual differences, intelligence, and genetics. The JQ tends to come up in conjunction with Current Year US politics and policy.

    One thing to note. This is of course unknowable and unverifiable for anyone else here, but the JQ is not something I spend a lot of time either thinking about or discussing in real life. The Unz Review is one of the few places where there are relatively honest conversations on the topic and multiple points of view are present. I am very clear on the importance of judging individuals for themselves rather than their group(s). I do have some teeth gritting moments though when friends and other people I encounter in real life embody some of the stereotypes a bit too well for my taste (some of the other stereotypes I like though so it tends to even out). Just as I am sure others have some teeth gritting moments dealing with various aspects of my personality.

    Worth applying a similar metric to the Jewish advocates here, BTW.

    Consider the blog that appears above AE’s. AFAIK know he reports factual material. But it is 99% black on white aggression. He’s just presenting “the facts.” Should we leave it there and not draw any generalizations about his biases?

    Good case study (not a good match for me, but illustrative). We can draw generalizations, but that does not mean it is reasonable to respond to every post of his with “Racist!” rather than engaging with the facts he presents. Take another read through the responses to me. That is exactly what you see in many of them. Though some use more sophisticated language.

    Again, worth considering using that lens on the behavior of others in this conversation.

    Thanks for a thoughtful conversation on a contentious topic. My prolificness here is in large part due to how many people (including myself at times) have difficulty with that ; )

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    Dishonest!! Who are you calling dishonest?! Seriously, I don’t know why you and the others want to go so quickly to such laden words.

    I didn’t quote the 2nd sentence because at the time I didn’t think that it was important. Whether action is needed, and the nature of the action, is a completely different issue from believing Jews are up to no good. The point is that some anti-Semites pretend ignorance of the historical circumstances of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecutions, then claim that they have had a light bulb moment where they say that they clearly understand why the Nazis took the actions that they did. It’s borderline justification of Jewish persecution.

    ---Jewish bankers are bloodsuckers, but I don’t believe we should take action against any Jews. Is that a correct take?

    typical of Jews is the highly verbal, … the word game

    Well, they are the people of The Book after all.

    You mentioned the Diangelo person. I didn’t comment earlier, but the whole kibbutz thing (she got Jew cooties) is a permutation of the “find the Jew, name the Jew game”. Again, this is something that serious anti-Semites spend a lot of time on.

    -----The reason that FDR didn’t throw in with Hitler is because his chauffer had for many years been the chauffer of Mr. Big Jew Banker and he was under his spell.

    gamesmanship somewhat typical of Jews, but actually consider that something of a compliment since it is smart and effective. I called out the possibility

    I think that you are attaching to much significance to this comment jousting.

    in contrast to the people who are using those words (do you disagree with that?).

    This is a difficult question to answer. I’m trying to be a somewhat fair handed arbitrator, but as I said, I get the impression that some commenters may think that you are a soft-core anti-Semite and much in the comments flow from that. As I tried to make clear, I’m not fully on board with considering you (or me) as being a soft anti-Semite. Specifically, McNally started off with words like lie and hoax which didn’t seem appropriate to me. Then he went on to post more or less factual information. (I looked at his comments and they are pretty good.) I don’t place much value on his defense which I read as: Jews were well represented in all organizations trying to overthrow the established order, not just the Bolsheviks.

    I object to the outsized role of elite Jews in pushing disparate impact doctrine

    I object to the doctrine as well and it is just another politically activity where Jews are prominent.

    (But, damn, they can make great movies.)

    seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites

    I think that they are overplaying their Holocaust cards as well but try to look at it from their point of view. It’s all Kumbaya now, but it can change very quickly.

    Worth applying a similar metric to the Jewish advocates here, BTW.
    Again, worth considering using that lens on the behavior of others in this conversation.

    I know you’re not looking at me. 😊

    Replies: @res

    , @iffen
    @res

    but that does not mean it is reasonable to respond to every post of his with “Racist!” rather than engaging with the facts he presents.

    I see your point but how would that work? She's not really white? He's not really black?

    but the JQ is not something I spend a lot of time either thinking about or discussing in real life.

    Politically I think that it is elemental, along with the RQ.

  97. @res
    @iffen

    Thanks for replying. On the whole I would say that is a fairly reasonable take (especially as JQ conversations go). Let's discuss some of it. I'll add some links because I do consider context to be important.


    I used to wonder why Jews had been kicked out of so many places. I don’t really wonder so much anymore.

