The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
David Brooks on the "Meritocratic Establishment"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In the New York Times, David Brooks writes:

After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism, led the nation into war in Vietnam and became stultifying.

So in the late 1960s along came a group of provocateurs like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and the rest of the counterculture to upend the Protestant establishment. People like Hoffman were buffoons, but also masters of political theater.

They never attracted majority support for their antics, but they didn’t have to. All they had to do was provoke, offend the crew-cut crowd, generate outrage and set off a cycle that ripped apart the cultural consensus.

The late 1960s were a time of intense cultural conflict, which left a lot of wreckage in its wake. But eventually a new establishment came into being, which we will call the meritocratic establishment.

David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”

Mr. Brooks’ notion is that the upheavals of the 1960s were largely about talented Jews elbowing their way into the top slots in our culture, which is exaggerated but pretty reasonable.

It hardly makes sense to talk of black and brown beneficiaries of affirmative action, such as Michelle Obama, as “meritocrats.”

Obviously, he’s talking about Jews with a few Asians thrown in and a vague appeal to Catholics, who probably lost more under the post-1968 dispensation than they gained.

But since you can’t mention Jewish numbers, almost nobody ever grasps what Brooks is talking about.

Ever since, you are not supposed to mention Jewish predominance. You are supposed to talk about, say, White Privilege in Hollywood, White Privilege on Wall Street, and White Privilege in the Press, but you are never ever supposed to speak of Jewish Privilege. It’s not even a thing.

And that explains a lot of the mania about the President. While Trump is clearly extremely pro-Semitic, his tendency to blurt out inconvenient truths has alarmed much of the “meritocratic establishment” that he will someday blurt out the most unmentionable fact of all: how over-represented Jews are in the best jobs.

It’s perfectly reasonable for Jews to want to have no quotas restricting their personal ambitions. But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them), while simultaneously censoring all analogous discussion of their own over-representation.

An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.

I don’t think David Brooks would disagree all that much, he’d just object to specifying what he is talking about.

Commenter Welsh draws attention to this 2005 book review in the NYT by Brooks:

A woman came up to me after one of my book talks and said, “You realize what you’re talking about is the Jews taking over America.”

My eyes bugged out, but then I realized that she was Jewish and she knew I was, too, and between us we could acknowledge there’s a lot of truth in that statement. For the Jews were the vanguard of a social movement that over the course of the 20th century transformed the American university system and the nature of the American elite.

 
Hide 311 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Brook’s Exhibit One of the new “meritocratic elite” in modern times is Hillary Clinton. So he probably won’t agree with your interpretation.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Her husband is Bubba, as per the practices of the old Protestant establishment.

    But as she has demonstrated on countless occasions, she is actually married to The Meritocratic Elite.

    The more I think about it, the more deliciously total is her November defeat. Team Trump annulled her genuine marriage.

    No wonder she hates married white (Christian) women who voted against her.... They have the one thing she wanted more than any other...but rejected to whore herself to The Meritocratic Elite.

  2. America is moving towards becoming a minority majority country. Multiculturalism is going to win regardless of what those who are disenfranchised by it feel about it. Those who learn to adapt and thrive in this new reality will succeed in deciding what the future holds for our country.

    Trump and his movement represent the last gasp of a narrow vision of American life. What they are railing against is a set of progressive cultural values that are now ascendant: support for marriage equality; support for racial equality; a belief that health care is a right; environmentalism; and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. The culture is already being rebuilt, and that’s what Trump and his supporter can’t stand.

    It wasn’t just the white “working class” that brought Trump into power. It was middle class, upper class, and wealthy whites, as well. In other words, it was whites. Trump won all white demographics. This isn’t a class conflict. It’s a racial conflict. It’s about white racism and resentment that has been part of the country’s social fabric for centuries. Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    • Replies: @newrouter
    "Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. "

    you go grrl!!!11!!!
    , @Lagertha
    This is the last time I will ever answer to this low intelligence/useless, disgusting person: Trump did not get the majority Jewish vote - your generalization about white demographics is total bullshit; and, people like you, will soooo wish you had power once you allow "the chosen people" to decide everything in this country for you- because, if you're NOT Jewish, well, too bad.

    Enjoy the decline...and let my words echo in your stupid brain forever. Did you not once realize there are 50 shades of white and ethnic belief? And, if you are Jewish, well, enjoy the decline when no one is there to answer your 911 call. You disgust me.

    , @bomag
    Hey TD, since you are reduced to cutting and pasting comments from somewhere else and passing them off as your own, would you at least find some that aren't so silly?
    , @Unladen Swallow
    Beyond stupidity as usual duck, lets break this down for you, whites support gay marriage far more than non-whites do, support enviromentalism far more also, the welfare state was invented in Northern Europe, not West Africa, white people also invented abolitionism and civil rights, while Chiefs in West Africa sold their fellow Africans and based their entire economies on slavery.

    National parks and wildlife conservation were also invented by Northern Europeans like Roosevelt, Grant, and Muir, not as Ken Burns might have implied "persons of color". You managed to put all of those lies in just a a single paragraph, you provide a target rich environment, keep it up duck.

    , @Laugh Track

    Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.
     
    Thumbs up to your new ghost-writer, TD. More erudite, fewer typos. It's still the usual BS, of course. Have you considered gracing The Atlantic with your keen insights and giving iSteve a rest for awhile?
    , @Pat Boyle
    Why is anyone surprised that Jews do well in America? We know that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ's - around 112-115. We know that nations with high IQ's prosper. We know that individuals and races with high IQ's have high incomes - Japanese and Koreans earn more than native whites. East Asians have IQ's around 103-105.

    So if Jews didn't do well in business, science, and letters it would be a major departure from universal and global patterns.
  3. While Trump is clearly extremely pro-Semitic, his tendency to blurt out inconvenient truths has alarmed much of the “meritocratic establishment” that he will someday blurt out the most unmentionable fact of all: how over-represented Jews are in the best jobs.

    I don’t know if it will happen, but if it does I plan to pop batches of popcorn if it does.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    I plan to prepare a bacon cheeseburger with fried oysters on the side.
  4. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism, led the nation into war in Vietnam and became stultifying.

    After WWII, Protestant Establishment dominated the high ground of what? American Culture?

    Hollywood was controlled by Jews from the beginning. Jews had a huge stake in pop music as they composed many of the hits. And blacks were over-represented in pop music long before end of segregation.

    The Establishment failed because it tolerated segregation and ‘sexism’? As I recall, the establishment did much to end Segregation. Even Republican Eisenhower rolled back Segregation and started the whole process.
    No, the Establishment failed because it ended Segregation and surrendered the moral highground to blacks and their Jewish enablers. White elites were not honest about the threat posed by blacks onto whites. If they’d been honest, much of US racial policy would have been halfway justified. White Southerners had morally justifiable reasons for segregation. Stronger and more aggressive blacks are a threat to whites. It’s just that white male pride never admitted this, and therefore lost the moral credit it could have had.

    Blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, have always been a danger to whites. Also, how were Jews any less segregationist? They joined white flight from black crime. They forced the US to support the Zionist imperialist state of Israel.
    And speaking of ‘sexism’, which group did more to promote pornography? Which group exploited tons of women in music industry and Hollywood with promises of career boosts? Well, it sure didn’t hurt the Jews any in the rise to power.
    And what of neo-segregation of gentric cleansing and stop-and-frisk and using tons of immigrant-colonizers as buffers against blacks and bulwark against the white electorate?

    Btw, many Jews were associated with leftism and communism. All those ideologies and movements failed, not just politically but morally as millions were destroyed. Why weren’t Jewish leftists and Liberals ever blamed for this?

    It’s all about ‘who controls the narrative’.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Hollywood was controlled by Jews from the beginning. Jews had a huge stake in pop music as they composed many of the hits. And blacks were over-represented in pop music long before end of segregation."

    And when Jews became in charge of making movies, almost no films were made about particular Jewish experiences or characters, as they had become culturally assimilated as Americans. Producer David Selznick distanced himself as being characterized as a "Hollywood Jew" by stating “I’m an American and not a Jew." People want to be entertained, then and now. Did they find it troubling that they were enriching Jews by going to movies and buying music? Did they find it noxious that black musicians were gaining notoriety simply because they were moved by their songs?

    "No, the Establishment failed because it ended Segregation and surrendered the moral highground to blacks and their Jewish enablers."

    No, increasing numbers of American citizens, which included Jews and blacks, sought to rip apart segregation because they had the moral high ground.

    "White elites were not honest about the threat posed by blacks onto whites."

    Talk about dishonesty. The Justices in the Plessy case were explicit in that "separate but equal" was the law of the land. Unfortunately, southrons decided to ignore the ruling and put enact unconstitutional laws that stripped blacks of their legal rights. The direct threat came from this particular group to EVERYONE's liberty.

    "Blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, have always been a danger to whites. Also, how were Jews any less segregationist? They joined white flight from black crime. They forced the US to support the Zionist imperialist state of Israel."

    What was the actual danger to whites were southrons who made these overblown generalizations and insisted that southern whites be denied of their freedom of association. That is, there were southern whites who sought to mix with blacks, but laws prohibited this "unnatural" interaction.

    "And speaking of ‘sexism’, which group did more to promote pornography? Which group exploited tons of women in music industry and Hollywood with promises of career boosts?"

    Human beings.
    , @Pat Boyle
    Blacks, being more muscular ...

    This just isn't true. Blacks do well in all sports that require or benefit from fast reactions and superior foot speed. But whites are pound for pound stronger. All the weight lifting and strong man competitions are dominated by Caucasians.

    But weight lifting is not now and will never be an interesting sport to watch on TV. They broadcast "The World's Strongest Man" once a year - and that's plenty. Sports fans much prefer the excitement of men running down the field or on the bases. Basketball is mostly running back and forth.

    Whites and blacks are remarkably similar in height and weight. The biggest difference is that blacks (at least West African descended blacks) have more 'fast twitch muscle fibers' whereas white have the slower but stronger 'slow twitch' fibers. There are scientists, I'm sure, working on ways to put 'fast twitch' muscle fibers in white legs and arms. On the day that technique is perfected we may once again see a competitive white sprinter.
  5. Based upon what has happened since the 1960s, segregation and sexism look pretty good, and the Vietnam War an act of strategic genius (convince the Communists that we’ll fight in Central Europe, which matters, because we’re fighting in Vietnam, which doesn’t) compared to the endless and pointless war in Afghanistan, and a Middle East policy which might have the United States simultaneously at war with Iran, Syria and Russia. And a Jew ascribing overrepresentation of Jews in positions of influence and wealth to merit would be laughable if some people didn’t take it seriously. There’s no more ethnically self-favoring group in the world, nor one quicker to scream racist and Nazi at anyone who notices it. The United States pre-1960, with all its faults, was a much better place than what we have now.

  6. Well, the entire game of disparate impact is premised on over-representation versus under-representation by race/ethnic identity in all walks of life, be it employment and occupation, school and college enrollment, or crime perpetrators and prison inmates.

    The prog-left has deemed equality of participation (outcomes) to be the ne plus ultra of fairness, and the desired objective of affirmative action, diversity and inclusion efforts. Why should any racial or ethnic identity group be overlooked in this regard…

  7. Now that Brooks is newly-wedded to a Woke _shiksa_ 20+ years his junior, the risk is greater that *he’s* going to blurt it out accidentally.

  8. An obvious bargain

    Slaves don’t bargain with masters.

  9. David Brooks knows damn well that what we got here is failure of the WASP / Jew ruling class. David Brooks is a man that you just can’t reach. I don’t like it anymore than the rest of you. David Brooks cooks up some rancid baby boomer bullshit about a “meritocratic establishment” to cover the fact that the WASP / Jew ruling class is an evil flop that is destroying the United States.

    David Brooks was the baby boomer Jew who was telling White Americans to embrace the Houston, Texas model of economic and cultural development. Houston is a waterlogged Third World hellhole with 90 percent humidity. David Brooks has been rabidly pushing open borders mass immigration for decades. Houston has been inundated by foreigners and flood water and if the price of oil don’t rise that sucker is going down — to paraphrase that WASP baby boomer boob George W Bush.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    All due respect to Larry Auster's ghost, but demands of synchronity require that I note that Brooks's shiksa is from Houston. Not a hellhole, but like everywhere else under our current system, it depends on whom you can afford to live nowhere nearby.
    , @Anonymous
    The Houston thing was in reference to the two dominant schools of urban development theory in academia.

    Google “Joel Kotkin” and Google “Richard Florida.”

    My point being, it has nothing to do with what you think it does.
  10. I think there are two additional facets to the “meritocrats” dislike of Trump. First, he (or the people he surrounds himself with) seem capable of attacking some Jewish interests independently of gentile interests without being obvious about it. For example, he’s apparently reticent to give the neocons the war in Syria they desperately want, and I can imagine him taking a hard look at college admissions or some similar bastion of white gentile under-representation sometime in the future, etc. This makes him more dangerous that e.g. a Bush who (like most Americans) probably can’t even conceptualize events in a way that allows him to separate Jewish and white interests.

    The second problem they have with Trump is that his election is in large part due to the failure of the current establishment. The WASPS I guess weren’t perfect (I’m in my late 20s so I missed their rule by several decades) but the replacement egalitarian ideology just hasn’t panned out at all. Women are less happy than 40 years ago, birth rates are dysgenic, and the idea that affirmative action for minorities would outlive its usefulness once they “caught up” is risible at this point, and all of these ideas were points of contention between the former and current ruling classes. So, Trump’s election means a lot of people are noticing the establishment’s failure (and maybe, in Trump, see something of a throwback) and the establishment doesn’t like that, especially the Brooks and Clintons of the world.

  11. This (((meritocracy))) certainly won’t want to be judged on its “achievements”,which include a financially ruined country, enormous losses of men and cash in completely futile wars, economic destruction of the middle class,and a successful propaganda campaign to demonize the people who built and maintain America….So no wonder they want to suppress all discussion…

  12. I don’t think David Brooks would disagree all that much

    Because of this quote?

    It’s quite possible that after four years of this Trump will have effectively destroyed the prevailing culture. The reign of the meritocratic establishment will be just as over as the reign of the Protestant establishment now is.

    He doesn’t sound too horrified of the prospect.

  13. >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That’s literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don’t).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn’t understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn’t develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn’t fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. “The establishment” has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it’s now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    • Replies: @Hosswire

    the old establishment didn’t develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.
     
    Well, in the establishment's defense, most of that rhetoric was a weaponized restatement of their own moral code.
    , @Cagey Beast

    They were well educated. They cut their moral teeth on the civil rights and feminist movements. They embraced economic, social and moral individualism. They came to dominate the institutions of American society on both left and right.

    Hillary Clinton is part of this more educated cohort. So are parts of the conservative establishment. If you’re reading this newspaper, you probably are, too, as am I.
     
    The part I put in bold is what the Outer Party members absolutely live for. That's why the New York Times will still be around in some form a century from now. As long as they can deliver that feeling to its readers, it will always have an audience. If current trends continue, the NYT of 2117 will be a website filled with violent porn and anti-White revenge fantasies but it will be smart "erotica" and meritocratic cartoons of executions.
    , @densa
    it’s now open season on non-wealthy Whites

    Yes, it is. Those who have little privilege, other than having ancestors who also worked their lives for very little, are accused. It would be more accurate to speak of their "white inheritance," referring to the communities those people built for their posterity. Privilege belongs to the upper, entitled classes who are plundering the less privileged wholesale. Our estates are small but aggregated amount to trillions being intercepted from being passed on to the next generation. The end of "white privilege" will just happen to also mean the end of a middle class with enough real education, spare time and power to pose any resistance.
    , @AM

    “The establishment” has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it’s now open season on non-wealthy Whites.
     
    This counts as failure, as does failure to protect the borders of hard won nation-states, as does the implementation of socialism, a way to pay off the masses, as does the collapse of any meaningful belief system in the West.

    There's no point in having an elite governing class if they don't even at least attempt to govern and protect the culture. They are just rich annoying people then.

    Another point of Trump that freaks the elites out, besides basic honesty, is the obvious display of responsibility. It sort of works when everyone in the elites all agree the highest virtue the elite can have is make money for themselves, in exchange for pretending they don't judge by class. Trump, for all his non-elite mannerisms, makes them look like the petty, dull, and self-centered people they are as a class.

    George W Bush can think of himself as noble and cowboyesque...until Trump had a Presidency, wherein he looks like the whimpy, push over, give away the store liberal he always was.
    , @guest
    "if you believe that it failed, which I don't"

    It doesn't exist anymore, does it? Isn't that failure by definition?

    I remind myself of a snatch of dialogue from Metropolitan (1990) about the social system espoused by Charles Fourier:

    Charlie: Fourierism was tried in the late 19th century, and it failed. Wasn't Brook Farm Fourierist? It failed.

    Tom: That's debatable.

    Charlie: Whether Brook Farm failed?

    Tom: That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you. But whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said.

    Charlie: Well, for me, ceasing to exist is failure. I mean, that's pretty definitive.

    Tom: Well, everyone ceases to exist. Doesn't mean everyone's a failure.

    I agree with Charlie. Tom uses a bit of sophistry at the end. Societies aren't individuals, and aren't mortal in the same way. Which isn't to say they're failures unless they last forever. But the mid-century Establishment was meant to last longer than the 60s, or whenever it truly fell. I think they would've considered themselves failures if you told them the New Left was going to Long March themselves into power.

    , @bartok
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism

    That establishment eventually failed. It stopped fellow-traveling with International Communism, unlike Harvard and the New York Times.

    It's the 100 year anniversary of the Russian Revolution. If you pick up a copy of the New York Times from a random date from those 100 years you will find the NYT fellow-traveling with International Communism, e.g. the warm profile of Communist Bill Ayers published the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
    , @Bill

    I think it didn’t fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions.
     
    That's what revolutions usually look like.
  14. Today’s cultural consensus isn’t stultifying? I must be missing something.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Randal
    But it's stultifying in a good way, don't you see?
    , @Cagey Beast
    No, can't you see how we been blossoming and growing all across the West for decades? Can't you feel the cultural rebirth? Haven't we all got a collective spring in our step that makes the postwar boom of the last century seem flat? I've seen about a dozen articles in recent years lamenting how we seem to have been stuck in a rut since the '90s but those are just some hate filled rants from Russian-backed Trump trolls who are scared of change.
  15. David Brooks has always known the score. And always been a bit hesitant acknowledging it. From 2005 …

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/the-chosen-getting-in.html?mcubz=1

    A woman came up to me after one of my book talks and said, “You realize what you’re talking about is the Jews taking over America.”