    Really? You have no idea?

    This is a trope comment frequently made by serious anti-Semites. (The Jews made me do it!)
     

    I consider it somewhat dishonest that you left out the sentence immediately following that: "Even if I don’t think that is the right solution."

    Did you mean had rather than have? I will respond further after you clarify. Source was
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4735765


    certain “typical” styles of argument.

    Again, another anti-Semitic trope. It is difficult for me to see how one could demonstrate a style of argument that would identify Jews.

    Are Jews more prone to deceitfulness, especially when dealing with non-Jews?
     

    Source was https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734761

    One style of argument I would identify as typical of Jews is the highly verbal, data light comments we have seen throughout this thread. I understand that is a stereotype and is by no means either universal to Jews or restricted to them, but it does seem to be more common. A particular example is the word game I keep harping on to which I said "Nicely done" (sarcastic, but truly felt) in my reply to Dissident above.

    Regarding deceitfulness, that is an interesting one. I would say that Jews tend to be more deceitful to non-Jews (their outgroup) than European whites are to other European whites (an ingroup interaction for me). So I usually process that as a simple more deceitful. But in justice the non/Jew version is probably in line with most levels of deceit between outgroups. There is also the issue that I think smart and highly verbal Jews tend to be better at deceit than most people. Which makes it more impactful.


    When we get to the fine grain details of anti-Semitism, its definition, and who and what qualifies gets to be really dicey. I am not sure that we are not just dealing with normal biases and prejudices that we all have. I include me in all and at some level it is not “useful” in trying to sort it out.
     
    Well said. That is how I see it. One of the reasons I don't like the term "anti-Semite" is the endless shifting definitions roughly between the poles of "said something some Jew does not like" and "all Jews should die."

    And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Would this be typical of Dissident or Jews?
     

    It would be typical of the Unz Review ; ) Similar to the people who drop rebuttal comments on stale threads in the hope that they go unnoticed.

    It would also be typical of people who specifically asked for a longer deadline. Why do that if you don't intend to say something? And once there, why not make your comment right before the deadline. That is a brutally effective tactic. I would consider that kind of gamesmanship somewhat typical of Jews, but actually consider that something of a compliment since it is smart and effective. I called out the possibility in an attempt to preempt it or at least lessen the rhetorical effectiveness if it does happen.

    FWIW I am sensitized to that here because in a couple of contentious exchanges here AE has closed comments with a timing which gave the person I was arguing with the last word.


    Many of the comments in question have many ladened words: misleading, lies, hoax, etc. I’m not sure that they are applicable by you or directed toward you. Also, it seems to me that with words like context being bandied about, some have pegged you as a soft anti-Semite and read your comments accordingly.

    Specifically on the Bolsheviks and Jews question.
     

    Clearly I would say those were incorrectly directed at me. And I further believe I have backed up my points on that in contrast to the people who are using those words (do you disagree with that?).

    That said, we are back to the definition of anti-Semite. In this case with the qualifier "soft." Let's try an example.

    I consider disparate impact a good topic for elucidating subtleties here. I object to the outsized role of elite Jews in pushing disparate impact doctrine (you would think Jews would be sensitive to blood libels in general, but they seem to have no hesitancy doing it to others here). Disparate impact doctrine in its current form holds that any underrepresentation is prima facie evidence of racism (when it is blacks being underrepresented relative to whites, or sexism when it is women being underrepresented compared to men).

    Given the possibility of other reasons (differing average abilities and/or personal preferences, which usually are real influences) I consider that a blood libel against whites. It is also incredibly hypocritical given the unwillingness to have an honest conversation about how overrepresented Jews are in many areas in the US.

    Do you consider what I wrote there as being a soft anti-Semite? There is your answer, because I consider those two paragraphs representative of how I see the JQ. I would be much more tolerant of various Jewish advocates commenting on the Unz Review if they were willing to state their positions that clearly. It would do good for everyone to understand how the manner of the seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites looks to anyone familiar with the idea of psychological projection.


    I can “see” how a Jewish person might approach your comment with a little skepticism and caution because the existence of Jewish Bolsheviks is such a prominent part of current anti-Semitism. Specifically, your post on the % of Jews in the Bolshevik camp was not anti-Semitic. But, if you start posting that comment every few weeks I will have to reconsider.
     
    Your last sentence is a key point here. That is not (and is unlikely to become) true for % of Bolsheviks who were Jewish (not a primary area of interest or expertise for me). I do talk a fair bit about disparate impact though. And how one sees that could have a strong influence on perceptions of me.