    My eyes bugged out, but then I realized that she was Jewish and she knew I was, too, and between us we could acknowledge there’s a lot of truth in that statement. For the Jews were the vanguard of a social movement that over the course of the 20th century transformed the American university system and the nature of the American elite.

  16. David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”

    HBD and IQ memes were invented to let David Brooks do exactly this. Thank you Charles Murray, Greg Cochran and Steve Sailer.

    • Replies: @ussr andy
    I disagree. The IQ maymay isn't mainstream enough and its proponents get all kinds of flak for it. It's clearly not the way to the opinion-making Olymp which it would be if it was elite-promulgated (like the various SJW narratives.)
    Also, it's real, i.e. there's something in the real world it corresponds to, so ultimately it doesn't matter who invented it and for what purpose or how the Brookses of this world use it (I think his point for why the "meritocratic elites" deserve to be where they are is more moralistic, not IQ based - desegregation, feminism.)
  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Nice goys finish last.

    This is Bolshevik Revolution 2.0. We are on the receiving end of a vicious kulturkampf meant to dispossess us of this nation.

    It’s not a meritocracy. It’s an Ingroup-Outgroup strategy with near zero opposition due to ludicrous guilt-tripping of core America.

    Jewish genius is the most over hyped phenomenon in this country. Their leadership is consistently more crooked than anything that came before by an order of magnitude. Scams, hoaxes, lies saturate the culture in this dark era of rapid decline.

    We are now largely living in the de-Christianized, de-westernized, Jewish version of America and it is incoherent, unstable and largely unhappy. It is their project.

  18. What counter-cultural leftists did most effectively in the 1960’s was to get a significant number of white Americans to self-identify by generation instead of culture (and culture is, by most meaningful definitions, inter-generational.) This was much more alluring and chic than identifying specifically to a political movement, though many of that generation’s “leaders” were militantly leftist. For many of in the mindless ranks of followers among the baby boomers, their leader’s militant leftism was perceived as a relatively small part of their mystique, rather than the main point of it all that it actually was. Of course, this generation-first identity was made much easier during a time when only young men were drafted to fight in a bogus war choreographed by LBJ.

    The generational division thing is still very much with us today. When blacks shoot each other en masse in Chicago over a long weekend, nobody says, “well, looks like the millennials are at it again,” even though that may accurately describe the age group involved. They don’t even say “black millennials.” This is because the left (especially the media) want’s to maintain African America as a culture, a culture not weakened by generational divisions. If you talk about white America, however, generational delineation figures prominently. Many on the left claim there is no such thing as “white culture” in America. That’s because a cohesive unified white culture in the US would be a threat to leftist agenda.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    Agreed. I sensed this but couldn't articulate it. Thank you.
  19. The best thing about the uh post WW 2 Jewish “takeover” of the United States… sexy Jewish chicks.

    Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Scarlett Johansson, Bar Refaeli, Dianna Agron, Gal Gadot, yes please! More uh former Miss Israels in the United States, I say.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    America already had the mezmerizing Lauren Bacall (Betty Joan Perske) in the 1940s.

    http://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/37/35/920365810-Lauren-Bacall-woman-quotes.jpg
    , @Karl
    18 Yan Shen > sexy Jewish chicks


    first i scammed the Manhattan tribe into giving me their peninsula (it wasn't actually a real island back then) for $24 of glass trinkets

    Next i'm gonna work on trading 3 Asian chicks for every askenaz girl i can get into the back of a pickup truck and dropped off at Yan Shen's ranch
    , @The True and Original David
    When the Jew-crit gets too real, a vulgar commenter always shows up in full Libido Dominandi mode pretending to salivate over the looks of various Jewesses and inviting us to join in.

    Argument: "Jews have too much power and have misused it."

    Rebuttal: "Hoo boy, how 'bout that Sarah Jessica Parker! I wanna hump her! Don't you? Huh? Don't you, fellas?"

    This strategy works only to the extent of Jewish pulchritude. Which is to say, it's the last hand in a losing game.

  20. I don’t think David Brooks would disagree all that much

    Want to bet? This is, presumably, the fatuous “never Trump”, Clinton -supporting Brooks we are talking about.

    An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.

    Seems like way too few white gentiles care about the latter, or are prepared to admit to it and risk getting sacked and rendered unemployable, to make abandoning the former remotely worthwhile.

    If nationalists, traditionalists and conservatives in the US sphere for whom anti-white politics and mass immigration are priority concerns really want to end the support by jewish elites for those causes by some kind of grand bargain, they are going to have to first make it clear they can’t be just ignored and taken for granted.

    Supporting the leftists in their boycotting of Israel campaign would seem to be the obvious wedge issue. That costs nothing of any value, and hits the Israeli nationalists where it really hurts.

  21. @black sea
    Today's cultural consensus isn't stultifying? I must be missing something.

    But it’s stultifying in a good way, don’t you see?

  22. “An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric.”

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    “In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.”

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    • Replies: @Randal

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    See my comment above, if and when it is ever approved.
    , @anon
    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    Well, what's their other option? Keep pissing people off and see what happens?

    Has that worked out well for them before?
    , @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.
    , @Cagey Beast
    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    Independent of what Jews do, Whites need to make themselves more difficult to govern. They need to be more demanding of fair treatment, they need to exercise their freedom of association far more and to work more as a team, from the level of office politics all the way up to international relations. Jews, for their part, can do whatever the hell they want. They always do anyway. Let them try and find the middle ground with us for a while. Personally I don't care.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    When it all inevitably kicks off, Gentiles promise to keep airports/bases open and departure flights fully functioning in support of Operation Aliyah.
    , @guest
    Whites bring to the table "We'll pretend you're one of us." The NAM huddled masses and descendants of bondsmen are going to treat Jews as white people anyway. They won't even eat them last. This way, Jews aren't caught in the middle.

    All they have to do is shut their damn yaps. Or assimilate. Whichever's more convenient.

    , @Daniel Williams

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?
     
    Whites can flip and mobilize pretty quickly to deal with a problem. And Jews have been in this business long enough to know that Gentiles always eventually catch on. That's a combination that probably keeps at least a few of 'em nervous.
    , @Issac
    And this is why we're doomed. Our diaspora is clinically retarded.
  23. How amusing that David Brooks believes his position in the opinion-forming industry vis-a-vis, say, Steve Sailer was achieved by superior merit.

  24. Here’s a delusional tweet from Matt Yglesias today:

    “The whole situation works well and America has been very Good For The Jews over the years.

    But our asks are always very modest.”

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    But our asks are always very modest
     
    That's true.

    They usually don't bother to ask.
  25. The Guardian recently published a list of the 1000 most powerful Britons, along with a flurry of articles expressing outrage at the underrepresentation of non-Whites.

    I haven’t gone through the list in detail, but it’s a fair bet that the deeply rooted British are actually underrepresented. The overrepresentation of Jews is, of course, completely ignored.

  26. This guy is just an odd bird. I don’t know if that is because of his pretentiousness or just obfuscating all the issues he talks about. Then there is the Jew thing I suppose.

  27. American history in a nutshell:

    1607 AD – 1885 AD: Growth
    1886 AD- 1964 AD: Plateau
    1965 CE – ?: Decline

  28. @27 year old
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That's literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don't).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn't understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn't develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn't fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. "The establishment" has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it's now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    the old establishment didn’t develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    Well, in the establishment’s defense, most of that rhetoric was a weaponized restatement of their own moral code.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Well, in the establishment’s defense, most of that rhetoric was a weaponized restatement of their own moral code.

    Such as?
  29. A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    Capisce?

    • Agree: eah
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    You can not bargain with those who wish for your destruction and have reason for believing it is well within their grasp.

    For the Jews have had such a run of success the only option they can possibly envision is to continue the path of huwhite demographic replacement until they have achieved complete totalitarian dominance.

    Almost everyday Steve links to another NYT article dripping with Jewish triumphalism.

    Yet Steve still hopes that Jews can some how catch themselves and see the errors of their ways before it is too late for one side or the other.

    I don't see it happening.

    The cuckoo going to kook until the sparrows wake up and revolt.

    It will not be pretty.

    History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
    , @Sean
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZF6DwKvCI&t=40s
    , @Thomm
    er... the WASP Senator in the Godfather II clip set in the 1950s specifically put down Sicilians like the Corleones for being non-white. He said that right before the 'My offer is nothing' retort from Michael Corleone.

    If you think America as 85% white in the 1950s, you are wrong, for Jews, Italians, and Poles were considered non-white at the time. The definition of 'white' was expanded later (which is always what happens in America).

    Whenever the population of whites goes below 65% in America, the definition of 'white' is expanded to make it over 80% again. WNs always go along with it, and will do so next time.

    This happened first when Irish were not considered white (1900), and then again when Italians, Jews, and Poles were not considered white (1950s). It will be done again, when Asians and Hispanics are reclassified as 'white', and WNs pretend that was always the case.
    , @Anonym
    Capisce?

    I assume in this case the politician takes the role of the white, and Corleone takes the role of the Jew, or is it the other way around? If the former, in real life reversals of fortune can often happen and have happened throughout history. When there are no limits to chutzpah in your religion, exponentially compounding chutzpah has a way of bringing about external reactions that also act to limit.

    It might be worth remembering that the most famous mobster of real life was incarcerated at age 42 for tax evasion - all his years after that were either incarceration or advanced stages of syphilis.

    And I raise you this:

    https://youtu.be/G2EARJGkdTM

    Sometimes it pays to be reasonable.
    , @Vinteuil
    Michael Corleone spoke from a position of strength.

    The dissident right speaks from a position of weakness.
    , @Karl
    28 Desiderius > Capisce?


    The Godfather needed Meyer Lansky a lot more than he needed YOUR grandfather
  30. “Meritocratic Establishment”

    What an absurd construction.

    As soon as any merit-based competition is decided, these merit-based winners do everything they can to do away with the meritocratic competition and cement their position for their kin & tribe so that their offspring needn’t face the anxiety, stress and uncertainty of downward mobility. The problem with the promise of social mobility is that status competition is zero-sum no matter how prosperous its participants are. Whatever the reality of the American dream, there will always need to be “losers” toiling away to put food on the plates for the elite and then wash up their dishes. By now it should be clear to all in this particular forum that the forever regenerating supply of immigrants was intended to supply this labor for the elite before their own offspring also advances and rises in social & economic status to be replaced by the next batch of newcomers desperate enough to let themselves be exploited like that. Finally now a couple generations of downwardly mobile deplorables looks certain to cause a closer examination of the system.

  31. Brooks fails completely as a social historian here, not just in his interpretation of the facts but in his attempt to lay out the facts.

    The “meritocratic establishment” took over during the 1950s and not just after clowns like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin began acting out in 1968. I can’t see that those two had significant influence on social direction at all.

    Things had already changed dramatically in the Ivy League by 1960. Average SAT scores increased dramatically between 1950 and 1960; see The Bell Curve (especially Chapter 1, The Emergence of a Cognitive Elite). Quotas on Jews—and Catholics—were completely eliminated well before 1968.
    No doubt, some old guard professors may still have had tenure but they were clearly not running the show.

    Goldman Sachs was a Wall Street powerhouse by 1968 but it had been in the first tier since the 1920s. Hollywood was extremely Jewish in 1968 but had been already since the 1920s.

  32. Jews should turn their fire to Asian privilege. Asian income crushes white income.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    >> Jews should turn their fire to Asian privilege. Asian income crushes white income. <<

    They've already been doing so for decades.

    White gentiles aren't the only people who get screwed by Ivy League admissions.

  33. It appears that David Brooks is revealing
    the playbook that the “meritocratics” are
    using to gain control of our country:

    1. Deploy “provocateurs” to masterfully
    stage “political theater” – this would
    currently include late night comedians,
    music industry celebrities, Hollywood
    royalty, sports stars, & the news media.

    2. “Provoke, offend, and generate outrage”
    to “rip apart”, disrupt and destroy the
    culture of the white european american
    population.

    3. Usurp power leveraging the “wreckage”
    caused by the “intense cultural conflict”
    ignited by the “provocateurs.”

    4. Concentrate the power that flows from the
    control of culture, politics and finance in
    the hands of a “meritocratic establishment.”
    An elite upper-class oligarchy, ruling over a
    non-European majority of urban diverse
    illegals, feminists, moslems, and gays.

    Economic and financial power is downstream
    from politics – plutocrats become billionaires
    after they gain control of the levers of power.

    Political power is downstream from culture in
    democracies, since voters vote their culture.

    And control of culture is gained, as David Brooks
    explains, by deploying “provocateurs” staging
    “political theater” to “rip apart” the way of life
    and the culture of “non-meritocratic” citizens.

    All in all not a bad description of the “meritocratic”
    playbook that is being used to gain power over us.

  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    a vague appeal to Catholics, who probably lost more under the post-1968 dispensation than they gained.

    They probably gained on the national level. There are more Catholics like Tom Donilon, Bannon, Brennan, etc. these days in positions that formerly would have been more dominated by WASPs and in places like elite universities, the Supreme Court, etc. On the other hand, the city neighborhood and machine politics that were once so thoroughly dominated by Catholics are no longer around.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "On the other hand, the city neighborhood and machine politics that were once so thoroughly dominated by Catholics are no longer around."

    Gravitated more to the county, state and national levels. Examples: Pelosi, Biden, Dick Durbin, Paul Ryan, Rudy Giuliani, Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and his daughter state AG Lisa, Martin O' Malley, the entire states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, etc.
  35. anon • Disclaimer says:

    OK.

    I finally understand Bobo’s in Paradise.

    When it came out, I was much too naive. I just thought it was entertaining. Plus, I appreciated his recycling of 1950’s and early 1960’s intellectuals and Sociologists.

    Most trash recycling is of dubious economic value. Recycling ideas? The very definition of creativity.

  36. @27 year old
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That's literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don't).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn't understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn't develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn't fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. "The establishment" has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it's now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    They were well educated. They cut their moral teeth on the civil rights and feminist movements. They embraced economic, social and moral individualism. They came to dominate the institutions of American society on both left and right.

    Hillary Clinton is part of this more educated cohort. So are parts of the conservative establishment. If you’re reading this newspaper, you probably are, too, as am I.

    The part I put in bold is what the Outer Party members absolutely live for. That’s why the New York Times will still be around in some form a century from now. As long as they can deliver that feeling to its readers, it will always have an audience. If current trends continue, the NYT of 2117 will be a website filled with violent porn and anti-White revenge fantasies but it will be smart “erotica” and meritocratic cartoons of executions.

  37. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Difference is that Whites came under criticism whereas Jews were shielded from criticism by the cult of ‘antisemitism’.

    Magnanimity under criticism loses to Meritocracy under protection.

    While it’s true that rise of Jews owes to meritocracy, it also owes to Obeisancracy.

    A power that is not challenged and countered will accelerate and expand in power.

    Also, meritocracy proved the truth of race-ism. Rise of Jews in brainy fields and Rise of blacks in brawny fields owes to reality of racial differences.

    Meritocracy replaced social race-ism with biological race-ism.

  38. @Desiderius

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNe9fuqQ8o

    Capisce?

    You can not bargain with those who wish for your destruction and have reason for believing it is well within their grasp.

    For the Jews have had such a run of success the only option they can possibly envision is to continue the path of huwhite demographic replacement until they have achieved complete totalitarian dominance.

    Almost everyday Steve links to another NYT article dripping with Jewish triumphalism.

    Yet Steve still hopes that Jews can some how catch themselves and see the errors of their ways before it is too late for one side or the other.

    I don’t see it happening.

    The cuckoo going to kook until the sparrows wake up and revolt.

    It will not be pretty.

    History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.

  39. My mother used to say the jews were leading the civil rights parade because when the laws were being written, they made sure that besides race, gender, etc. it would include religious affiliations as well. They first wanted everybody to think they were concerned about everybody else, but behind the closed doors, were using both paws to make sure they got what they wanted…that appearing to lack any self-interest was very important to the cause.

  40. Meritocracy? Here’s a factoid: 1/6 (% 16.6) of University of Pennsylvania students are legacy admissions (* Reported by the Daily Pennsylvanian. I can provide links if you wish to see the citation). This was not the case when I went to Penn in the late 70s early 80s. I never met a single legacy admission back then. There was a discussion about this on one of the Penn Alumni Facebook forums and while a few thought that this is a clear sign of crookedness, most defended the new Status Quo. Penn is an elite school (significantly more elite than when I attended) with an extremely competitive admissions game. One would have to believe that the students of my cohort (the ones whose progeny are now attending Penn) somehow had their genes epigenetically reprogrammed for genius by that sweet Schuylkill and Delaware river water we all drank to believe that the progeny of this cohort rightfully out-competed their peers across the land to secure such a coveted admission. And I can attest to this, while Penn students of my cohort were generally smart, studious, conscientious and driven, very few were any real geniuses. The student body at any flagship state school was at least as capable.

    The fix is in. The old order was overthrown, and this new order is cruder, crueler and without a touch of Noblesse Oblige.

    David Brooks is a clueless clown.

  41. @Desiderius

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNe9fuqQ8o

    Capisce?

  42. David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”

    Yeah, but the Protestant– and Jewish and lately neoconservative*– Establishment has long used it as a euphemism for being born smart, i.e., choosing your parents well.

    The “legacy” culture of the old Ivy League actually did reward merit– the family’s, not the individual’s, which had yet to be earned. But it went from dumb-kids-made-smart to smart-kids-made-dumb.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    *Before foreign policy issues co-opted the term, the neoconservative movement was quite ecumenical, with Orthodox and Reform Jews, mainline and evangelical Protestants, New Deal and Latin Mass Catholics, even the odd Protestant-cum-Buddhist (paging Dr Murray...) What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    You could call Ronald Reagan the first neoconservative, or even Dixie's Goldwater voters, who were concentrated in FDR's favorite counties.
    , @Forbes
    That "legacy" culture has been mostly dead for 40+ years--since Jews and other minorities have been admitted on meritorious (SAT, GPA ), or affirmative action grounds. It's not as if the Ivies increased enrollment to accommodate them.

    But for some, the legacy admission culture still exists...
    , @Bill
    Bill Kristol. John Podhoretz. Jonah Goldberg. Tori Spelling. Just to name some particularly obvious examples.