    It is also worth noting that JQ conversations tend to be frequent and contentious on the Unz Review which increases the number of times I engage with the topics and tends to result in fairly high volumes of comments for each engagement. But even so, I think an honest look at my comment history indicates it is not a focus of mine (interested in your take here, in particular realize how often the JQ comments derive from other conversations, such as the basic disparate impact conversation). Some sample topics I consider much more important: individual differences, intelligence, and genetics. The JQ tends to come up in conjunction with Current Year US politics and policy.

    One thing to note. This is of course unknowable and unverifiable for anyone else here, but the JQ is not something I spend a lot of time either thinking about or discussing in real life. The Unz Review is one of the few places where there are relatively honest conversations on the topic and multiple points of view are present. I am very clear on the importance of judging individuals for themselves rather than their group(s). I do have some teeth gritting moments though when friends and other people I encounter in real life embody some of the stereotypes a bit too well for my taste (some of the other stereotypes I like though so it tends to even out). Just as I am sure others have some teeth gritting moments dealing with various aspects of my personality.

    Worth applying a similar metric to the Jewish advocates here, BTW.


    Consider the blog that appears above AE’s. AFAIK know he reports factual material. But it is 99% black on white aggression. He’s just presenting “the facts.” Should we leave it there and not draw any generalizations about his biases?
     
    Good case study (not a good match for me, but illustrative). We can draw generalizations, but that does not mean it is reasonable to respond to every post of his with "Racist!" rather than engaging with the facts he presents. Take another read through the responses to me. That is exactly what you see in many of them. Though some use more sophisticated language.

    Again, worth considering using that lens on the behavior of others in this conversation.

    Thanks for a thoughtful conversation on a contentious topic. My prolificness here is in large part due to how many people (including myself at times) have difficulty with that ; )

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen

    Dishonest!! Who are you calling dishonest?! Seriously, I don’t know why you and the others want to go so quickly to such laden words.

    I didn’t quote the 2nd sentence because at the time I didn’t think that it was important. Whether action is needed, and the nature of the action, is a completely different issue from believing Jews are up to no good. The point is that some anti-Semites pretend ignorance of the historical circumstances of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecutions, then claim that they have had a light bulb moment where they say that they clearly understand why the Nazis took the actions that they did. It’s borderline justification of Jewish persecution.

    —Jewish bankers are bloodsuckers, but I don’t believe we should take action against any Jews. Is that a correct take?

    typical of Jews is the highly verbal, … the word game

    Well, they are the people of The Book after all.

    You mentioned the Diangelo person. I didn’t comment earlier, but the whole kibbutz thing (she got Jew cooties) is a permutation of the “find the Jew, name the Jew game”. Again, this is something that serious anti-Semites spend a lot of time on.

    —–The reason that FDR didn’t throw in with Hitler is because his chauffer had for many years been the chauffer of Mr. Big Jew Banker and he was under his spell.

    gamesmanship somewhat typical of Jews, but actually consider that something of a compliment since it is smart and effective. I called out the possibility

    I think that you are attaching to much significance to this comment jousting.

    in contrast to the people who are using those words (do you disagree with that?).

    This is a difficult question to answer. I’m trying to be a somewhat fair handed arbitrator, but as I said, I get the impression that some commenters may think that you are a soft-core anti-Semite and much in the comments flow from that. As I tried to make clear, I’m not fully on board with considering you (or me) as being a soft anti-Semite. Specifically, McNally started off with words like lie and hoax which didn’t seem appropriate to me. Then he went on to post more or less factual information. (I looked at his comments and they are pretty good.) I don’t place much value on his defense which I read as: Jews were well represented in all organizations trying to overthrow the established order, not just the Bolsheviks.

    I object to the outsized role of elite Jews in pushing disparate impact doctrine

    I object to the doctrine as well and it is just another politically activity where Jews are prominent.

    (But, damn, they can make great movies.)

    seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites

    I think that they are overplaying their Holocaust cards as well but try to look at it from their point of view. It’s all Kumbaya now, but it can change very quickly.

    Worth applying a similar metric to the Jewish advocates here, BTW.
    Again, worth considering using that lens on the behavior of others in this conversation.

    I know you’re not looking at me. 😊

    • Replies: @res
    @iffen


    Dishonest!! Who are you calling dishonest?! Seriously, I don’t know why you and the others want to go so quickly to such laden words.
     
    I thought somewhat dishonest was fairly light criticism. What would you suggest instead? Misleading? I'm not sure how you could think that sentence was not important, but I will take your word for it.

    The point is that some anti-Semites pretend ignorance of the historical circumstances of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecutions, then claim that they have had a light bulb moment where they say that they clearly understand why the Nazis took the actions that they did. It’s borderline justification of Jewish persecution.
     
    That's why I asked you to clarify your tense. Keep in mind I am talking about a full life trajectory. Were you aware of those historical circumstances as a child? When did you learn? The conventional narrative is "all of those evil people spending centuries picking on the Jews who never, ever did anything wrong." That is the "used to wonder" phase. It takes longer to learn the full historical circumstances. And realize that maybe some people who kicked Jews out of their cities and countries weren't simply being evil. Mass murder is evil regardless.

    I'd also add that I can understand different sorts of pogroms (the way they all get lumped into "muh Holocaust!" conceals significant nuance) to varying degrees. Placing restrictions on allowed professions or requiring them to leave is one thing. Mass murder is very different.

    You can call it borderline justification if you like. I disagree. It is more like: can you please just stop your role in destroying my society! This is not helpful to anyone in the long term.

    —Jewish bankers are bloodsuckers, but I don’t believe we should take action against any Jews. Is that a correct take?
     
    No. A more accurate version would be: Some people think Jewish bankers are all bloodsuckers and want them removed from this country. I can understand some of where that comes from even while I disagree (in multiple dimensions: not all Jewish bankers, not only Jews, and bloodsuckers tends to create more heat than light, better to describe the specific behaviors). And I definitely don't think all Jews deserve to be punished for the sins of a minority. (kind of like how I don't think all whites in the present day deserve to be punished for the sin of slavery in the US 150 years ago)

    typical of Jews is the highly verbal, … the word game

    Well, they are the people of The Book after all.
     
    Yes. I think that to you and I that is obvious, but suspect that for some here even a common sense observation like that makes me an anti-Semite.

    You mentioned the Diangelo person. I didn’t comment earlier, but the whole kibbutz thing (she got Jew cooties) is a permutation of the “find the Jew, name the Jew game”. Again, this is something that serious anti-Semites spend a lot of time on.
     
    Not being sensitive enough to that dynamic is probably my biggest mistake in that thread (my fault, I dislike Hasbara-like trolls and that comment set off that filter, for right or for wrong; I dislike anti-Semitic trolls as well, but as long as people on either side post real information I cut them some slack, better with linked evidence though).

    I think it is worth recalling that my initial comment in that thread
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734191
    was simply calling out TL for dismissing all of the evidence for the kibbutz visit as not credible when a simple search showed what was probably the primary source. IMHO a less biased commenter would (and should) have linked it and discussed why it was not satisfactory rather than dismissing it out of hand without even giving anyone else the opportunity to see it and evaluate for themselves.

    I explicitly said multiple times I did not think the visit was important and I was more concerned with reactions to it.


    I think that you are attaching to much significance to this comment jousting.
     
    Probably. But what else to do when no one else wants to engage with the facts and insists on attacking me (in some fairly nasty terms, did you read the acolyte comment?) because they think I am an anti-Semite (i.e. how they heard what they think I meant, not what I actually did say)?

    seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites

    I think that they are overplaying their Holocaust cards as well but try to look at it from their point of view. It’s all Kumbaya now, but it can change very quickly.
     
    I agree. I just don't think they appreciate how some of their actions IMHO make that more likely rather than less.

    I know you’re not looking at me. 😊
     
    In all seriousness, I am not. Probably should have thought about how it might be interpreted that way though and taken a bit more care with my wording.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  98. @res
    @iffen

    Thanks for replying. On the whole I would say that is a fairly reasonable take (especially as JQ conversations go). Let's discuss some of it. I'll add some links because I do consider context to be important.


    I used to wonder why Jews had been kicked out of so many places. I don’t really wonder so much anymore.

    Really? You have no idea?

    This is a trope comment frequently made by serious anti-Semites. (The Jews made me do it!)
     

    I consider it somewhat dishonest that you left out the sentence immediately following that: "Even if I don’t think that is the right solution."

    Did you mean had rather than have? I will respond further after you clarify. Source was
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4735765


    certain “typical” styles of argument.

    Again, another anti-Semitic trope. It is difficult for me to see how one could demonstrate a style of argument that would identify Jews.