    Is this really what meritocracy looks like?
    , @James Kabala
    Steve does seem rather unaware of the long history of the word “meritocracy,” which was coined in Britain, not the U.S., and which from the very beginning has been used negatively/sarcastically much more than it has been used sincerely.
  43. @Reg Cæsar

    David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”
     
    Yeah, but the Protestant-- and Jewish and lately neoconservative*-- Establishment has long used it as a euphemism for being born smart, i.e., choosing your parents well.

    The "legacy" culture of the old Ivy League actually did reward merit-- the family's, not the individual's, which had yet to be earned. But it went from dumb-kids-made-smart to smart-kids-made-dumb.

    *Before foreign policy issues co-opted the term, the neoconservative movement was quite ecumenical, with Orthodox and Reform Jews, mainline and evangelical Protestants, New Deal and Latin Mass Catholics, even the odd Protestant-cum-Buddhist (paging Dr Murray…) What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    You could call Ronald Reagan the first neoconservative, or even Dixie’s Goldwater voters, who were concentrated in FDR’s favorite counties.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Neoconservatives are really, at heart, just crypto-Trotskyites who want to use the US and its empire to carry on the permanent revolution. Reagan and Thatcher, on the other hand, were sort of patriotic Libertarians who resented the hubris of New Deal, Great Society and Labour Party central planners. The neocons only used them as a stalking horse to get close to power.
    , @MarkinLA
    on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    And wrong on just about everything else. They were for free-trade agreements, open borders, and the economic weakening of the white working class.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Sure, back in the day of Daniel Patrick Moynihan maybe. But since at least the 70s, the term 'neoconservative' has come to stand almost exclusively for a belligerent foreign policy; they were no longer interested in welfare much.
    , @Bill
    Not really. The neocon's signature deviation from the old right was their rejection of sane policy on race. There were not pro-racism neocons---obviously there were neocons who were racist by today's standards, but they were always on the far left of the "right" on race issues. Furthermore, the movement was always predominantly Jewish and post-Marxist. There were no good old days of the neocons. Rather, there were the days before the necons were strong enough to purge all the paleocons.
  44. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    See my comment above, if and when it is ever approved.

  45. @black sea
    Today's cultural consensus isn't stultifying? I must be missing something.

    No, can’t you see how we been blossoming and growing all across the West for decades? Can’t you feel the cultural rebirth? Haven’t we all got a collective spring in our step that makes the postwar boom of the last century seem flat? I’ve seen about a dozen articles in recent years lamenting how we seem to have been stuck in a rut since the ’90s but those are just some hate filled rants from Russian-backed Trump trolls who are scared of change.

    • Replies: @anonguy

    I’ve seen about a dozen articles in recent years lamenting how we seem to have been stuck in a rut since the ’90s
     
    Western civ went full eloi upon the end of the cold war and hasn't looked back since.

    Pretty much everything else follows from that.
  46. I don’t think so, Steve.

    We (the young alt-right) will not be bargaining with this devil we know.

  47. @Reg Cæsar
    *Before foreign policy issues co-opted the term, the neoconservative movement was quite ecumenical, with Orthodox and Reform Jews, mainline and evangelical Protestants, New Deal and Latin Mass Catholics, even the odd Protestant-cum-Buddhist (paging Dr Murray...) What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    You could call Ronald Reagan the first neoconservative, or even Dixie's Goldwater voters, who were concentrated in FDR's favorite counties.

    Neoconservatives are really, at heart, just crypto-Trotskyites who want to use the US and its empire to carry on the permanent revolution. Reagan and Thatcher, on the other hand, were sort of patriotic Libertarians who resented the hubris of New Deal, Great Society and Labour Party central planners. The neocons only used them as a stalking horse to get close to power.

    • Agree: Forbes
  48. An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.

    What kind of deal is that for Jews?

    Despite the fanatical fear of many Jews that American whites are sharpening their pitchforks just waiting for a chance to chase down the local Jews, 99% of American whites barely even know if someone is Jewish, much less desire to hurt them.

    Ironically, outside of here, the only whites that I know who are aware of just how powerful Jews are in this country are extremely well-educated and successful whites because they are goys who deal with Jews eye-to-eye. And trust me, very successful lawyers, academics and businessman aren’t planning on going after Jews, if for no other reason than many of their kids marry them.

    Also, highy successful white gentiles don’t seem to give two shits about their working-class cousins.

    No, Jews pay no price for their attack on non-Jewish whites.

    The only reason that I could see for why influential Jews might take their foot off the Let’s-Destroy-Goy-World pedal is because they might realize that a heavily Muslim Europe and a Brazil-like United States might not be “Good for the Jews.”

    If Europe becomes a no-go zone for Jews, that doesn’t seem too good for the Jews.

    If Europe starts to impose sanctions on Israel to placate its Muslims, that doesn’t seem too good for the Jews.

    If Muslims start getting in powerful government positions in a nuclear-armed France, that doesn’t seem too good for the Jews.

    If shit-hole Brazil-like United States starts to have problems fielding a reasonable military because, well, it’s filled with blacks and browns, that doesn’t seem too good for the Jews.

    If shit-hole Brazil-like United States starts to seriously cut military spending to provide welfare for its many, many blacks and browns, that doesn’t seem too good for the Jews.

    The destruction of the West will leave Israel alone in a very bad neighborhood. Israel and the Jews are tough and smart, but it’s a bad position to put yourself in. But, apparently, influential Jews think that situation is safer than goy-populated countries. Maybe.

    At some point, you’d think that Jews would realize their destruction of the West was reaching a point of diminishing returns and maybe even turning negative. But, then again, Jews aren’t known for pulling back when they might be pushing things too far so I’m not holding out hope.

    • Replies: @cwhatfuture
    I am Jewish, agree with every word you say. Secular liberal Jews in the US are the least self aware people on the planet. (Probably the same goes for Gentiles of a similar socioeconomic status and geographic location). Jews are smart and they are aggressive but they live in a bubble the nature of which I have yet to understand. And it is no BS. They really do think 500 people in Charlottesville means something bad is about to happen to them, without ever considering that generally they are incredibly well-off, the "elite" and something bad really has already happened to the working class they fear. And that just maybe they should consider what makes people turn against "elites" of any religion or ethnicity. And btw, by meritocracy, the elite means that their child, with his alumni father, and with his Chinese lessons and his summers helping a refugee agency take care of gay asylum seekers in El Salvador, well he got into an Ivy League school purely on merit.
    , @guest
    This post is a bit schizophrenic. Indeed, Jews don't have to fear pitchforks from whites. But, as you say, they do from the browns. Not so much pitchforks, but gats and machetes. White civilization has been their repeated enemy, but it's also, or used to be, the enemy of their enemies.

    Unless they're going China's way or retreating to Israel to go it alone, what choice do they have but jumping on Team White?

  49. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    Well, what’s their other option? Keep pissing people off and see what happens?

    Has that worked out well for them before?

  50. Re “meritocratic”: one big irony is there’s no shortage of lefty racial scolds who will remind white Americans that “they didn’t build that” (https://youtu.be/YKjPI6no5ng), or that “this country was built on the backs of black and brown people.” But Brooks (son of NYU and Columbia academics), Hoffman and Rubin (college kids who became goof-off hippies and yippies), and the neocons, many of whom inherited their positions (Irving and Bill Kristol, Norman and John Podhoretz) are “meritocratic.”

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    They are individualistic when it favors them, collectivistic when it doesn't. The gay wedding cake ordeal versus the Damore issue was more than enough to demonstrate that.

    The important part is that you understand that you're a Bad Person, you White Man.

    , @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    In college I did some business on the phone w/ a Jewish kid a few years older than me at a nearby college. I thought his idea was all flash no sizzle and eventually his business failed. BUT his failed business got bought by an NYC company. He became a multi-millionaire via stock in parent company. Almost everything he buys and tries to run fails, but he gets richer. He now owns a pro sports team.
    I believed in "meritocracy" once but then I kept seeing the same types of people manage to fail repeatedly into higher income brackets...
    , @anonymous
    The Jews can "network" better than anyone. Years ago after I got out of college I started in the insurance industry as a clerk. I worked with a Jewish guy who, like me, had just graduated. One day he told me that he was simply putting in some time--making a few extra sheckels--in anticipation of working in management for ABC Television. It seems as though his uncle was a big shot at ABC. The next thing I hear, which was less than a year later, he was in UPPER management! And this was a guy working as a clerk, fresh out of college.

    Yep, those Yiddels sure know how to network.
  51. The late 1960s were a time of intense cultural conflict, which left a lot of wreckage in its wake. But eventually a new establishment came into being, which we will call the meritocratic establishment.

    Meh…..not nearly enough specialized lunchmeat snobbery or creased pant leg envy in this latest Brooks offering!

  52. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That’s a great deal for us since we weren’t going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.
     
    More than anything, they are hostile to assimilation, to joining with the people whom they live amongst. That is what this is all about. This hostile attitude leads them to conduct themselves antagonistically toward others, which in turn engenders in them a guilty conscience and fear of being found out and punished for being antisocial.
    , @Cagey Beast
    I think they fake this fear more than half the time. They've got a sweet thing going so they use this fear as an alibi for not sharing or being more accommodating to the rest of us. They're like a kid who gets a ride to school because he hurt his leg and now fakes a limp to keep it going.
    , @anonymous-antimarxist
    The Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones has stated that the historical alternative to the cycle of Jewish subversion being meet with pogroms and expulsion was for the Catholic Church to issue edicts forbidding harm against the Jew in return for tough restrictions enforced by both the Church and State against possible Jewish subversion.

    The last thing we had in this country resembling anything of the sort was the Hollywood production codes that completely went away by the mid-sixties.

    There is no institution currently powerful enough to stop Jewish subversion. That is why the future will not be a painless or bloodless one. New institutions will have to be created or old ones somehow revived or Western European Civilization will not survive.

    Heaven help us!!!
    , @Sean
    But intentions can change, so the potential to do it is the key factor and we have that as long as we exist as a people. The closer we come to being deprived of the potential, the more reason we will have to use it before we lose it. So they would be fools to stop now.
    , @anonymous
    I think what Steve is implying but not specifying is that for there to be a bargain Jews would need to feel threatened by those calling them out on hypocrisy. This would require conservatives to take on a hostile tone towards Jews that would cause serious anxiety.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.
     
    Or maybe just sell them handguns to protect themselves.

    Oh, wait... we've tried that.
    , @Vinteuil
    Does anybody in his right mind really believe that there's any serious chance of Jews being "pogromed" in America, today? or that Jews are really, honestly "terrified" by that prospect? Have we all run stark mad?
    , @Alec Leamas

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.
     
    Isn't this a paradox though?

    I mean to say that if they really were terrified of being pogromed, they wouldn't be pushing things so far.

    And conversely, if you gave them credible "no pogrom" promises, wouldn't they then have no incentives to cut the act out?

    Perhaps the better strategy is to convince Jews that their fates are intertwined with the fates of whites and that they will not wind up on the top of a big brown human pyramud.

    I figure that an overarching Jewish paradox is that while they're more clever on average than the white population at large they're not more clever than a very large slice of the white population in absolute terms. This leads to mismatches between Jewish high esteem of their own cleverness and deviousness and the relative intelligence of the as-clever or more clever "mark."
  53. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    Independent of what Jews do, Whites need to make themselves more difficult to govern. They need to be more demanding of fair treatment, they need to exercise their freedom of association far more and to work more as a team, from the level of office politics all the way up to international relations. Jews, for their part, can do whatever the hell they want. They always do anyway. Let them try and find the middle ground with us for a while. Personally I don’t care.

  54. “Catholics, who probably lost more under the post 1968 dispensations then they gained…” Catholics, myself included, lost moral standing because of the priest pedophiles, that the Church shielded and defended. Say what you will about Jews, but the Church’s role in covering for these sinful, shameful scum, left a wound that will probably never scab over.

    • Agree: Roderick Spode
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This abuse scandal was primarily about pedorasty not pedophilia. This was more about Homosexual subcultures within the Church than 'pedophilia'.

    Not that it matters to the victims, but it certainly matters if you are looking to deal with the problem effectively. The profile of a pedophile is very different than a garden variety homosexual who is attracted to teenage boys.

    I'm not Catholic so I'm not making excuses, but the media has purposely created misconceptions about this issue for their own reasons.
    , @guest
    While I don't agree with your point about the severity of the PR crisis,* that's at least debatable. But you're simply wrong historically. Catholicism had already lost its unique cultural authority by the 60s, long before the scandal broke.

    It couldn't muster the strength the stanch the Sexual Revolution, for instance. That juggernaut rolled right over it. Then Vatican II split its base and irreversibly weakened it.

    *Overblown, because, come on, far worse institutions like public schools remain respectable, at least to most people. Only because while people can think of living without Catholicism, they can't imagine a world without public education. It'd be like joining Sebastian the crab under the sea.

  55. Mr. Brooks’ notion is that the upheavals of the 1960s were largely about talented Jews elbowing their way into the top slots in our culture, which is exaggerated but pretty reasonable.

    Depends on how one defines “talented.”

    • Replies: @Karl
    51 Anonymous > Depends on how one defines “talented.”

    no, it depends on how one defines "elbowing"

    If your definition is that Jews keep their eyes on the ticket-sales revenue while whites are busy buying NFL paraphenalia.... then I guess I agree.

    When the cream rises to the top, the milk is busy saying that "it's unfair!"
  56. Ronald Reagan was a treasonous cuckservative who collaborated with the Neo-Conservative Jews who wanted to flood the United States with foreigners. Reagan is the demographic executioner of the Republican Party in California. Reagan pushed open borders mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

    California was demographically destroyed by the legal immigration unleashed by the 1965 Immigration Act and Reagan’s treasonous scheme to give amnesty to illegal alien invaders in 1986. Reagan is rotting and burning in hell for his treasonous actions in regards to mass immigration. The rest of the United States is demographically going the way of California because the evil rat Ronald Reagan pushed mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien infiltrators.

    Reagan also conspired with the Neo-Con Jews to reconceptualize the United States as a “proposition nation” without any ancestral core. The United States was formed by British Protestant settlers and the ancestral core of the United States is European Christian.

    The young Alt-Right owes no allegiance to the memory of that treasonous cuckservative rat Ronald Reagan.

  57. Speaking of “meritocratic”……looks like somebody is having his very own “Do it to Julia” moment!

    NBA Coach: ‘White People Especially’ Need To Be Made ‘Uncomfortable’

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/25/nba-coach-white-people-especially-need-to-be-made-uncomfortable/

  58. What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    No they weren’t. The Neocons were always former Blank Slate Trotskyists who simply embraced an authoritarian solution to social ills that was almost as Utopian as the rest of the far left. “All we got to do is fix the schools, lets start with bringing back school uniforms, high standards for all, no child left behind, yearly exams, fire the incompetent teachers, and add lots of discipline.”

    No Neocon questioned Open Borders or Multiculturalism, they felt immigrants would naturally embrace “American Exceptionalism”. The Neocons were most importantly not race realists.

    Please reread Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate. He has some good insights into the mind of the Jewish Neocons.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The Neocons were most importantly not race realists.
     
    At least, they wouldn't admit being such.
  59. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    More than anything, they are hostile to assimilation, to joining with the people whom they live amongst. That is what this is all about. This hostile attitude leads them to conduct themselves antagonistically toward others, which in turn engenders in them a guilty conscience and fear of being found out and punished for being antisocial.

  60. @Thomas
    Re "meritocratic": one big irony is there's no shortage of lefty racial scolds who will remind white Americans that "they didn't build that" (https://youtu.be/YKjPI6no5ng), or that "this country was built on the backs of black and brown people." But Brooks (son of NYU and Columbia academics), Hoffman and Rubin (college kids who became goof-off hippies and yippies), and the neocons, many of whom inherited their positions (Irving and Bill Kristol, Norman and John Podhoretz) are "meritocratic."

    They are individualistic when it favors them, collectivistic when it doesn’t. The gay wedding cake ordeal versus the Damore issue was more than enough to demonstrate that.

    The important part is that you understand that you’re a Bad Person, you White Man.

    • Replies: @Anon
    It was few yrs ago when NYT actually praised Wasps for...

    1. Making way for meritocracy

    2. Making way for 'inclusion'.

    1. was about how nice it was for whites to make room for smarter Jews and 2. was about how nice it was for whites to make room for dumber blacks.

    Whites are supposed to lose graciously to both those who are smarter and dumber.

    It's anti-white. Heads I win, Tails I lose.

  61. An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about

    Never going to happen. The thing here is that it isn’t Jews who have to change, because they’re doing fine. It’s the people who are getting screwed who have to change, because they are the ones with the problem on their hands. As far as I know this has always been how things work.

    So heritage American have to get their own house in order, and I personally think that we have to start by first dealing with our own unpatriotic, grasping elite ingrates (in the political realm, at least — the other problems are spiritual in origin and have to be addressed at a grassroots level). Once we do that, I’m sure we’ll be treated with a lot more respect by other ethnic groups, including Jews.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    So heritage American have to get their own house in order,
     
    Do you follow what the Alt-Right is telling young people???

    Get sober, stop smoking weed, go to the gym, put down the vidya and go outside, stop fapping to porn, quit smoking or at least switch to vape, lose weight, stop drinking beer, no soy, no fast food, stop wasting your time following "sportsball", no more Tinder or sleazy hookups, stop wasting money on idiotic tattoos, get a job any kind of job until the day something better comes along.....

    That actually is appealing to lots of young folks cast adrift in a sea of degeneracy.

    It is the Jews who have been pushing the degeneracy for decades, and now young folks are revolting.

    Like Weimar Germany, Weimar America will also come to an end.

    As ISTEVE documents daily, it may not be pretty because Jews rarely if ever show a capacity for self-reflection or quilt over their actions.

    But that is not Heritage America's problem, its only problem is insuring its survival.

    Weimar Germany, Weimar America
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/weimar-germany-weimar-america/

    Tomorrow belongs to me Cabaret
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co
    , @guest
    "they're doing fine"

    For now. The dismal tide is coming.

    People like Brooks sense their paychecks are in danger. It won't do to be the pet conservative of liberal MSM outlets when you don't understand what the right is up to. Those guys are out of the loop, and eventually their readership will catch on.

    The rest of them, which is the majority of them, are in no near-term danger. But for those who can see, what's coming is obvious. It's started already, but eventually, inevitably, it will become undeniable. Jews will be classed as regular white folks by PC, and they will lose all their Diversity Pokemon points.