    Are Jews more prone to deceitfulness, especially when dealing with non-Jews?
     

    Source was https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734761

    One style of argument I would identify as typical of Jews is the highly verbal, data light comments we have seen throughout this thread. I understand that is a stereotype and is by no means either universal to Jews or restricted to them, but it does seem to be more common. A particular example is the word game I keep harping on to which I said "Nicely done" (sarcastic, but truly felt) in my reply to Dissident above.

    Regarding deceitfulness, that is an interesting one. I would say that Jews tend to be more deceitful to non-Jews (their outgroup) than European whites are to other European whites (an ingroup interaction for me). So I usually process that as a simple more deceitful. But in justice the non/Jew version is probably in line with most levels of deceit between outgroups. There is also the issue that I think smart and highly verbal Jews tend to be better at deceit than most people. Which makes it more impactful.


    When we get to the fine grain details of anti-Semitism, its definition, and who and what qualifies gets to be really dicey. I am not sure that we are not just dealing with normal biases and prejudices that we all have. I include me in all and at some level it is not “useful” in trying to sort it out.
     
    Well said. That is how I see it. One of the reasons I don't like the term "anti-Semite" is the endless shifting definitions roughly between the poles of "said something some Jew does not like" and "all Jews should die."

    And if we can expect to see a long comment dropped here shortly before the deadline.

    Would this be typical of Dissident or Jews?
     

    It would be typical of the Unz Review ; ) Similar to the people who drop rebuttal comments on stale threads in the hope that they go unnoticed.

    It would also be typical of people who specifically asked for a longer deadline. Why do that if you don't intend to say something? And once there, why not make your comment right before the deadline. That is a brutally effective tactic. I would consider that kind of gamesmanship somewhat typical of Jews, but actually consider that something of a compliment since it is smart and effective. I called out the possibility in an attempt to preempt it or at least lessen the rhetorical effectiveness if it does happen.

    FWIW I am sensitized to that here because in a couple of contentious exchanges here AE has closed comments with a timing which gave the person I was arguing with the last word.


    Many of the comments in question have many ladened words: misleading, lies, hoax, etc. I’m not sure that they are applicable by you or directed toward you. Also, it seems to me that with words like context being bandied about, some have pegged you as a soft anti-Semite and read your comments accordingly.

    Specifically on the Bolsheviks and Jews question.
     

    Clearly I would say those were incorrectly directed at me. And I further believe I have backed up my points on that in contrast to the people who are using those words (do you disagree with that?).

    That said, we are back to the definition of anti-Semite. In this case with the qualifier "soft." Let's try an example.

    I consider disparate impact a good topic for elucidating subtleties here. I object to the outsized role of elite Jews in pushing disparate impact doctrine (you would think Jews would be sensitive to blood libels in general, but they seem to have no hesitancy doing it to others here). Disparate impact doctrine in its current form holds that any underrepresentation is prima facie evidence of racism (when it is blacks being underrepresented relative to whites, or sexism when it is women being underrepresented compared to men).

    Given the possibility of other reasons (differing average abilities and/or personal preferences, which usually are real influences) I consider that a blood libel against whites. It is also incredibly hypocritical given the unwillingness to have an honest conversation about how overrepresented Jews are in many areas in the US.

    Do you consider what I wrote there as being a soft anti-Semite? There is your answer, because I consider those two paragraphs representative of how I see the JQ. I would be much more tolerant of various Jewish advocates commenting on the Unz Review if they were willing to state their positions that clearly. It would do good for everyone to understand how the manner of the seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites looks to anyone familiar with the idea of psychological projection.


    I can “see” how a Jewish person might approach your comment with a little skepticism and caution because the existence of Jewish Bolsheviks is such a prominent part of current anti-Semitism. Specifically, your post on the % of Jews in the Bolshevik camp was not anti-Semitic. But, if you start posting that comment every few weeks I will have to reconsider.
     
    Your last sentence is a key point here. That is not (and is unlikely to become) true for % of Bolsheviks who were Jewish (not a primary area of interest or expertise for me). I do talk a fair bit about disparate impact though. And how one sees that could have a strong influence on perceptions of me.

    It is also worth noting that JQ conversations tend to be frequent and contentious on the Unz Review which increases the number of times I engage with the topics and tends to result in fairly high volumes of comments for each engagement. But even so, I think an honest look at my comment history indicates it is not a focus of mine (interested in your take here, in particular realize how often the JQ comments derive from other conversations, such as the basic disparate impact conversation). Some sample topics I consider much more important: individual differences, intelligence, and genetics. The JQ tends to come up in conjunction with Current Year US politics and policy.