    They may actually get the pogroms they've feared all along, but not from Whitey Corngood. Rather, from D'Shitvarious Crackpipe and Ahmed Dirtybomb.

    , @DJohn1
    The Internal Enemy First.
  62. @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    I think they fake this fear more than half the time. They’ve got a sweet thing going so they use this fear as an alibi for not sharing or being more accommodating to the rest of us. They’re like a kid who gets a ride to school because he hurt his leg and now fakes a limp to keep it going.

  63. In the new Jewish establishment, meritocracy is synonymous with nepotism. That’s why in the new Jewish establishment, the first country to land humans on Mars will be China.

  64. And that explains a lot of the mania about the President. While Trump is clearly extremely pro-Semitic, his tendency to blurt out inconvenient truths has alarmed much of the “meritocratic establishment” that he will someday blurt out the most unmentionable fact of all: how over-represented Jews are in the best jobs.

    There’s something to be said for that but maybe not very much. Trump is almost like a movie villain come to life. The way Trump looks, acts, and talks is like a Bond villain, Dean Wormer, or the South Africans from the Lethal Weapon movies. Except, that Trump presents himself as dumber than all of them (except maybe Dean Wormer).

    There’s a lot of people who might vote for Trump, but almost every American feels free to ridicule him, not least in their own mind. And following from that, there’s a lotta lotta Americans who award themselves an extra 10 IQ points for opposing whatever Trump is in favor of. I’d rather be smart than dumb, wouldn’t you?

    For the contemporary big-ticket issues, especially immigration, this phenomenon is a lot more topical. After all, the GOP in Congress stopped the Gang of 8, and plenty of Americans were willing to tell pollsters that they were in favor of a wall, etc, etc. before Trump was President and Jewish Americans were working the Emma Lazarus thing. But Trump being in favor of something is a perfectly good enough reason for a lot of Americans to be against it.

  65. @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    The Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones has stated that the historical alternative to the cycle of Jewish subversion being meet with pogroms and expulsion was for the Catholic Church to issue edicts forbidding harm against the Jew in return for tough restrictions enforced by both the Church and State against possible Jewish subversion.

    The last thing we had in this country resembling anything of the sort was the Hollywood production codes that completely went away by the mid-sixties.

    There is no institution currently powerful enough to stop Jewish subversion. That is why the future will not be a painless or bloodless one. New institutions will have to be created or old ones somehow revived or Western European Civilization will not survive.

    Heaven help us!!!

  66. @27 year old
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That's literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don't).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn't understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn't develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn't fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. "The establishment" has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it's now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    it’s now open season on non-wealthy Whites

    Yes, it is. Those who have little privilege, other than having ancestors who also worked their lives for very little, are accused. It would be more accurate to speak of their “white inheritance,” referring to the communities those people built for their posterity. Privilege belongs to the upper, entitled classes who are plundering the less privileged wholesale. Our estates are small but aggregated amount to trillions being intercepted from being passed on to the next generation. The end of “white privilege” will just happen to also mean the end of a middle class with enough real education, spare time and power to pose any resistance.

    • Agree: BB753
  67. @Thomas
    Re "meritocratic": one big irony is there's no shortage of lefty racial scolds who will remind white Americans that "they didn't build that" (https://youtu.be/YKjPI6no5ng), or that "this country was built on the backs of black and brown people." But Brooks (son of NYU and Columbia academics), Hoffman and Rubin (college kids who became goof-off hippies and yippies), and the neocons, many of whom inherited their positions (Irving and Bill Kristol, Norman and John Podhoretz) are "meritocratic."

    In college I did some business on the phone w/ a Jewish kid a few years older than me at a nearby college. I thought his idea was all flash no sizzle and eventually his business failed. BUT his failed business got bought by an NYC company. He became a multi-millionaire via stock in parent company. Almost everything he buys and tries to run fails, but he gets richer. He now owns a pro sports team.
    I believed in “meritocracy” once but then I kept seeing the same types of people manage to fail repeatedly into higher income brackets…

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Bingo, people don't realise just how nepotistic Jews are, in fact the mistake Jews make is to assume the WASPs were as nepotistic as they are. Anyway the WASP was well in decline by the 1920s as some have noted already.
    , @Forbes
    By any chance, Dan Snyder?
  68. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas
    Re "meritocratic": one big irony is there's no shortage of lefty racial scolds who will remind white Americans that "they didn't build that" (https://youtu.be/YKjPI6no5ng), or that "this country was built on the backs of black and brown people." But Brooks (son of NYU and Columbia academics), Hoffman and Rubin (college kids who became goof-off hippies and yippies), and the neocons, many of whom inherited their positions (Irving and Bill Kristol, Norman and John Podhoretz) are "meritocratic."

    The Jews can “network” better than anyone. Years ago after I got out of college I started in the insurance industry as a clerk. I worked with a Jewish guy who, like me, had just graduated. One day he told me that he was simply putting in some time–making a few extra sheckels–in anticipation of working in management for ABC Television. It seems as though his uncle was a big shot at ABC. The next thing I hear, which was less than a year later, he was in UPPER management! And this was a guy working as a clerk, fresh out of college.

    Yep, those Yiddels sure know how to network.

  69. There is a recent infographic showing that the average IQ in Israel is 85.

    I simply do not believe that the average IQ of Jews is 115. In the sampling I have conducted in my life I would say that Jews are even more susceptible to Zio-propaganda than goyim.

    If, as a group, Jews have a higher intelligence than goyim, then the only way this superior intelligence has manifested itself over the last century is precisely through their ability to convince us that the reason their oligarchy of tribal patronage has dominated US culture is because they are more “intelligent”.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    >> There is a recent infographic showing that the average IQ in Israel is 85.

    I simply do not believe that the average IQ of Jews is 115. <<

    In order for the average IQ of Israeli Jews to be 115, the average IQ of Israeli Arabs would have to be negative.

    That is quite unlikely.

    If we assume an Israeli Jewish IQ of 100, that would give us an Israeli Arab IQ of 25.

    Also unlikely.

    The average IQ in Lebanon is 82.

  70. After the Vietnam War the Meritocratic establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It corrupted and enfeebled institutions with affirmative action, promoted mass immigration, led the nation into war in the Middle East and Central Asia, and stifled criticism of its actions.

    There, David, I fixed it for you!

    • LOL: Yan Shen
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    I saw a couple episodes of the current PBS Vietnam series. It was to me a historical example of what happened before a friendly press could take care of things for their US political meritocrats. The press was somewhat friendly to the Democratic meritocrats, not friendly at all to Nixon, despite the meritocrats not being very meritocratic.

    From the portrayal of the Vietnam War, I got the impression that the clever civilians running the war believed themselves so clever they could exactly define the low level of force that could win it. No more, just enough to win. They put force restrictions in place that were always short of victory levels against the North Vietnamese. Maybe they weren't so clever, and it wasn't such a hot idea to view bombing as "sending messages" rather than as a means to defeat the enemy military. The force levels they approved early also became the maximum moral level of force, and they found it hard to escalate it when it failed. They'd just argued that it was immoral shortly before. The US seems to do that at lot in difficult wars after WW2--the meritocratic class isn't that smart, or is not both smart and practical.

    Once Nixon was in office it was safer to be critical of the war they screwed up for the first few years.
  71. @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    But intentions can change, so the potential to do it is the key factor and we have that as long as we exist as a people. The closer we come to being deprived of the potential, the more reason we will have to use it before we lose it. So they would be fools to stop now.

  72. The majority of Jewish kids in America are Orthodox. Orthodox votes fall very heavily for Trump. The change in support is baked in. The question is when will Jewish leadership begin to reflect this.

    • Replies: @res
    Do you have numbers? I understand you said kids and that matters, but for now the Orthodox are the smallest group: https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/demographics-of-judaism

    Then there is this: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/147201/report-low-retention-rate-for-orthodox-jews
  73. The worst thing a gentile can do to a Jew is notice he’s a Jew.

    The worse thing a Jew can to do to a fellow Jew in public is to notice he’s Jewish.

    The worst thing a Jew can do to a fellow Jew in private is not to notice he’s Jewish.

    And Brooks, like most public persons (Jewish or gentile), ignores how Boomer Jews sold out America and were tools of Moscow from the 1960s onward. It’s easier to get ahead when you’ve got communist buddies sabotaging your opponents and spying on them to get dirt and promoting only communist-sympathizers.

  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Before Nixon picked sides for us in the Holy Land that bomb-them-with-democracy crap was mostly associated with Woodrow Wilson (Southern gentry type) and some grifter named Scoop from Boeing’s HQ state. Neoconservatives were tweed-jacket dweebs who complained about urban property crime and welfare slobs.

    Lately, it occurs to me, it wouldn’t have been possible for social conservatives like Podhoretz and Kristol to get so big if so many gentiles hadn’t decided to copy Hoffman their hero, imitating his dirty mouth and what used to be called “ethnic morals” (early 1960s blacks were like emulators of Billy Graham in comparison). But I guess the goy schism can be explained away with the established pan-dimensional mindwaves model

  75. David Brooks was a big backer of the Rubio/Obama Mass Immigration Surge — Illegal Alien Amnesty bill(S744) that passed in the US Senate in 2013. That bill — (S744) — was killed in the US House.
    That immigration law would have tripled legal immigration and it would have granted amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal alien invaders. David Brooks wants to inundate White Core America with a flood of foreigners.

    US Senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker, voted for the immigration bill that David Brooks pushed. Corker has just announced that he will not run for re-election to the US Senate. Slowly but surely the GOP Senators who voted for S744 are being removed from the US Senate.

  76. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    When it all inevitably kicks off, Gentiles promise to keep airports/bases open and departure flights fully functioning in support of Operation Aliyah.

  77. David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”

    HBD and IQ memes were invented to let David Brooks do exactly this. Thank you Charles Murray, Greg Cochran and Steve Sailer.

  78. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    They are individualistic when it favors them, collectivistic when it doesn't. The gay wedding cake ordeal versus the Damore issue was more than enough to demonstrate that.

    The important part is that you understand that you're a Bad Person, you White Man.

    It was few yrs ago when NYT actually praised Wasps for…

    1. Making way for meritocracy

    2. Making way for ‘inclusion’.

    1. was about how nice it was for whites to make room for smarter Jews and 2. was about how nice it was for whites to make room for dumber blacks.

    Whites are supposed to lose graciously to both those who are smarter and dumber.

    It’s anti-white. Heads I win, Tails I lose.

  79. @27 year old
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That's literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don't).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn't understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn't develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn't fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. "The establishment" has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it's now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    “The establishment” has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it’s now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    This counts as failure, as does failure to protect the borders of hard won nation-states, as does the implementation of socialism, a way to pay off the masses, as does the collapse of any meaningful belief system in the West.

    There’s no point in having an elite governing class if they don’t even at least attempt to govern and protect the culture. They are just rich annoying people then.

    Another point of Trump that freaks the elites out, besides basic honesty, is the obvious display of responsibility. It sort of works when everyone in the elites all agree the highest virtue the elite can have is make money for themselves, in exchange for pretending they don’t judge by class. Trump, for all his non-elite mannerisms, makes them look like the petty, dull, and self-centered people they are as a class.

    George W Bush can think of himself as noble and cowboyesque…until Trump had a Presidency, wherein he looks like the whimpy, push over, give away the store liberal he always was.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    George W Bush can think of himself as noble and cowboyesque…until Trump had a Presidency, wherein he looks like the whimpy, push over, give away the store liberal he always was.

    If George W. Bush read your comment, he would say, "That was some weird shit." Then he would go do a bad painting of a dog.
    , @27 year old

    This counts as failure, as does failure to protect the borders of hard won nation-states, as does the implementation of socialism, a way to pay off the masses, as does the collapse of any meaningful belief system in the West.

    There’s no point in having an elite governing class if they don’t even at least attempt to govern and protect the culture. They are just rich annoying people then.
     
    Who says that annoying rich people isn't all they've ever* been? Who says they ever cared about defending borders or culture (read: cared about us non-wealthy Whites)?

    They as a class are not a monolith of course. There were factions that cared and factions that didn't. But rather than saying the class failed, because they don't protect us, we should ask whether they (as a whole) ever did.

    We (White workers, "labor" ) had to literally fight a war against the "old White establishment" to get Sundays off and a 12 (!) hour workday.

    The "old White establishment" was flooding America with new immigrants to crush wages in the early 20th century.

    In the depression of the 1930s, the "old White establishment" tried to assassinate FDR because they didn't want him giving jobs or benefits to poor White people.

    The Beaver Cleaver era was less because the "old White establishment" cared about us and wanted us to have a good life than because they were afraid of us emulating the Soviet Union and imposing literal communism and killing them.

    *Well, ever = since industrialization/ after the civil war anyway. I think that the OGs, the signers of the declaration and etc were probably OK.
  80. The other reason many Jews are satisfied with affirmative action is that AA mainly affects whites “near the bottom of the top group” (and nowadays, East Asians) who Jews regard as competition, and are correspondingly pleased to see gotten rid of.

    That is, when college or job applicants are ranked on academic criteria and only those above some cut-off, like 1SD above the mean for a mildly-selective college are chosen, due to “disparate impact” there will be a “shortage” of blacks (and to some extent latinos) compared to their share of the general population. For a simplified example, after initial selection there might be 3 blacks, 9 latinos, 12 Jews, 20 asians, and 56 non-Jewish whites among 100 candidates above the cut-off. To satisfy the affirmative-action quota of 12 spaces for blacks, 9 whites and asians (16% of them!) must be replaced with otherwise unqualified blacks (the latinos are immune because they have their own quota). However, nearly all of the Jews will have academic scores above the white/asian median, so they will not be replaced with blacks– and the non-Jewish whites and asians who lose out will never again compete with those Jews. The over-promoted blacks, of course, will not be competitive in the normal sense either, though they eventually be shunted into make-work jobs like “Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion.”

    • Agree: Kevin C., whorefinder
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I think part of their support for AA is also their ability to game the system and get around it. When you need a recommendation to get into a top school, a recommendation letter from your relative or fellow member of the temple in academia means more than that recommendation some rural white got from the leader of the local chapter of Future Farmers of America. Jews live mostly in urban environments and can take advantage of their network.

    There was that study done a while ago that showed that the most screwed people in college admissions were rural whites. Many whites who do well academically come from the whitest and least urban states.
    , @Meretricious
    you are overestimating the # of high-ability Jews: they are no longer the sole academic superstars. Ron Unz has written about the decline of Jewish superiority. Look at Brooks himself: he's basically a lightweight and a terrible writer
  81. Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it’s hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren’t meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today’s establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let’s be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    • Agree: Desiderius, James Kabala
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam
     
    Yes and no,

    I believe there were no easy options with Vietnam.

    Staying out completely would have the allowed the communists any easy uncontested victory that would have encouraged them to push their luck elsewhere with possibility of even greater tragedy.

    The other option would have been to cut across Laos and anchor the left flank on the Mekong River, wipe out the Viet Cong and push for a Korean style partition and stalemate. But some in the Far Right and US military did not like option because they saw Korea as a defeat. However, this option might have had the advantage of rallying the American public to take on domestic communists once again as it did in the early fifties.

    These were the options General Ridgeway confronted Ike and Kennedy with and they did not like them either.

    So America's leadership opted for a third option that was at least if not more bloody but it did at least prevent the communist take over of Thailand and Burma.

    Still less folks forget we won the Cold War!!!

    In the long run the real defeat of the Vietnam was enabling the more rapid Cultural Marxist take over of American Academia.


    But that fight will be won in the future!!!
    , @Elli
    FWIW, I always thought Corzine wanted to be Jewish - he adopted a Jewish professorial appearance with that beard and longish hair - he looks a lot like my Jewish uncle the professor.

    He started sneaking around with a Jewish girlfriend while he was running for Senate, dumped his wife once he won, and later married a different Jewish woman.

    In the NYC finance world, it's probably better to be a Jew than not.
    , @Arclight
    Agree - in my first career, I was in a field that was littered with Ivy League grads, many of whom had attended the Kennedy School of Government. In relatively short order it was obvious that a) some of them very, very intelligent, and b) the vast majority were entitled, not particularly hard workers, and just as likely to fall into lazy 'everyone knows' arguments as anyone else, just more extensively footnoted.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Dave, you might be interested in this...

    There was a lot of discussion on this topic recently at SSC with good criticisms:
    http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/25/highlights-from-the-comment-thread-on-meritocracy/

    tl;dr "Meritocracy" doesn't actually select for agents skilled in statesmanship.

    I would add that, in fact, the form of our current meritocracy, based in competition for college placements, etc, in a PC social context, actually selects for a group of people that have in common self-promotion and a tendency to demonize their competition. I think the selection pressures in this form of meritocracy are the driving force behind phenomena like The Big Sort and the Goodwhites/Badwhites division.
    , @Anonymous
    That's not a good analogy, since the WASP establishment was in decline during the Vietnam War era and since escalation in Vietnam began under the Kennedy administration. Furthermore, McNamara was Irish and became the first non-Ford family member and hence first non-WASP to become chairman of Ford and then was appointed Sec. of Defense by fellow Irishman JFK.

    https://youtu.be/h8ZhIi57x-4?t=1068
    , @Stealth
    Jon Corzine isn't Jewish.
    , @Lagertha
    well, the whole world will always model , always: Wasps: family formation; naming kids with rational names; preaching self sufficiency (sports at school) and personal responsibility (private school is a jungle), clothing/fashion choices that are old/neutral/non-sexual/duh; saving money; life insurance policies; large and safe SUVs; avoiding socialists; Rambling, of course. Main point: socialism kills more than it enlightens.
  82. Why do you distinguish between jews and whites? Jews are white. What is this jewish hypocrisy you speak of?

    I know you won’t publish this nor do I expect you to. I write because I do so much enjoy most of your insights. Speaking as a jew of long experience, I know of no jewish hypocrisy. Jews like their fellow whites wish to succeed in the world ON THEIR MERITS. Are you saying “there’s too many jews among the elite”? That would be unworthy of you.

    As for politically correct jews who are in favor of AA, they are it seems acting against their own self interest. I think they’re nuts, but they are advocating as privileged whites (<-their opinion of themselves).

    • Replies: @Whitey Whiteman III
    Excellent satire.
  83. O/T but hilarious.

    Antifa and La Meute battle it out in Quebec.
    http://nationalpost.com/g00/3_c-7obujpobmqptu.dpn_/c-7NPSFQIFVT34x24iuuqx3ax2fx2fobujpobmqptu.dpnx2fofx78tx2fdbobebx2fivoesfet-pg-dpvoufs-qspuftufst-tx78bsn-gbs-sjhiu-mb-nfvuf-qspuftu-jo-rvfcfd-djuz_$/$/$/$

    “Despite the group’s allegations that they are not racist, they have a strong stance against extreme Islam”

    Why those racist bastards – “a strong stance!”! And to think those conniving swine even fooled the police, who “said La Meute’s protest was orderly and lawful.”

    Meanwhile, Antifaux were business as usual:
    “As some La Meute members came into the parking garage, they were met with confrontation from the counter-protesters”
    “Some of the counter-protesters began throwing bricks”
    “some anti-fascist demonstrators aimed at least three smoking flares at a line of officers — one of which hit an officer’s helmet”
    “A dumpster on wheels was set on fire and pushed towards a police line …. Glass bottles and plastic chairs were smashed on the floor”
    “Masked anti-fascists also targeted the media”

    “Trudeau condemned the “intolerant, racist demonstrations.” He said he stood with millions of Canadians “who reject the hateful, harmful, heinous ideologies” that have sprouted across the country.”

    What, no praise for Antifaux for causing the violence and havoc? But at least its a catchy meme – reminds me of “The Rain in Spain” from “My Fair Lady” – “in Hartford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly…happen.” Because they’re hateful, harmful & heinous?

    So – deja vu all over again.

  84. Brooks is pretty uncharitable with his bald statement about the causes of the “failure” of the old WASP elite.

    Steve occasionally brings up the notion of “noblesse oblige,” and it seems relevant here. At its best the WASP establishment really did try to live up its ideals, admitting people of excellence into its ranks (schools, etc.) regardless of background. At its most feckless, the same elite got tired of competing with the more energetic ethnicities and retired to its enclaves in country clubs and boutique causes. Both attitudes hastened its displacement.

    One enduring legacy of the WASP elite is the way its institutions and habits–clothing fashions, schools, standards of beauty, uses of liesure time–remain the standard by which the new elite measures its success.

    I’ve always thought the movie “Quiz Show” was an interesting dramatization of this change from a nobly-obligated but fragile establishment to a no-nonsense energetic one.

    • Replies: @renfro
    Brooks is like a lot of Jews.
    A lot of Jewish put downs of WASP is because they want to be WASP...want to be admired like the carefree self assured wasp models in glossy magazines......BUT they cant be......so they hate WASP and put them down to elevate and comfort themselves.
    All the self promoting we see Jews doing?....pay attention and you will see that when they write about their superior whatever they always 'compare' themselves to gentiles....they don't just write about how great they are---it is necessary for their egos to 'compare' themselves to gentiles and then conclude they are the superior.
    Their need to promote themselves by using a 'comparison' to another is is indicative of a 'inferiority complex ---not a real superitory complex.
  85. @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    I think what Steve is implying but not specifying is that for there to be a bargain Jews would need to feel threatened by those calling them out on hypocrisy. This would require conservatives to take on a hostile tone towards Jews that would cause serious anxiety.

  86. @Bill P


    An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about
     
    Never going to happen. The thing here is that it isn't Jews who have to change, because they're doing fine. It's the people who are getting screwed who have to change, because they are the ones with the problem on their hands. As far as I know this has always been how things work.

    So heritage American have to get their own house in order, and I personally think that we have to start by first dealing with our own unpatriotic, grasping elite ingrates (in the political realm, at least -- the other problems are spiritual in origin and have to be addressed at a grassroots level). Once we do that, I'm sure we'll be treated with a lot more respect by other ethnic groups, including Jews.

    So heritage American have to get their own house in order,

    Do you follow what the Alt-Right is telling young people???

    Get sober, stop smoking weed, go to the gym, put down the vidya and go outside, stop fapping to porn, quit smoking or at least switch to vape, lose weight, stop drinking beer, no soy, no fast food, stop wasting your time following “sportsball”, no more Tinder or sleazy hookups, stop wasting money on idiotic tattoos, get a job any kind of job until the day something better comes along…..

    That actually is appealing to lots of young folks cast adrift in a sea of degeneracy.

    It is the Jews who have been pushing the degeneracy for decades, and now young folks are revolting.

    Like Weimar Germany, Weimar America will also come to an end.

    As ISTEVE documents daily, it may not be pretty because Jews rarely if ever show a capacity for self-reflection or quilt over their actions.

    But that is not Heritage America’s problem, its only problem is insuring its survival.

    Weimar Germany, Weimar America
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/weimar-germany-weimar-america/

    Tomorrow belongs to me Cabaret

  87. @Reg Cæsar
    *Before foreign policy issues co-opted the term, the neoconservative movement was quite ecumenical, with Orthodox and Reform Jews, mainline and evangelical Protestants, New Deal and Latin Mass Catholics, even the odd Protestant-cum-Buddhist (paging Dr Murray...) What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    You could call Ronald Reagan the first neoconservative, or even Dixie's Goldwater voters, who were concentrated in FDR's favorite counties.

    on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    And wrong on just about everything else. They were for free-trade agreements, open borders, and the economic weakening of the white working class.

  88. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman? Why did he leave out Ira Einhorn, who ran with the same crowd and certainly upended the Protestant establishment by finding a shiksa girlfriend who he strangled and stuffed into a trunk? Einhorn’s omission is a travesty of epic proportions. I’m sure it was an honest oversight by Brooks.

  89. In other NYT news today, a great big ‘dog whistle’ to Badwhite Trumpsters right on the front page:

  90. @Veracitor
    The other reason many Jews are satisfied with affirmative action is that AA mainly affects whites "near the bottom of the top group" (and nowadays, East Asians) who Jews regard as competition, and are correspondingly pleased to see gotten rid of.

    That is, when college or job applicants are ranked on academic criteria and only those above some cut-off, like 1SD above the mean for a mildly-selective college are chosen, due to "disparate impact" there will be a "shortage" of blacks (and to some extent latinos) compared to their share of the general population. For a simplified example, after initial selection there might be 3 blacks, 9 latinos, 12 Jews, 20 asians, and 56 non-Jewish whites among 100 candidates above the cut-off. To satisfy the affirmative-action quota of 12 spaces for blacks, 9 whites and asians (16% of them!) must be replaced with otherwise unqualified blacks (the latinos are immune because they have their own quota). However, nearly all of the Jews will have academic scores above the white/asian median, so they will not be replaced with blacks-- and the non-Jewish whites and asians who lose out will never again compete with those Jews. The over-promoted blacks, of course, will not be competitive in the normal sense either, though they eventually be shunted into make-work jobs like "Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion."

    I think part of their support for AA is also their ability to game the system and get around it. When you need a recommendation to get into a top school, a recommendation letter from your relative or fellow member of the temple in academia means more than that recommendation some rural white got from the leader of the local chapter of Future Farmers of America. Jews live mostly in urban environments and can take advantage of their network.

    There was that study done a while ago that showed that the most screwed people in college admissions were rural whites. Many whites who do well academically come from the whitest and least urban states.

  91. Mr. Brooks’ notion is that the upheavals of the 1960s were largely about talented Jews elbowing their way into the top slots in our culture, which is exaggerated but pretty reasonable.

    Talented at what? Promoting movies, sports, porn, rock-n-roll, political radicalism, and suing people? It’s not as if they elbowed their way to the top of a culture that was building the transcontinental railroad, manufacturing steel, or mass-producing Model Ts. They elbowed their way to the top of a degenerate culture.

    And it should be added that yes, “talented” Jews did “elbow their way into the top slots in our culture,” but they did it with a hefty dose of tribal nepotism that is now forbidden for white Christians to practice.

  92. It’s hard to imagine Jews being reasonable about it.

  93. OT (again) – Scholar’s Stage on a new report into Chinese penetration into New Zealand. There’s a big kerfuffle at present (“Four Corners”) about the same thing in Australia.

    My take from a position of supreme distance and ignorance would be that China has discovered it can weaponise Western anti-racism, which will shout down those objecting to China buying up property, infrastructure and resources – and planting anchor babies behind the lines. Relative proximity makes getting too close to China more dangerous for Oz and NZ than for the US and Canada – at the moment.

    China’s just opened her first overseas base, in Djibouti, and is buying video-chipper Imagination Technologies from the UK, who are in no position to put a block on at present, too busy hoping for a trade deal.

    https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2017/09/chinese-influence-and-intelligence.html

    “Soft-power influence has not come to the Party by convincing the world to love them. Influence has come by convincing the world that they are the future. The more buzzwords like “Chinese century” move from catch-phrase to zeitgeist the stronger their hand will be. They do not ask you to love the future, just to accept the futility in resisting it. China ascendant, China as the key node of the international order, China the responsible stake holder of world affairs. There is no love in these terms, but there is great power in them. With notions like these the Party weaves visions of a world where we have no choice but to be dependent on them and the stability they bring.

    You will hear that compromising the integrity of international law, betraying long-held alliances, or refusing to hold the Party to the same moral standard we hold other tyrannies to referred to as the “adult” or “responsible” thing to do. This is the voice of Chinese soft power. Most Westerners who say these things do so honestly (if naively). My intent is not to question their integrity. But we must recognize that this is exactly the path the Party prefers our thoughts to tread. They do not need anything else. The outcome Party’s assault on Taiwanese democracy, for example, depends so little on warm feelings for China. The Party’s victory, if it comes, will depend very much on how reasonable and inevitable this victory is perceived to be.

    Ground zero in this fight for global influence is the Chinese diaspora. This is not a new development. For Chinese communists it really is old hat. This heritage is only referenced in passing in Brady’s report, and is absent entirely from most discussions of the issue…the Party has made clear that it believes any man or woman of Chinese blood, no matter their citizenship or locale, is their ward.

    I have a Chinese Singaporean friend, a very bright chap, and if we are (say) in some obscure European airport and there’s a Chinese group or family, he’ll make a bee-line for them and engage in animated conversation – just as a European might have done in the Far East a century back on meeting other Europeans.

    • Replies: @Karl
    87 YetAnotherAnon > I have a Chinese Singaporean friend

    well, I have LIVED AND WORKED in Singapore, and I say that you don't your chinese social hierarchies very well.

    Chinese Singaporeans are REQUIRED in school to learn Mandarin.... as a FOREIGN language. Most Singaporean Chinese are descended from the people from the Appalachia part of China . Those folks never did speak Mandarin.

    You need to spend more time in the "hawker centres" of public-housing buildings in lower-middle-class neighborhoods of Singapore, shipmate. That will show you real life in Singapore

    I myself prefer the lower-lower class neighborhoods (e.g., surrounding the Sembawang MRT station) - the Malays. Better looking chicks.

    Their brothers are busy riding the ferry every weekend to Batam to fuck Indonesian hookers for cheap.
  94. @Reg Cæsar

    David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”
     
    Yeah, but the Protestant-- and Jewish and lately neoconservative*-- Establishment has long used it as a euphemism for being born smart, i.e., choosing your parents well.

    The "legacy" culture of the old Ivy League actually did reward merit-- the family's, not the individual's, which had yet to be earned. But it went from dumb-kids-made-smart to smart-kids-made-dumb.

    That “legacy” culture has been mostly dead for 40+ years–since Jews and other minorities have been admitted on meritorious (SAT, GPA ), or affirmative action grounds. It’s not as if the Ivies increased enrollment to accommodate them.

    But for some, the legacy admission culture still exists…

  95. @Dave Pinsen
    Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it's hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren't meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today's establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let's be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam

    Yes and no,

    I believe there were no easy options with Vietnam.

    Staying out completely would have the allowed the communists any easy uncontested victory that would have encouraged them to push their luck elsewhere with possibility of even greater tragedy.

    The other option would have been to cut across Laos and anchor the left flank on the Mekong River, wipe out the Viet Cong and push for a Korean style partition and stalemate. But some in the Far Right and US military did not like option because they saw Korea as a defeat. However, this option might have had the advantage of rallying the American public to take on domestic communists once again as it did in the early fifties.

    These were the options General Ridgeway confronted Ike and Kennedy with and they did not like them either.

    So America’s leadership opted for a third option that was at least if not more bloody but it did at least prevent the communist take over of Thailand and Burma.

    Still less folks forget we won the Cold War!!!

    In the long run the real defeat of the Vietnam was enabling the more rapid Cultural Marxist take over of American Academia.

    But that fight will be won in the future!!!

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    Staying out completely would have the allowed the communists any easy uncontested victory that would have encouraged them to push their luck elsewhere with possibility of even greater tragedy.
     
    But weren't the Vietnamese communists nationalists first? As were pretty much all third world communists? The idea that the United Colors of Communism -- Russian, African, Asian, Latin American -- were going to combine and takeover America seems as daft now as the idea that diversity is our greatest strength. In reality, the Chinese and Russians weren't allies, and the Vietnamese and Chinese fought a war against each other after we left Vietnam.
    , @Neil Templeton
    America was generally successful in Westward Expansion, including annihilation of the Indian Tribes and settlement of the Mexican Southwest. The Civil War was fought mainly to determine who would make the rules going forward. The brush wars in Cuba, Guatemala, Philippines, etc. appear to mainly be wars of commercial (colonial) expansion, with no consequent migration of American peoples or lasting authority. The world wars were primarily European wars, again, arguably, with no significant transfer of sustainable authority (point contested by those who claim America is the world's teacher or hall monitor).

    My point is that for America to succeed in War, it must either annihilate the natives to replace with our own, or perhaps, to vanquish a large share and reduce the remainder to rigorous slavery. The first option is foreclosed by the fact that few Americans would find settling in Vietnam or any other part of the planet worth the sacrifice. The second option is removed by the fact that Americans have neither the patience nor the emotional and psychological resources to sustain slavery in perpetuity. It has never been a preferred business model for the majority of folks who settled here.

    How does controlling the expansion of Communism fit this model?

  96. He forgot the parentheses, he meant (((meritocratic))).

    As George Constanza (aka Larry David) said, “It’s not a lie, if you believe it”. I guess this summarizes Jewish thinking?

  97. @27 year old
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That's literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don't).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn't understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn't develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn't fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. "The establishment" has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it's now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    “if you believe that it failed, which I don’t”

    It doesn’t exist anymore, does it? Isn’t that failure by definition?

    I remind myself of a snatch of dialogue from Metropolitan (1990) about the social system espoused by Charles Fourier:

    Charlie: Fourierism was tried in the late 19th century, and it failed. Wasn’t Brook Farm Fourierist? It failed.

    Tom: That’s debatable.

    Charlie: Whether Brook Farm failed?

    Tom: That it ceased to exist, I’ll grant you. But whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said.

    Charlie: Well, for me, ceasing to exist is failure. I mean, that’s pretty definitive.

    Tom: Well, everyone ceases to exist. Doesn’t mean everyone’s a failure.

    I agree with Charlie. Tom uses a bit of sophistry at the end. Societies aren’t individuals, and aren’t mortal in the same way. Which isn’t to say they’re failures unless they last forever. But the mid-century Establishment was meant to last longer than the 60s, or whenever it truly fell. I think they would’ve considered themselves failures if you told them the New Left was going to Long March themselves into power.

  98. Jews are just smarter. Just like Black Men are more athletic.

    This is white privilege is so enraging. In a just world white men would not have anywhere close to the wealth and luxury they currently enjoy. The western world is not a meritocracy. It is a Castle of Unearned Privilege for white males. The success of white males is proof of that.

    Read the following to understand

    Marie Lu
    Sabaa Tahir
    Leonard Pitts
    Damon Young
    Panama Jackson
    Leah Bardugo

  99. The other reason many Jews are satisfied with affirmative action is that AA mainly affects whites “near the bottom of the top group” (and nowadays, East Asians) who Jews regard as competition, and are correspondingly pleased to see gotten rid of.

    Right. In other words, affirmative action screws B+ and A- whites, promotes C- and D blacks, but doesn’t affect straight-A Jews, so they’re good with it.

  100. @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    Or maybe just sell them handguns to protect themselves.

    Oh, wait… we’ve tried that.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Maybe if Jews would just stop undermining gentiles they would have fewer enemies?
  101. The Uncle Leo act only draws notice to how over-represented Jews are in the halls of power. Diminishing returns are going to kick in eventually.

  102. @Dave Pinsen
    Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it's hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren't meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today's establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let's be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    FWIW, I always thought Corzine wanted to be Jewish – he adopted a Jewish professorial appearance with that beard and longish hair – he looks a lot like my Jewish uncle the professor.

    He started sneaking around with a Jewish girlfriend while he was running for Senate, dumped his wife once he won, and later married a different Jewish woman.

    In the NYC finance world, it’s probably better to be a Jew than not.

  103. @Veracitor
    The other reason many Jews are satisfied with affirmative action is that AA mainly affects whites "near the bottom of the top group" (and nowadays, East Asians) who Jews regard as competition, and are correspondingly pleased to see gotten rid of.

    That is, when college or job applicants are ranked on academic criteria and only those above some cut-off, like 1SD above the mean for a mildly-selective college are chosen, due to "disparate impact" there will be a "shortage" of blacks (and to some extent latinos) compared to their share of the general population. For a simplified example, after initial selection there might be 3 blacks, 9 latinos, 12 Jews, 20 asians, and 56 non-Jewish whites among 100 candidates above the cut-off. To satisfy the affirmative-action quota of 12 spaces for blacks, 9 whites and asians (16% of them!) must be replaced with otherwise unqualified blacks (the latinos are immune because they have their own quota). However, nearly all of the Jews will have academic scores above the white/asian median, so they will not be replaced with blacks-- and the non-Jewish whites and asians who lose out will never again compete with those Jews. The over-promoted blacks, of course, will not be competitive in the normal sense either, though they eventually be shunted into make-work jobs like "Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion."

    you are overestimating the # of high-ability Jews: they are no longer the sole academic superstars. Ron Unz has written about the decline of Jewish superiority. Look at Brooks himself: he’s basically a lightweight and a terrible writer

  104. Also, this isn’t really the case:

    But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them)

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    If you mean that quotas on whites specifically wouldn’t affect Jews as much, if they’re counted as whites, that’s true. But the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    • Replies: @Paul Yarbles

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.
     
    I have to agree here. The mean may be a bit higher, but the bell curve applies to Jews too.