    One thing to note. This is of course unknowable and unverifiable for anyone else here, but the JQ is not something I spend a lot of time either thinking about or discussing in real life. The Unz Review is one of the few places where there are relatively honest conversations on the topic and multiple points of view are present. I am very clear on the importance of judging individuals for themselves rather than their group(s). I do have some teeth gritting moments though when friends and other people I encounter in real life embody some of the stereotypes a bit too well for my taste (some of the other stereotypes I like though so it tends to even out). Just as I am sure others have some teeth gritting moments dealing with various aspects of my personality.

    Worth applying a similar metric to the Jewish advocates here, BTW.


    Consider the blog that appears above AE’s. AFAIK know he reports factual material. But it is 99% black on white aggression. He’s just presenting “the facts.” Should we leave it there and not draw any generalizations about his biases?
     
    Good case study (not a good match for me, but illustrative). We can draw generalizations, but that does not mean it is reasonable to respond to every post of his with "Racist!" rather than engaging with the facts he presents. Take another read through the responses to me. That is exactly what you see in many of them. Though some use more sophisticated language.

    Again, worth considering using that lens on the behavior of others in this conversation.

    Thanks for a thoughtful conversation on a contentious topic. My prolificness here is in large part due to how many people (including myself at times) have difficulty with that ; )

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen

    but that does not mean it is reasonable to respond to every post of his with “Racist!” rather than engaging with the facts he presents.

    I see your point but how would that work? She’s not really white? He’s not really black?

    but the JQ is not something I spend a lot of time either thinking about or discussing in real life.

    Politically I think that it is elemental, along with the RQ.

  99. @iffen
    @res

    Dishonest!! Who are you calling dishonest?! Seriously, I don’t know why you and the others want to go so quickly to such laden words.

    I didn’t quote the 2nd sentence because at the time I didn’t think that it was important. Whether action is needed, and the nature of the action, is a completely different issue from believing Jews are up to no good. The point is that some anti-Semites pretend ignorance of the historical circumstances of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecutions, then claim that they have had a light bulb moment where they say that they clearly understand why the Nazis took the actions that they did. It’s borderline justification of Jewish persecution.

    ---Jewish bankers are bloodsuckers, but I don’t believe we should take action against any Jews. Is that a correct take?

    typical of Jews is the highly verbal, … the word game

    Well, they are the people of The Book after all.

    You mentioned the Diangelo person. I didn’t comment earlier, but the whole kibbutz thing (she got Jew cooties) is a permutation of the “find the Jew, name the Jew game”. Again, this is something that serious anti-Semites spend a lot of time on.

    -----The reason that FDR didn’t throw in with Hitler is because his chauffer had for many years been the chauffer of Mr. Big Jew Banker and he was under his spell.

    gamesmanship somewhat typical of Jews, but actually consider that something of a compliment since it is smart and effective. I called out the possibility

    I think that you are attaching to much significance to this comment jousting.

    in contrast to the people who are using those words (do you disagree with that?).

    This is a difficult question to answer. I’m trying to be a somewhat fair handed arbitrator, but as I said, I get the impression that some commenters may think that you are a soft-core anti-Semite and much in the comments flow from that. As I tried to make clear, I’m not fully on board with considering you (or me) as being a soft anti-Semite. Specifically, McNally started off with words like lie and hoax which didn’t seem appropriate to me. Then he went on to post more or less factual information. (I looked at his comments and they are pretty good.) I don’t place much value on his defense which I read as: Jews were well represented in all organizations trying to overthrow the established order, not just the Bolsheviks.

    I object to the outsized role of elite Jews in pushing disparate impact doctrine

    I object to the doctrine as well and it is just another politically activity where Jews are prominent.

    (But, damn, they can make great movies.)

    seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites

    I think that they are overplaying their Holocaust cards as well but try to look at it from their point of view. It’s all Kumbaya now, but it can change very quickly.

    Worth applying a similar metric to the Jewish advocates here, BTW.
    Again, worth considering using that lens on the behavior of others in this conversation.

    I know you’re not looking at me. 😊

    Replies: @res

    Dishonest!! Who are you calling dishonest?! Seriously, I don’t know why you and the others want to go so quickly to such laden words.