    Also, apart from quotas, Jews are being displaced in finance, medicine, science, etc. etc. by Chindians. And the majority of Jews support policies that promote this! Is hatred and fear of Protestant and Catholic whites really what drives these people to behave so irrationally? It's puzzling.
    , @Anonymous

    the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.
     
    How's the weather where you are? And BTW, you could stand to read the work of, IDK, maybe Ron Unz?

    Jews have maintained (or even increased) their proportions at the top schools (tech schools excepted) exclusively at the expense of the goyim. A feature, not a bug. All this, as Mr Unz shows pretty conclusively, as their academic metrics have been in decline for decades.

    Asian enrollment in the top schools has increased dramatically during the same time. The one and only cohort to have exhibited a dramatic decrease during this period....drum roll...

    , @SFG
    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn't hurt them that much. If some don't get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors. We're a long way from the changing-your-name-to-get-into-the-country club era. Affirmative action hurts the bottom of the white (and Asian) slice, whether in grades, money, connections, or whatever else is important in that particular case.

    Basically, it's a nice way to sound like you're fighting inequality--oh, we are taking underprivileged people who have been excluded and giving the a shot! We are true to our oppressed ancestors! The fact that there's an even larger bunch of underprivileged people (poor whites) who are being doubly excluded--once by lack of connections, and once by affirmative action--is either ignored or winked at. After it all, it makes sure the Ivies are uniformly Democrat...
    , @Daniel Williams

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.
     
    Except fewer Jews are marginal relative to whites. They generally score higher and do better in school than whites do. It might hurt a few individual Jews, but from a collective perspective the load is borne by whites.

    OR: If College X has 100 seats, and you give ten of them to unqualified blacks, the remaining 90 seats are left for the most qualified "whites" (meaning whites + Jews). The likelihood that Jews will be equally represented among that shafted, least-qualified ten is pretty low. It would be ten whites. Thus, the situation we have now.
    , @Issac
    Are you aware of where you are posting?

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.
     
    It can be ameliorated by starting institutions of one's own, as Catholics did in the 19th century. The Northeastern Protestants were being squeezed out of the universities of their grandfathers.

    As for state universities, blame Jefferson for that.
  105. One of the angles behind the Balfour Declaration was that the British believed, rightly or wrongly,
    that it would buy them positive media coverage from the Jewish dominated American press.

    The point being, America was not exactly a Protestant ethnostate in 1945, or even 25 years earlier.

  106. Um, do quotas limiting whites not proportionally affect Jews as they do other whites? Since Jews are counted as white in academia, Hollywood, etc.

  107. @27 year old
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That's literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don't).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn't understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn't develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn't fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. "The establishment" has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it's now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism

    That establishment eventually failed. It stopped fellow-traveling with International Communism, unlike Harvard and the New York Times.

    It’s the 100 year anniversary of the Russian Revolution. If you pick up a copy of the New York Times from a random date from those 100 years you will find the NYT fellow-traveling with International Communism, e.g. the warm profile of Communist Bill Ayers published the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

  108. @Reg Cæsar
    *Before foreign policy issues co-opted the term, the neoconservative movement was quite ecumenical, with Orthodox and Reform Jews, mainline and evangelical Protestants, New Deal and Latin Mass Catholics, even the odd Protestant-cum-Buddhist (paging Dr Murray...) What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    You could call Ronald Reagan the first neoconservative, or even Dixie's Goldwater voters, who were concentrated in FDR's favorite counties.

    Sure, back in the day of Daniel Patrick Moynihan maybe. But since at least the 70s, the term ‘neoconservative’ has come to stand almost exclusively for a belligerent foreign policy; they were no longer interested in welfare much.

  109. After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism, led the nation into war in Vietnam and became stultifying.

    You mean that period of the greatest movement of the poor into the middle class, the lowest wage inequality, the highest organized labor participation, the beginning of the space era and the semiconductor industry, and the most skilled labor force we ever had? Please, tell me more.

    Fuck this myth of the 50’s being some gulag.

  110. These people are obsessed with themselves (we all are, but we don’t all monopolize the Megaphone), but usually clever enough to conceal the fact. I find they generally can’t help revealing it when talking about the foundation of their rise, which was the gradual “emancipation” of the higher reaches of American civilization from pure WASP domination. WASP-bashing amongst them has actually been tampered down (in the Jewish discourse with which I’m familiar) as it’s been ratcheted up for the rest of the anti-WASP complainers under PC (who’ve really let themselves go recently). Though country club resentment remains, more and more they’re identifying with the white ruling class.

    They’re still acutely self-conscious, though, and hold a special place in their hearts for the arrival. If they’re (relatively) conservative, they also maintain a special contempt for the New Left backlash, which embarrassed them. As with all conservatives, it was “this far! No farther!” They were in, but blacks, for instance, had to learn to behave themselves, just like Jews did.

    I was reading a book called America Lite, at a point in my life when I should’ve known better. Which was ostensibly about the dumbing down of our culture–especially academia–in the PC era. But the first part of the book, and the only part I read, was all, and I mean ALL about Jews. I could tell from sentence one it was neoconservative, and I don’t know anything about the author but I’m sure if I looked up his surname it would be of a certain ethnic flavor. But I had no idea just how thoroughly it would be an ethnocentric book.

    The clear intent was to start out by describing the Old Order, which was the WASP order, and how it fell. Which apparently was because it promoted men only capable of Gentlemanly C’s to the Ivies, relegating capable men of unfortunate background to City College and worse. The book gets mired in excruciating details about inter-Jewish conflict in college lunchrooms between followers of Stalin and followers of Trotsky. And I’m thinking, “What am I reading? Is this real life?” But I shoulda known better.

    I gave up, but presumably the upshot is that after the WASPs justly fell, there was a Golden Age of people getting what they deserved. That is, before the barbarians stormed the gates (literally, in the case of many campus takeovers) and ruined our culture. That singular, pure, meritocratic moment, when colorblindness was to reign came post-Civil Rights but pre-New Left (if any chronological gap existed), and it was like the Garden of Eden plopped in the middle of our history.

    Coincidentally, it just so happened to be the sane moment Jews arrived in white society. Fancy that. They had, of course, power and influence before. In banking, it hardly needs be mentioned, and entertainment, but also at all levels of politics, business, and culture. But that was hit and miss. The time we’re talking about here is when the ruling class was open for them to be a permanent part. When no “gentlemen’s agreements” would officially or semi-officially keep them out.

    They never put it this way, because they fear the Rumpelstiltskin Effect. But they can’t help making it too obvious. That book, America Lite,was for a general audience. I have no idea why the author would get that carried away. It would make even less sense if he wasn’t Jewish, though.

    • Replies: @Anon
    David Gelernter, no surprise. I think he lost a hand or a thumb to the Unabomber (WASP!) and turned him into a neocon shill.
  111. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    Whites bring to the table “We’ll pretend you’re one of us.” The NAM huddled masses and descendants of bondsmen are going to treat Jews as white people anyway. They won’t even eat them last. This way, Jews aren’t caught in the middle.

    All they have to do is shut their damn yaps. Or assimilate. Whichever’s more convenient.

  112. @Dave Pinsen
    Also, this isn't really the case:

    But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them)
     
    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    If you mean that quotas on whites specifically wouldn't affect Jews as much, if they're counted as whites, that's true. But the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    I have to agree here. The mean may be a bit higher, but the bell curve applies to Jews too.

    Also, apart from quotas, Jews are being displaced in finance, medicine, science, etc. etc. by Chindians. And the majority of Jews support policies that promote this! Is hatred and fear of Protestant and Catholic whites really what drives these people to behave so irrationally? It’s puzzling.

  113. @Dave Pinsen
    Also, this isn't really the case:

    But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them)
     
    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    If you mean that quotas on whites specifically wouldn't affect Jews as much, if they're counted as whites, that's true. But the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    How’s the weather where you are? And BTW, you could stand to read the work of, IDK, maybe Ron Unz?

    Jews have maintained (or even increased) their proportions at the top schools (tech schools excepted) exclusively at the expense of the goyim. A feature, not a bug. All this, as Mr Unz shows pretty conclusively, as their academic metrics have been in decline for decades.

    Asian enrollment in the top schools has increased dramatically during the same time. The one and only cohort to have exhibited a dramatic decrease during this period….drum roll…

    • Agree: Desiderius
  114. @Bill P


    An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about
     
    Never going to happen. The thing here is that it isn't Jews who have to change, because they're doing fine. It's the people who are getting screwed who have to change, because they are the ones with the problem on their hands. As far as I know this has always been how things work.

    So heritage American have to get their own house in order, and I personally think that we have to start by first dealing with our own unpatriotic, grasping elite ingrates (in the political realm, at least -- the other problems are spiritual in origin and have to be addressed at a grassroots level). Once we do that, I'm sure we'll be treated with a lot more respect by other ethnic groups, including Jews.

    “they’re doing fine”

    For now. The dismal tide is coming.

    People like Brooks sense their paychecks are in danger. It won’t do to be the pet conservative of liberal MSM outlets when you don’t understand what the right is up to. Those guys are out of the loop, and eventually their readership will catch on.

    The rest of them, which is the majority of them, are in no near-term danger. But for those who can see, what’s coming is obvious. It’s started already, but eventually, inevitably, it will become undeniable. Jews will be classed as regular white folks by PC, and they will lose all their Diversity Pokemon points.

    They may actually get the pogroms they’ve feared all along, but not from Whitey Corngood. Rather, from D’Shitvarious Crackpipe and Ahmed Dirtybomb.

  115. @Dave Pinsen
    Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it's hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren't meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today's establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let's be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    Agree – in my first career, I was in a field that was littered with Ivy League grads, many of whom had attended the Kennedy School of Government. In relatively short order it was obvious that a) some of them very, very intelligent, and b) the vast majority were entitled, not particularly hard workers, and just as likely to fall into lazy ‘everyone knows’ arguments as anyone else, just more extensively footnoted.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    As Steve himself has suggested, Trump comes to the right position on issues (immigration, travel ban, etc.) because he's not well-read, and, consequently, his common sense hasn't been overwritten by globalist/P.C. education (granted, Trump is an Ivy League alumnus, but I doubt Wharton was too pozzed 50 years ago).

    As I put it recently, it takes in-person tutoring from 4-star generals and former Goldman Sachs execs to get Trump to see the emperor's invisible clothes.
  116. @Desiderius

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNe9fuqQ8o

    Capisce?

    er… the WASP Senator in the Godfather II clip set in the 1950s specifically put down Sicilians like the Corleones for being non-white. He said that right before the ‘My offer is nothing’ retort from Michael Corleone.

    If you think America as 85% white in the 1950s, you are wrong, for Jews, Italians, and Poles were considered non-white at the time. The definition of ‘white’ was expanded later (which is always what happens in America).

    Whenever the population of whites goes below 65% in America, the definition of ‘white’ is expanded to make it over 80% again. WNs always go along with it, and will do so next time.

    This happened first when Irish were not considered white (1900), and then again when Italians, Jews, and Poles were not considered white (1950s). It will be done again, when Asians and Hispanics are reclassified as ‘white’, and WNs pretend that was always the case.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    And the idiots who can't even follow a simple analogy continue to out themselves.

    We, the regular Americans, red yellow black and white, are Corleone. The people asking us how much we're willing to pay to stop our elites (sic) from blood libeling us are the senator.

    , @Anonymous
    It gets tiring hearing this so often, Steve points this out about once a month, but here goes...

    All immigrants to the USA were considered white. The law specifically stated that one HAD to be white to be accepted as an immigrant pre-1965. Various groups of European Immigrants may have seemed exotic to existing Americans, but they were never classified as non-white.

    These sorts of stories provide comfort to some, but they aren't based in reality.
    , @Evocatus
    Senator Geary in Godfather 2 was Irish and was based on Nevada's Pat McCarran, a Democrat well known for his staunch anti-communism. There was quite a bit of subtext to the Italian vs Irish conflict in the Godfather films, as well as the book (ex., the corrupt police Captain McCluskey who breaks Michael's jaw in the first film, Tom Hagen's half Irish ancestry, etc).
  117. Anonymous [AKA "ADL Fact Checker"] says: • Website

    Greetings:

    This is a volunteer ADL fact checker. I was made aware of this website from an anonymous tip.

    PLEASE DELETE THIS POST. This post is determined to contain anti-semitism.

    The author is encouraged to delete this post immediately and to replace with a written apology.

    In addition to an apology, a donation to the ADL or the National Holocaust Museum is also highly encouraged.

    If in 24 hours this post remains, the ADL will take immediate action. Your DNS could be revoked and your ISP notified. Other legal actions and/or litigation will also be considered.

    – ADL Fact Checker

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Does a dumb troll post like this amuse anyone? Even Tiny Duck is better than this.
  118. @Arclight
    Agree - in my first career, I was in a field that was littered with Ivy League grads, many of whom had attended the Kennedy School of Government. In relatively short order it was obvious that a) some of them very, very intelligent, and b) the vast majority were entitled, not particularly hard workers, and just as likely to fall into lazy 'everyone knows' arguments as anyone else, just more extensively footnoted.

    As Steve himself has suggested, Trump comes to the right position on issues (immigration, travel ban, etc.) because he’s not well-read, and, consequently, his common sense hasn’t been overwritten by globalist/P.C. education (granted, Trump is an Ivy League alumnus, but I doubt Wharton was too pozzed 50 years ago).

    As I put it recently, it takes in-person tutoring from 4-star generals and former Goldman Sachs execs to get Trump to see the emperor’s invisible clothes.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    it takes in-person tutoring from 4-star generals and former Goldman Sachs execs to get Trump to see the emperor’s invisible clothes
     
    Great!
  119. After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed.

    No Mr. Brooks. That establishment created and built America over the course of two centuries. It did quite well, thank you.

    Then it was ripped apart by the likes of you.

    It is very hard to find allowable words for this garbage. I cannot do it. The things I want to say about this right now do not belong here.

    There are no words other than outrage, and perhaps these today:

  120. Nicholas Lemann’s book about the meritocracy is really good, IMHO. Excellent social history. Helped me understand my own youth too, when I was a bright kid who was welcomed into high-powered schools even though I had no family connections. The old WASPy/clubby elite was dying off and the new “meritocratic” arrangements were just beginning to take shape. It was an interesting moment to be in a fancy school.

    Lemann’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Test-History-American-Meritocracy/dp/0374527512/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1506468120&sr=8-3&keywords=Nicholas+lemann

  121. @Dave Pinsen
    Also, this isn't really the case:

    But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them)
     
    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    If you mean that quotas on whites specifically wouldn't affect Jews as much, if they're counted as whites, that's true. But the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn’t hurt them that much. If some don’t get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors. We’re a long way from the changing-your-name-to-get-into-the-country club era. Affirmative action hurts the bottom of the white (and Asian) slice, whether in grades, money, connections, or whatever else is important in that particular case.

    Basically, it’s a nice way to sound like you’re fighting inequality–oh, we are taking underprivileged people who have been excluded and giving the a shot! We are true to our oppressed ancestors! The fact that there’s an even larger bunch of underprivileged people (poor whites) who are being doubly excluded–once by lack of connections, and once by affirmative action–is either ignored or winked at. After it all, it makes sure the Ivies are uniformly Democrat…

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn’t hurt them that much.
     
    There seems to be affirmative action favoring Jews, because as our host Mr. Unz has shown Jews are vastly over-represented in elite educational institutions after accounting for higher average SAT scores, etc. Just because it's just not a stated or explicit program in Ivy League admissions offices doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

    Basically, it’s a nice way to sound like you’re fighting inequality–oh, we are taking underprivileged people who have been excluded and giving the a shot! We are true to our oppressed ancestors! The fact that there’s an even larger bunch of underprivileged people (poor whites) who are being doubly excluded–once by lack of connections, and once by affirmative action–is either ignored or winked at. After it all, it makes sure the Ivies are uniformly Democrat…
     
    I think the human embodiment of this is Al Gore, who ran for President in 2000 defending Affirmative Action by promising to "mend it, not end it" while all four of his spawn - daughters and a son of a United States Senator and Vice President, Harvard alumnus, and grandchildren of a United States Senator - were admitted to Harvard University in their respective classes.
    , @Dave Pinsen

    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn’t hurt them that much. If some don’t get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors.
     
    No, most Jews do not have fathers who can make 7-figure donations to get them into Harvard. That's ludicrous. A smart middle class Jew faces the same headwind a smart middle class gentile white does. Schools will accept a less qualified black or Hispanic applicant over either.
    , @Triumph104
    A few years ago, Harvard had an Orthodox Jew on its basketball team who only played his freshmen year. When the guy was in high school he played for the US at the World Maccabiah Games. His father was co-chair of the team and one of the Maccabiah coaches was the assistant basketball coach at Harvard.
  122. @Desiderius

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNe9fuqQ8o

    Capisce?

    Capisce?

    I assume in this case the politician takes the role of the white, and Corleone takes the role of the Jew, or is it the other way around? If the former, in real life reversals of fortune can often happen and have happened throughout history. When there are no limits to chutzpah in your religion, exponentially compounding chutzpah has a way of bringing about external reactions that also act to limit.

    It might be worth remembering that the most famous mobster of real life was incarcerated at age 42 for tax evasion – all his years after that were either incarceration or advanced stages of syphilis.

    And I raise you this:

    Sometimes it pays to be reasonable.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I assume in this case the politician takes the role of the white, and Corleone takes the role of the Jew, or is it the other way around?
     
    Instead of assuming, try thinking for two minutes.

    Simon and his ilk are obviously the senator. Corleone represents the manly response from the average American who has been blood libeled by the Simons of this world when they suggest we pay to stop the libel.

    See also:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haThIxPnYro
  123. The use of the word “meritocratic” by Brooks raises immediate eyebrows. How was late 1960s affirmative action and great society welfare policy (products of the great leftward cultural shift) about meritocracy? It was about social engineering.

    Brooks creates this “meritocracy” straw man and then doesn’t even bother to knock it down. So Trumps voters are uneducated rubes? Is Brooks saying that over 60 percent of white men and over 50 percent of white women are an “uneducated cohort”, unlike the genius readers of his increasingly silly columns. That’s a lot of people to be sneering at.

  124. @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    Does anybody in his right mind really believe that there’s any serious chance of Jews being “pogromed” in America, today? or that Jews are really, honestly “terrified” by that prospect? Have we all run stark mad?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It may happen. They are increasingly resented not only by gentile whites, but also by the minorities they manipulate.

    Foreign Policy magazine published an article where a group of national security experts concluded there was at least a 30% of second American civil war occurring. Some of the contributors felt the odds were much higher.