    I thought somewhat dishonest was fairly light criticism. What would you suggest instead? Misleading? I’m not sure how you could think that sentence was not important, but I will take your word for it.

    The point is that some anti-Semites pretend ignorance of the historical circumstances of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecutions, then claim that they have had a light bulb moment where they say that they clearly understand why the Nazis took the actions that they did. It’s borderline justification of Jewish persecution.

    That’s why I asked you to clarify your tense. Keep in mind I am talking about a full life trajectory. Were you aware of those historical circumstances as a child? When did you learn? The conventional narrative is “all of those evil people spending centuries picking on the Jews who never, ever did anything wrong.” That is the “used to wonder” phase. It takes longer to learn the full historical circumstances. And realize that maybe some people who kicked Jews out of their cities and countries weren’t simply being evil. Mass murder is evil regardless.

    I’d also add that I can understand different sorts of pogroms (the way they all get lumped into “muh Holocaust!” conceals significant nuance) to varying degrees. Placing restrictions on allowed professions or requiring them to leave is one thing. Mass murder is very different.

    You can call it borderline justification if you like. I disagree. It is more like: can you please just stop your role in destroying my society! This is not helpful to anyone in the long term.

    —Jewish bankers are bloodsuckers, but I don’t believe we should take action against any Jews. Is that a correct take?

    No. A more accurate version would be: Some people think Jewish bankers are all bloodsuckers and want them removed from this country. I can understand some of where that comes from even while I disagree (in multiple dimensions: not all Jewish bankers, not only Jews, and bloodsuckers tends to create more heat than light, better to describe the specific behaviors). And I definitely don’t think all Jews deserve to be punished for the sins of a minority. (kind of like how I don’t think all whites in the present day deserve to be punished for the sin of slavery in the US 150 years ago)

    typical of Jews is the highly verbal, … the word game

    Well, they are the people of The Book after all.

    Yes. I think that to you and I that is obvious, but suspect that for some here even a common sense observation like that makes me an anti-Semite.

    You mentioned the Diangelo person. I didn’t comment earlier, but the whole kibbutz thing (she got Jew cooties) is a permutation of the “find the Jew, name the Jew game”. Again, this is something that serious anti-Semites spend a lot of time on.

    Not being sensitive enough to that dynamic is probably my biggest mistake in that thread (my fault, I dislike Hasbara-like trolls and that comment set off that filter, for right or for wrong; I dislike anti-Semitic trolls as well, but as long as people on either side post real information I cut them some slack, better with linked evidence though).

    I think it is worth recalling that my initial comment in that thread
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734191
    was simply calling out TL for dismissing all of the evidence for the kibbutz visit as not credible when a simple search showed what was probably the primary source. IMHO a less biased commenter would (and should) have linked it and discussed why it was not satisfactory rather than dismissing it out of hand without even giving anyone else the opportunity to see it and evaluate for themselves.

    I explicitly said multiple times I did not think the visit was important and I was more concerned with reactions to it.

    I think that you are attaching to much significance to this comment jousting.

    Probably. But what else to do when no one else wants to engage with the facts and insists on attacking me (in some fairly nasty terms, did you read the acolyte comment?) because they think I am an anti-Semite (i.e. how they heard what they think I meant, not what I actually did say)?

    seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites

    I think that they are overplaying their Holocaust cards as well but try to look at it from their point of view. It’s all Kumbaya now, but it can change very quickly.

    I agree. I just don’t think they appreciate how some of their actions IMHO make that more likely rather than less.

    I know you’re not looking at me. 😊

    In all seriousness, I am not. Probably should have thought about how it might be interpreted that way though and taken a bit more care with my wording.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res


    I thought somewhat dishonest was fairly light criticism. What would you suggest instead? Misleading?
     
    This is just a observation; so please don't bite my head off for it.

    I would, personally, be extremely hesitant to question someone's (conscious) sincerity. I feel it would immediately make discussion pointless and be placing them in some sort of "enemy" category, where the stakes are high and the game is zero sum. I also feel that it would be me just being extremely paranoid were I to do it. You clearly disagree for some reason, but I don't understand why?
  100. I feel honored. I have been moved from the dishonest category to the misleading one.

    It takes longer to learn the full historical circumstances.

    Still in the learning phase here.

    And I definitely don’t think all Jews deserve to be punished for the sins of a minority.

    Collective guilt is a big ball of wax wrapped in a tar baby.

    If I use the term tar baby does that make me a racist?

  101. @res
    @iffen


    Dishonest!! Who are you calling dishonest?! Seriously, I don’t know why you and the others want to go so quickly to such laden words.
     
    I thought somewhat dishonest was fairly light criticism. What would you suggest instead? Misleading? I'm not sure how you could think that sentence was not important, but I will take your word for it.

    The point is that some anti-Semites pretend ignorance of the historical circumstances of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecutions, then claim that they have had a light bulb moment where they say that they clearly understand why the Nazis took the actions that they did. It’s borderline justification of Jewish persecution.
     
    That's why I asked you to clarify your tense. Keep in mind I am talking about a full life trajectory. Were you aware of those historical circumstances as a child? When did you learn? The conventional narrative is "all of those evil people spending centuries picking on the Jews who never, ever did anything wrong." That is the "used to wonder" phase. It takes longer to learn the full historical circumstances. And realize that maybe some people who kicked Jews out of their cities and countries weren't simply being evil. Mass murder is evil regardless.

    I'd also add that I can understand different sorts of pogroms (the way they all get lumped into "muh Holocaust!" conceals significant nuance) to varying degrees. Placing restrictions on allowed professions or requiring them to leave is one thing. Mass murder is very different.

    You can call it borderline justification if you like. I disagree. It is more like: can you please just stop your role in destroying my society! This is not helpful to anyone in the long term.

    —Jewish bankers are bloodsuckers, but I don’t believe we should take action against any Jews. Is that a correct take?
     
    No. A more accurate version would be: Some people think Jewish bankers are all bloodsuckers and want them removed from this country. I can understand some of where that comes from even while I disagree (in multiple dimensions: not all Jewish bankers, not only Jews, and bloodsuckers tends to create more heat than light, better to describe the specific behaviors). And I definitely don't think all Jews deserve to be punished for the sins of a minority. (kind of like how I don't think all whites in the present day deserve to be punished for the sin of slavery in the US 150 years ago)

    typical of Jews is the highly verbal, … the word game

    Well, they are the people of The Book after all.
     
    Yes. I think that to you and I that is obvious, but suspect that for some here even a common sense observation like that makes me an anti-Semite.

    You mentioned the Diangelo person. I didn’t comment earlier, but the whole kibbutz thing (she got Jew cooties) is a permutation of the “find the Jew, name the Jew game”. Again, this is something that serious anti-Semites spend a lot of time on.
     
    Not being sensitive enough to that dynamic is probably my biggest mistake in that thread (my fault, I dislike Hasbara-like trolls and that comment set off that filter, for right or for wrong; I dislike anti-Semitic trolls as well, but as long as people on either side post real information I cut them some slack, better with linked evidence though).

    I think it is worth recalling that my initial comment in that thread
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/robin-diangelos-miasma-theory-racism-comes-out-of-our-pores-as-white-people/#comment-4734191
    was simply calling out TL for dismissing all of the evidence for the kibbutz visit as not credible when a simple search showed what was probably the primary source. IMHO a less biased commenter would (and should) have linked it and discussed why it was not satisfactory rather than dismissing it out of hand without even giving anyone else the opportunity to see it and evaluate for themselves.

    I explicitly said multiple times I did not think the visit was important and I was more concerned with reactions to it.


    I think that you are attaching to much significance to this comment jousting.
     
    Probably. But what else to do when no one else wants to engage with the facts and insists on attacking me (in some fairly nasty terms, did you read the acolyte comment?) because they think I am an anti-Semite (i.e. how they heard what they think I meant, not what I actually did say)?

    seemingly paranoid search for anti-Semites

    I think that they are overplaying their Holocaust cards as well but try to look at it from their point of view. It’s all Kumbaya now, but it can change very quickly.
     
    I agree. I just don't think they appreciate how some of their actions IMHO make that more likely rather than less.

    I know you’re not looking at me. 😊
     
    In all seriousness, I am not. Probably should have thought about how it might be interpreted that way though and taken a bit more care with my wording.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I thought somewhat dishonest was fairly light criticism. What would you suggest instead? Misleading?

    This is just a observation; so please don’t bite my head off for it.

    I would, personally, be extremely hesitant to question someone’s (conscious) sincerity. I feel it would immediately make discussion pointless and be placing them in some sort of “enemy” category, where the stakes are high and the game is zero sum. I also feel that it would be me just being extremely paranoid were I to do it. You clearly disagree for some reason, but I don’t understand why?

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