    Fact is, the American System is seriously broken. If it can't be fixed the future is not looking good. Jews make up the backbone of the elite. They're going to have to shoulder a lot of the blame when/if the whole thing implodes.
  125. @Desiderius

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNe9fuqQ8o

    Capisce?

    Michael Corleone spoke from a position of strength.

    The dissident right speaks from a position of weakness.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Who said anything about the dissident right?

    If you think that's who Sailer is suggesting is on our end of the bargain, you've got your head up your ass.
  126. Jews are just as capable of feeling Jewish guilt as other whites are of feeling white guilt. It is just that, given global history, Jews have much less reason to feel such.

    That is inarguable, even if neither should actually feel guilt given the absurd irrationality of guilt by association.

    Nonetheless, as historical Jewish oppression continues to fade into irrelevance, the interesting question will be whether Jewish guilt for Jews’ role as super privileged whites or Jewish guilt for Jews’ role in deconstructing Westen Civ becomes more prominent.

    Given human proclivities to rationalise negative emotions like guilt to something more productive, I suspect the weight of guilt will fall on whichever side is better for Jews – the petite-smart commenters here will have a field day with the above but it is clearly universally true (-;

    It also seems to me that the better deal is to feel in debt to Western Civ and I hugely struggle to understand the other side who feel otherwise. Western Civ is a genuine golden goose. Perhaps the other side are merely ignorant and don’t get this. In which case, it will come down to aesthetics and emotions. Like it probably always does. Perhaps best not to dress as literal Nazis then? Though making arguments that emphasise Jewish debt to broader Western Civillization is obviously quite powerful.

    • Replies: @Issac
    "Jews have much less reason to feel such.

    That is inarguable"

    How little do you know about our history, or are you just being dishonest? Stop taunting them. They know better.
  127. OT: My friends, we are entering into uncharted territory.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/26/jeff_sessions_speech_condemned_by_georgetown_law_professors_who_kneeled.html

    I don’t think many people realize just as ensconced leftists have become in their commanding heights of society. This level of childishness proves how long it’s been since anyone challenged them in any meaningful way.

  128. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    Whites can flip and mobilize pretty quickly to deal with a problem. And Jews have been in this business long enough to know that Gentiles always eventually catch on. That’s a combination that probably keeps at least a few of ’em nervous.

  129. @Dave Pinsen
    Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it's hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren't meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today's establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let's be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    Dave, you might be interested in this…

    There was a lot of discussion on this topic recently at SSC with good criticisms:
    http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/25/highlights-from-the-comment-thread-on-meritocracy/

    tl;dr “Meritocracy” doesn’t actually select for agents skilled in statesmanship.

    I would add that, in fact, the form of our current meritocracy, based in competition for college placements, etc, in a PC social context, actually selects for a group of people that have in common self-promotion and a tendency to demonize their competition. I think the selection pressures in this form of meritocracy are the driving force behind phenomena like The Big Sort and the Goodwhites/Badwhites division.

  130. @Dave Pinsen
    As Steve himself has suggested, Trump comes to the right position on issues (immigration, travel ban, etc.) because he's not well-read, and, consequently, his common sense hasn't been overwritten by globalist/P.C. education (granted, Trump is an Ivy League alumnus, but I doubt Wharton was too pozzed 50 years ago).

    As I put it recently, it takes in-person tutoring from 4-star generals and former Goldman Sachs execs to get Trump to see the emperor's invisible clothes.

    it takes in-person tutoring from 4-star generals and former Goldman Sachs execs to get Trump to see the emperor’s invisible clothes

    Great!

  131. @Dave Pinsen
    Also, this isn't really the case:

    But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them)
     
    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    If you mean that quotas on whites specifically wouldn't affect Jews as much, if they're counted as whites, that's true. But the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    Except fewer Jews are marginal relative to whites. They generally score higher and do better in school than whites do. It might hurt a few individual Jews, but from a collective perspective the load is borne by whites.

    OR: If College X has 100 seats, and you give ten of them to unqualified blacks, the remaining 90 seats are left for the most qualified “whites” (meaning whites + Jews). The likelihood that Jews will be equally represented among that shafted, least-qualified ten is pretty low. It would be ten whites. Thus, the situation we have now.

  132. @Bill P


    An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about
     
    Never going to happen. The thing here is that it isn't Jews who have to change, because they're doing fine. It's the people who are getting screwed who have to change, because they are the ones with the problem on their hands. As far as I know this has always been how things work.

    So heritage American have to get their own house in order, and I personally think that we have to start by first dealing with our own unpatriotic, grasping elite ingrates (in the political realm, at least -- the other problems are spiritual in origin and have to be addressed at a grassroots level). Once we do that, I'm sure we'll be treated with a lot more respect by other ethnic groups, including Jews.

    The Internal Enemy First.

  133. @Reg Cæsar

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.
     
    Or maybe just sell them handguns to protect themselves.

    Oh, wait... we've tried that.

    Maybe if Jews would just stop undermining gentiles they would have fewer enemies?

  134. “An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.” Ha! Don’t hold your breath!

  135. Aw shucks!

    $30 million McCuck bucks suck hind teat in Sweet Home Alabama

    Hobbits Win! Hobbits Win! Hobbits Win!

  136. @27 year old
    >That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism,

    That's literally the opposite of why it failed (if you believe that it failed, which I don't).

    If you buy that it failed, it failed because they didn't understand that racist/sexist just meant fuck you; the old establishment didn't develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.

    I think it didn't fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions. "The establishment" has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it's now open season on non-wealthy Whites.

    I think it didn’t fail, I think come factions embraced the newcomers and figured it would advantage them over rival factions.

    That’s what revolutions usually look like.

  137. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it's hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren't meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today's establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let's be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    That’s not a good analogy, since the WASP establishment was in decline during the Vietnam War era and since escalation in Vietnam began under the Kennedy administration. Furthermore, McNamara was Irish and became the first non-Ford family member and hence first non-WASP to become chairman of Ford and then was appointed Sec. of Defense by fellow Irishman JFK.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    He was Protestant and had actually been a registered Republican before he joined the JFK administration, though.
  138. @27 year old

    bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

     

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that's what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That's a great deal for us since we weren't going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    Isn’t this a paradox though?

    I mean to say that if they really were terrified of being pogromed, they wouldn’t be pushing things so far.

    And conversely, if you gave them credible “no pogrom” promises, wouldn’t they then have no incentives to cut the act out?

    Perhaps the better strategy is to convince Jews that their fates are intertwined with the fates of whites and that they will not wind up on the top of a big brown human pyramud.

    I figure that an overarching Jewish paradox is that while they’re more clever on average than the white population at large they’re not more clever than a very large slice of the white population in absolute terms. This leads to mismatches between Jewish high esteem of their own cleverness and deviousness and the relative intelligence of the as-clever or more clever “mark.”

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Perhaps the better strategy is to convince Jews that their fates are intertwined with the fates of whites and that they will not wind up on the top of a big brown human pyramud
     
    Well, that's the issue, isn't it. Do influential Jews feels that Jews are safer surrounded by blacks and browns or by gentile whites - outside of Israel, of course?

    From their actions, they side with blacks and browns. Personally, I think that they're wrong, but they obviously disagree. And I'm not sure how you convince them otherwise.

    Also, let's not forget that they know that if they turn out to be wrong, they have an escape hatch.

    We don't.
    , @The Craw
    "I figure that an overarching Jewish paradox is that while they’re more clever on average than the white population at large they’re not more clever than a very large slice of the white population in absolute terms. This leads to mismatches between Jewish high esteem of their own cleverness and deviousness and the relative intelligence of the as-clever or more clever “mark.”"
    Perhaps the problem is that they are too clever by half.
  139. An old WASP, Lewis Lapham, on merit:

  140. @Reg Cæsar

    David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”
     
    Yeah, but the Protestant-- and Jewish and lately neoconservative*-- Establishment has long used it as a euphemism for being born smart, i.e., choosing your parents well.

    The "legacy" culture of the old Ivy League actually did reward merit-- the family's, not the individual's, which had yet to be earned. But it went from dumb-kids-made-smart to smart-kids-made-dumb.

    Bill Kristol. John Podhoretz. Jonah Goldberg. Tori Spelling. Just to name some particularly obvious examples.

    Is this really what meritocracy looks like?

  141. @Reg Cæsar
    *Before foreign policy issues co-opted the term, the neoconservative movement was quite ecumenical, with Orthodox and Reform Jews, mainline and evangelical Protestants, New Deal and Latin Mass Catholics, even the odd Protestant-cum-Buddhist (paging Dr Murray...) What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.

    You could call Ronald Reagan the first neoconservative, or even Dixie's Goldwater voters, who were concentrated in FDR's favorite counties.

    Not really. The neocon’s signature deviation from the old right was their rejection of sane policy on race. There were not pro-racism neocons—obviously there were neocons who were racist by today’s standards, but they were always on the far left of the “right” on race issues. Furthermore, the movement was always predominantly Jewish and post-Marxist. There were no good old days of the neocons. Rather, there were the days before the necons were strong enough to purge all the paleocons.

  142. @Simon in London
    "An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric."

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?

    "In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about."

    Do enough whites care now that Jews feel threatened enough to make this worth anything?

    And this is why we’re doomed. Our diaspora is clinically retarded.

  143. @SFG
    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn't hurt them that much. If some don't get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors. We're a long way from the changing-your-name-to-get-into-the-country club era. Affirmative action hurts the bottom of the white (and Asian) slice, whether in grades, money, connections, or whatever else is important in that particular case.

    Basically, it's a nice way to sound like you're fighting inequality--oh, we are taking underprivileged people who have been excluded and giving the a shot! We are true to our oppressed ancestors! The fact that there's an even larger bunch of underprivileged people (poor whites) who are being doubly excluded--once by lack of connections, and once by affirmative action--is either ignored or winked at. After it all, it makes sure the Ivies are uniformly Democrat...

    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn’t hurt them that much.

    There seems to be affirmative action favoring Jews, because as our host Mr. Unz has shown Jews are vastly over-represented in elite educational institutions after accounting for higher average SAT scores, etc. Just because it’s just not a stated or explicit program in Ivy League admissions offices doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

    Basically, it’s a nice way to sound like you’re fighting inequality–oh, we are taking underprivileged people who have been excluded and giving the a shot! We are true to our oppressed ancestors! The fact that there’s an even larger bunch of underprivileged people (poor whites) who are being doubly excluded–once by lack of connections, and once by affirmative action–is either ignored or winked at. After it all, it makes sure the Ivies are uniformly Democrat…

    I think the human embodiment of this is Al Gore, who ran for President in 2000 defending Affirmative Action by promising to “mend it, not end it” while all four of his spawn – daughters and a son of a United States Senator and Vice President, Harvard alumnus, and grandchildren of a United States Senator – were admitted to Harvard University in their respective classes.

  144. @Alec Leamas

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.
     
    Isn't this a paradox though?

    I mean to say that if they really were terrified of being pogromed, they wouldn't be pushing things so far.

    And conversely, if you gave them credible "no pogrom" promises, wouldn't they then have no incentives to cut the act out?

    Perhaps the better strategy is to convince Jews that their fates are intertwined with the fates of whites and that they will not wind up on the top of a big brown human pyramud.

    I figure that an overarching Jewish paradox is that while they're more clever on average than the white population at large they're not more clever than a very large slice of the white population in absolute terms. This leads to mismatches between Jewish high esteem of their own cleverness and deviousness and the relative intelligence of the as-clever or more clever "mark."

    Perhaps the better strategy is to convince Jews that their fates are intertwined with the fates of whites and that they will not wind up on the top of a big brown human pyramud

    Well, that’s the issue, isn’t it. Do influential Jews feels that Jews are safer surrounded by blacks and browns or by gentile whites – outside of Israel, of course?

    From their actions, they side with blacks and browns. Personally, I think that they’re wrong, but they obviously disagree. And I’m not sure how you convince them otherwise.

    Also, let’s not forget that they know that if they turn out to be wrong, they have an escape hatch.

    We don’t.

    • Replies: @Olorin

    From their actions, they side with blacks and browns.
     
    But rarely live among them desu.
  145. @SFG
    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn't hurt them that much. If some don't get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors. We're a long way from the changing-your-name-to-get-into-the-country club era. Affirmative action hurts the bottom of the white (and Asian) slice, whether in grades, money, connections, or whatever else is important in that particular case.

    Basically, it's a nice way to sound like you're fighting inequality--oh, we are taking underprivileged people who have been excluded and giving the a shot! We are true to our oppressed ancestors! The fact that there's an even larger bunch of underprivileged people (poor whites) who are being doubly excluded--once by lack of connections, and once by affirmative action--is either ignored or winked at. After it all, it makes sure the Ivies are uniformly Democrat...

    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn’t hurt them that much. If some don’t get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors.

    No, most Jews do not have fathers who can make 7-figure donations to get them into Harvard. That’s ludicrous. A smart middle class Jew faces the same headwind a smart middle class gentile white does. Schools will accept a less qualified black or Hispanic applicant over either.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Maybe, but most have connections on the inside who aren't shy about looking out for their own in a way that whites and/or Americans of that class consider declasse.
    , @Whitey Whiteman III
    No, because of nepotism and favoring urban over rural, it is the gentile "white" that will get the axe.

    Every. Single. Time.
  146. @Dave Pinsen
    Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it's hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren't meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today's establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let's be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    Jon Corzine isn’t Jewish.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I know he's not Jewish. Where did I claim he was Jewish?
  147. Very slightly off topic, but David Brook’s son was in the IDF while he was chickenhawking the US military into being a proxy army for Israel, sans disclosure. Its creepy how much of a platform he gets (he was on PBS almost every night and got to say whatever he wanted).

    Also, I lol when they put Jews into the list of marginalized peoples. Its amazing how 43 percent of the 1%ers can be marginalized. Guess its the poor jews who do mass welfare fraud in Lakewood, NJ.

    • Replies: @biz
    How was Brooks "chickenhawking" if his son was in the one military on earth where one is most likely to see combat?
  148. @Dave Pinsen
    Also, this isn't really the case:

    But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them)
     
    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    If you mean that quotas on whites specifically wouldn't affect Jews as much, if they're counted as whites, that's true. But the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    Are you aware of where you are posting?

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Sure. Perhaps Ron can weigh in here and tell me what I've written in this thread that's wrong.
  149. @Reg Cæsar

    David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”
     
    Yeah, but the Protestant-- and Jewish and lately neoconservative*-- Establishment has long used it as a euphemism for being born smart, i.e., choosing your parents well.

    The "legacy" culture of the old Ivy League actually did reward merit-- the family's, not the individual's, which had yet to be earned. But it went from dumb-kids-made-smart to smart-kids-made-dumb.

    Steve does seem rather unaware of the long history of the word “meritocracy,” which was coined in Britain, not the U.S., and which from the very beginning has been used negatively/sarcastically much more than it has been used sincerely.

  150. @Anonymous
    That's not a good analogy, since the WASP establishment was in decline during the Vietnam War era and since escalation in Vietnam began under the Kennedy administration. Furthermore, McNamara was Irish and became the first non-Ford family member and hence first non-WASP to become chairman of Ford and then was appointed Sec. of Defense by fellow Irishman JFK.

    https://youtu.be/h8ZhIi57x-4?t=1068

    He was Protestant and had actually been a registered Republican before he joined the JFK administration, though.

  151. Anthony Weiner just went down for some hard time in prison. Maybe while he’s in there he will find a way to weave a new social fabric between the Aryan Brotherhood and his meritocratic ruling class? Will Weiner unite these planets Mr. Brooks speaks of? Will he teach them about Italian deli meats the Davos crowd know by heart?

  152. @Dave Pinsen
    Also, this isn't really the case:

    But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3% (so that affirmative action barely affects them)
     
    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    If you mean that quotas on whites specifically wouldn't affect Jews as much, if they're counted as whites, that's true. But the current set-up is a headwind for Jews as much as it is for other whites.

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    It can be ameliorated by starting institutions of one’s own, as Catholics did in the 19th century. The Northeastern Protestants were being squeezed out of the universities of their grandfathers.

    As for state universities, blame Jefferson for that.

  153. @Alec Leamas

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.
     
    Isn't this a paradox though?

    I mean to say that if they really were terrified of being pogromed, they wouldn't be pushing things so far.

    And conversely, if you gave them credible "no pogrom" promises, wouldn't they then have no incentives to cut the act out?

    Perhaps the better strategy is to convince Jews that their fates are intertwined with the fates of whites and that they will not wind up on the top of a big brown human pyramud.

    I figure that an overarching Jewish paradox is that while they're more clever on average than the white population at large they're not more clever than a very large slice of the white population in absolute terms. This leads to mismatches between Jewish high esteem of their own cleverness and deviousness and the relative intelligence of the as-clever or more clever "mark."

    “I figure that an overarching Jewish paradox is that while they’re more clever on average than the white population at large they’re not more clever than a very large slice of the white population in absolute terms. This leads to mismatches between Jewish high esteem of their own cleverness and deviousness and the relative intelligence of the as-clever or more clever “mark.””
    Perhaps the problem is that they are too clever by half.

  154. @Veracitor

    After the Vietnam War the Meritocratic establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It corrupted and enfeebled institutions with affirmative action, promoted mass immigration, led the nation into war in the Middle East and Central Asia, and stifled criticism of its actions.
     
    There, David, I fixed it for you!

    I saw a couple episodes of the current PBS Vietnam series. It was to me a historical example of what happened before a friendly press could take care of things for their US political meritocrats. The press was somewhat friendly to the Democratic meritocrats, not friendly at all to Nixon, despite the meritocrats not being very meritocratic.

    From the portrayal of the Vietnam War, I got the impression that the clever civilians running the war believed themselves so clever they could exactly define the low level of force that could win it. No more, just enough to win. They put force restrictions in place that were always short of victory levels against the North Vietnamese. Maybe they weren’t so clever, and it wasn’t such a hot idea to view bombing as “sending messages” rather than as a means to defeat the enemy military. The force levels they approved early also became the maximum moral level of force, and they found it hard to escalate it when it failed. They’d just argued that it was immoral shortly before. The US seems to do that at lot in difficult wars after WW2–the meritocratic class isn’t that smart, or is not both smart and practical.

    Once Nixon was in office it was safer to be critical of the war they screwed up for the first few years.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    This is a habit the managerial, technocratic or "meritocratic" types have: their immediate predecessors are always painted as bumbling amateurs who weren't applying the Method. They liked to paint the generals in charge during the First World War this way, even though that generation of officers were the first to have gone through staff college.
  155. A little OT: Today, Google is honoring some woman named Gloria E. Anzaldua. According to Google, Anzaluda was “an American scholar of Chicana cultural theory, feminist theory, and queer theory.” I guess this is what you called “meritocratic” these days.

  156. @Boomstick
    I saw a couple episodes of the current PBS Vietnam series. It was to me a historical example of what happened before a friendly press could take care of things for their US political meritocrats. The press was somewhat friendly to the Democratic meritocrats, not friendly at all to Nixon, despite the meritocrats not being very meritocratic.

    From the portrayal of the Vietnam War, I got the impression that the clever civilians running the war believed themselves so clever they could exactly define the low level of force that could win it. No more, just enough to win. They put force restrictions in place that were always short of victory levels against the North Vietnamese. Maybe they weren't so clever, and it wasn't such a hot idea to view bombing as "sending messages" rather than as a means to defeat the enemy military. The force levels they approved early also became the maximum moral level of force, and they found it hard to escalate it when it failed. They'd just argued that it was immoral shortly before. The US seems to do that at lot in difficult wars after WW2--the meritocratic class isn't that smart, or is not both smart and practical.

    Once Nixon was in office it was safer to be critical of the war they screwed up for the first few years.

    This is a habit the managerial, technocratic or “meritocratic” types have: their immediate predecessors are always painted as bumbling amateurs who weren’t applying the Method. They liked to paint the generals in charge during the First World War this way, even though that generation of officers were the first to have gone through staff college.

  157. • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Roy Moore crushes Strange:
     
    Alabama wants Moore, but not some Strange.
  158. @cucksworth
    Very slightly off topic, but David Brook's son was in the IDF while he was chickenhawking the US military into being a proxy army for Israel, sans disclosure. Its creepy how much of a platform he gets (he was on PBS almost every night and got to say whatever he wanted).

    Also, I lol when they put Jews into the list of marginalized peoples. Its amazing how 43 percent of the 1%ers can be marginalized. Guess its the poor jews who do mass welfare fraud in Lakewood, NJ.

    How was Brooks “chickenhawking” if his son was in the one military on earth where one is most likely to see combat?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    How was Brooks “chickenhawking” if his son was in the one military on earth where one is most likely to see combat?
     
    Really? Most likely to see combat? What has the U.S. military been doing for the last sixteen years?
  159. After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism, led the nation into war in Vietnam and became stultifying.

    No, the Protestant establishment largely dismantled racial segregation.

    And, it was “stultifying”? America in the mid 1960s was “stultifying”.

    Ah, the ancient (bloodless) white-bread libel.

  160. If Jews get their own ethnic category, as some of them desire, then Harvard and the rest would have to cap them like they do Asians.

    • Agree: Triumph104
  161. @Tyrion
    The majority of Jewish kids in America are Orthodox. Orthodox votes fall very heavily for Trump. The change in support is baked in. The question is when will Jewish leadership begin to reflect this.

    Do you have numbers? I understand you said kids and that matters, but for now the Orthodox are the smallest group: https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/demographics-of-judaism

    Then there is this: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/147201/report-low-retention-rate-for-orthodox-jews

    • Replies: @Tyrion
    Honestly, I know little about American Jews and got something wrong. Nevertheless, 60% of Jewish children in New York City are Orthodox. Another analysis found that over a quarter of Jews under 18 are Orthodox.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267920/most-pro-trump-jews-america-daniel-greenfield
  162. @Anonymous
    Greetings:

    This is a volunteer ADL fact checker. I was made aware of this website from an anonymous tip.

    PLEASE DELETE THIS POST. This post is determined to contain anti-semitism.

    The author is encouraged to delete this post immediately and to replace with a written apology.

    In addition to an apology, a donation to the ADL or the National Holocaust Museum is also highly encouraged.

    If in 24 hours this post remains, the ADL will take immediate action. Your DNS could be revoked and your ISP notified. Other legal actions and/or litigation will also be considered.

    - ADL Fact Checker

    Does a dumb troll post like this amuse anyone? Even Tiny Duck is better than this.

  163. @SFG
    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn't hurt them that much. If some don't get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors. We're a long way from the changing-your-name-to-get-into-the-country club era. Affirmative action hurts the bottom of the white (and Asian) slice, whether in grades, money, connections, or whatever else is important in that particular case.

    Basically, it's a nice way to sound like you're fighting inequality--oh, we are taking underprivileged people who have been excluded and giving the a shot! We are true to our oppressed ancestors! The fact that there's an even larger bunch of underprivileged people (poor whites) who are being doubly excluded--once by lack of connections, and once by affirmative action--is either ignored or winked at. After it all, it makes sure the Ivies are uniformly Democrat...

    A few years ago, Harvard had an Orthodox Jew on its basketball team who only played his freshmen year. When the guy was in high school he played for the US at the World Maccabiah Games. His father was co-chair of the team and one of the Maccabiah coaches was the assistant basketball coach at Harvard.

  164. @Stealth
    Jon Corzine isn't Jewish.

    I know he’s not Jewish. Where did I claim he was Jewish?

    • Replies: @Stealth
    It was when you said, "That Jewish fellow Jon Corzine...."

    You didn't.

    I was skimming and thought you used "meritocratic" to mean Jewish.

  165. @Hosswire

    the old establishment didn’t develop idealogy to counter the jewish rhetoric.
     
    Well, in the establishment's defense, most of that rhetoric was a weaponized restatement of their own moral code.

    Well, in the establishment’s defense, most of that rhetoric was a weaponized restatement of their own moral code.

    Such as?

    • Replies: @guest
    How about Brooks' use of different forms of "merit," for one? What American doesn't believe in classless society, Horatio Alger-ness, and each man getting his own due rather than his father's due. Level playing fields and "equality of opportunity," that's us, boy-oh.

    Brooks' crew got into positions of power and influence through merit, like good Americans. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    Not to say Legacy Americans actually lived by such ideals, nor that Jewish culture lacked all recognition of merit. (They certainly selected for intellectual and verbal prowess.) But the whole idea of judging a man by his deeds and attainments rather than his blood is more American than traditionally Jewish.

  166. @Dave Pinsen
    I know he's not Jewish. Where did I claim he was Jewish?

    It was when you said, “That Jewish fellow Jon Corzine….”

    You didn’t.

    I was skimming and thought you used “meritocratic” to mean Jewish.

  167. @AM

    “The establishment” has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it’s now open season on non-wealthy Whites.
     
    This counts as failure, as does failure to protect the borders of hard won nation-states, as does the implementation of socialism, a way to pay off the masses, as does the collapse of any meaningful belief system in the West.

    There's no point in having an elite governing class if they don't even at least attempt to govern and protect the culture. They are just rich annoying people then.

    Another point of Trump that freaks the elites out, besides basic honesty, is the obvious display of responsibility. It sort of works when everyone in the elites all agree the highest virtue the elite can have is make money for themselves, in exchange for pretending they don't judge by class. Trump, for all his non-elite mannerisms, makes them look like the petty, dull, and self-centered people they are as a class.

    George W Bush can think of himself as noble and cowboyesque...until Trump had a Presidency, wherein he looks like the whimpy, push over, give away the store liberal he always was.

    George W Bush can think of himself as noble and cowboyesque…until Trump had a Presidency, wherein he looks like the whimpy, push over, give away the store liberal he always was.

    If George W. Bush read your comment, he would say, “That was some weird shit.” Then he would go do a bad painting of a dog.

  168. @res
    Do you have numbers? I understand you said kids and that matters, but for now the Orthodox are the smallest group: https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/demographics-of-judaism

    Then there is this: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/147201/report-low-retention-rate-for-orthodox-jews

    Honestly, I know little about American Jews and got something wrong. Nevertheless, 60% of Jewish children in New York City are Orthodox. Another analysis found that over a quarter of Jews under 18 are Orthodox.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267920/most-pro-trump-jews-america-daniel-greenfield

  169. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.
     
    What kind of deal is that for Jews?

    Despite the fanatical fear of many Jews that American whites are sharpening their pitchforks just waiting for a chance to chase down the local Jews, 99% of American whites barely even know if someone is Jewish, much less desire to hurt them.

    Ironically, outside of here, the only whites that I know who are aware of just how powerful Jews are in this country are extremely well-educated and successful whites because they are goys who deal with Jews eye-to-eye. And trust me, very successful lawyers, academics and businessman aren't planning on going after Jews, if for no other reason than many of their kids marry them.

    Also, highy successful white gentiles don't seem to give two shits about their working-class cousins.

    No, Jews pay no price for their attack on non-Jewish whites.

    The only reason that I could see for why influential Jews might take their foot off the Let's-Destroy-Goy-World pedal is because they might realize that a heavily Muslim Europe and a Brazil-like United States might not be "Good for the Jews."

    If Europe becomes a no-go zone for Jews, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If Europe starts to impose sanctions on Israel to placate its Muslims, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If Muslims start getting in powerful government positions in a nuclear-armed France, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If shit-hole Brazil-like United States starts to have problems fielding a reasonable military because, well, it's filled with blacks and browns, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If shit-hole Brazil-like United States starts to seriously cut military spending to provide welfare for its many, many blacks and browns, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    The destruction of the West will leave Israel alone in a very bad neighborhood. Israel and the Jews are tough and smart, but it's a bad position to put yourself in. But, apparently, influential Jews think that situation is safer than goy-populated countries. Maybe.

    At some point, you'd think that Jews would realize their destruction of the West was reaching a point of diminishing returns and maybe even turning negative. But, then again, Jews aren't known for pulling back when they might be pushing things too far so I'm not holding out hope.

    I am Jewish, agree with every word you say. Secular liberal Jews in the US are the least self aware people on the planet. (Probably the same goes for Gentiles of a similar socioeconomic status and geographic location). Jews are smart and they are aggressive but they live in a bubble the nature of which I have yet to understand. And it is no BS. They really do think 500 people in Charlottesville means something bad is about to happen to them, without ever considering that generally they are incredibly well-off, the “elite” and something bad really has already happened to the working class they fear. And that just maybe they should consider what makes people turn against “elites” of any religion or ethnicity. And btw, by meritocracy, the elite means that their child, with his alumni father, and with his Chinese lessons and his summers helping a refugee agency take care of gay asylum seekers in El Salvador, well he got into an Ivy League school purely on merit.

    • Agree: Tyrion
  170. @Cagey Beast
    No, can't you see how we been blossoming and growing all across the West for decades? Can't you feel the cultural rebirth? Haven't we all got a collective spring in our step that makes the postwar boom of the last century seem flat? I've seen about a dozen articles in recent years lamenting how we seem to have been stuck in a rut since the '90s but those are just some hate filled rants from Russian-backed Trump trolls who are scared of change.

    I’ve seen about a dozen articles in recent years lamenting how we seem to have been stuck in a rut since the ’90s

    Western civ went full eloi upon the end of the cold war and hasn’t looked back since.

    Pretty much everything else follows from that.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
  171. Anonymous [AKA "Houtx"] says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    David Brooks knows damn well that what we got here is failure of the WASP / Jew ruling class. David Brooks is a man that you just can't reach. I don't like it anymore than the rest of you. David Brooks cooks up some rancid baby boomer bullshit about a "meritocratic establishment" to cover the fact that the WASP / Jew ruling class is an evil flop that is destroying the United States.

    David Brooks was the baby boomer Jew who was telling White Americans to embrace the Houston, Texas model of economic and cultural development. Houston is a waterlogged Third World hellhole with 90 percent humidity. David Brooks has been rabidly pushing open borders mass immigration for decades. Houston has been inundated by foreigners and flood water and if the price of oil don't rise that sucker is going down -- to paraphrase that WASP baby boomer boob George W Bush.

    All due respect to Larry Auster’s ghost, but demands of synchronity require that I note that Brooks’s shiksa is from Houston. Not a hellhole, but like everywhere else under our current system, it depends on whom you can afford to live nowhere nearby.

  172. @Tyrion
    Jews are just as capable of feeling Jewish guilt as other whites are of feeling white guilt. It is just that, given global history, Jews have much less reason to feel such.

    That is inarguable, even if neither should actually feel guilt given the absurd irrationality of guilt by association.

    Nonetheless, as historical Jewish oppression continues to fade into irrelevance, the interesting question will be whether Jewish guilt for Jews' role as super privileged whites or Jewish guilt for Jews' role in deconstructing Westen Civ becomes more prominent.

    Given human proclivities to rationalise negative emotions like guilt to something more productive, I suspect the weight of guilt will fall on whichever side is better for Jews - the petite-smart commenters here will have a field day with the above but it is clearly universally true (-;

    It also seems to me that the better deal is to feel in debt to Western Civ and I hugely struggle to understand the other side who feel otherwise. Western Civ is a genuine golden goose. Perhaps the other side are merely ignorant and don't get this. In which case, it will come down to aesthetics and emotions. Like it probably always does. Perhaps best not to dress as literal Nazis then? Though making arguments that emphasise Jewish debt to broader Western Civillization is obviously quite powerful.

    “Jews have much less reason to feel such.

    That is inarguable”

    How little do you know about our history, or are you just being dishonest? Stop taunting them. They know better.

    • Troll: Tyrion
  173. Surprised I haven’t seen any coverage on iSteve of Plame/Giraldigate…I didn’t realize how far TAC had moved. Dennis Ross has another one of those self-parody articles in the NYT today.

  174. @Tiny Duck
    America is moving towards becoming a minority majority country. Multiculturalism is going to win regardless of what those who are disenfranchised by it feel about it. Those who learn to adapt and thrive in this new reality will succeed in deciding what the future holds for our country.

    Trump and his movement represent the last gasp of a narrow vision of American life. What they are railing against is a set of progressive cultural values that are now ascendant: support for marriage equality; support for racial equality; a belief that health care is a right; environmentalism; and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. The culture is already being rebuilt, and that's what Trump and his supporter can't stand.

    It wasn't just the white "working class" that brought Trump into power. It was middle class, upper class, and wealthy whites, as well. In other words, it was whites. Trump won all white demographics. This isn't a class conflict. It's a racial conflict. It's about white racism and resentment that has been part of the country's social fabric for centuries. Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    “Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. ”

    you go grrl!!!11!!!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Do you think Tiny is related to Fup Duck?
  175. @Yan Shen
    The best thing about the uh post WW 2 Jewish "takeover" of the United States... sexy Jewish chicks.

    Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Scarlett Johansson, Bar Refaeli, Dianna Agron, Gal Gadot, yes please! More uh former Miss Israels in the United States, I say.

    America already had the mezmerizing Lauren Bacall (Betty Joan Perske) in the 1940s.

    • Replies: @Yan Shen
    As I'm sure our uh friend Whiskey would respond, you find real men in sub-Saharan Africa or in the hood here in the states these days.

    It's sexy, sexy black men all the way down because women hate, hate, hate beta males!

  176. @Horseball
    Here's a delusional tweet from Matt Yglesias today:

    "The whole situation works well and America has been very Good For The Jews over the years.

    But our asks are always very modest."

    But our asks are always very modest

    That’s true.

    They usually don’t bother to ask.

  177. @Buzz Mohawk
    America already had the mezmerizing Lauren Bacall (Betty Joan Perske) in the 1940s.

    http://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/37/35/920365810-Lauren-Bacall-woman-quotes.jpg

    As I’m sure our uh friend Whiskey would respond, you find real men in sub-Saharan Africa or in the hood here in the states these days.

    It’s sexy, sexy black men all the way down because women hate, hate, hate beta males!

  178. @Vinteuil
    Michael Corleone spoke from a position of strength.

    The dissident right speaks from a position of weakness.

    Who said anything about the dissident right?

    If you think that’s who Sailer is suggesting is on our end of the bargain, you’ve got your head up your ass.

    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    Jeez, dude, what's with the profanity?

    With respect, I think you misunderstood the point that "Simon in London" was trying to make.

    I mean, look: the only white gentiles who care about, or even notice, "Jewish hypocrisy" are a few utterly powerless dissident right folk posting on websites like this one - people who pose absolutely no threat to the Jews.

    So why should the Jews bargain away anything in return for white gentiles ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy? Why pay for what you're already getting for free?

    In other words, SIL was not writing from the standpoint of a Jewish supremacist, but from that of a realistic dissident righter. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

    Sure, "the regular Americans, red yellow black and white" ought to offer David Brooks and his ilk precisely nothing in return for knocking off "the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric.” But the only regular Americans who are ready to make that offer are guys like us who speak from a position of weakness.
  179. @Anonym
    Capisce?

    I assume in this case the politician takes the role of the white, and Corleone takes the role of the Jew, or is it the other way around? If the former, in real life reversals of fortune can often happen and have happened throughout history. When there are no limits to chutzpah in your religion, exponentially compounding chutzpah has a way of bringing about external reactions that also act to limit.

    It might be worth remembering that the most famous mobster of real life was incarcerated at age 42 for tax evasion - all his years after that were either incarceration or advanced stages of syphilis.

    And I raise you this:

    https://youtu.be/G2EARJGkdTM

    Sometimes it pays to be reasonable.

    I assume in this case the politician takes the role of the white, and Corleone takes the role of the Jew, or is it the other way around?

    Instead of assuming, try thinking for two minutes.

    Simon and his ilk are obviously the senator. Corleone represents the manly response from the average American who has been blood libeled by the Simons of this world when they suggest we pay to stop the libel.

    See also:

  180. @Dave Pinsen

    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn’t hurt them that much. If some don’t get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors.
     
    No, most Jews do not have fathers who can make 7-figure donations to get them into Harvard. That's ludicrous. A smart middle class Jew faces the same headwind a smart middle class gentile white does. Schools will accept a less qualified black or Hispanic applicant over either.

    Maybe, but most have connections on the inside who aren’t shy about looking out for their own in a way that whites and/or Americans of that class consider declasse.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Most Jews have connections that can get them into the Ivy League without money or academic qualifications? You really believe that?

    You think the average 113 IQ Jew whose father is a high school teacher or whatever can finagle his way into the Ivy League via the Jewish superpower of nepotism?
  181. @Thomm
    er... the WASP Senator in the Godfather II clip set in the 1950s specifically put down Sicilians like the Corleones for being non-white. He said that right before the 'My offer is nothing' retort from Michael Corleone.

    If you think America as 85% white in the 1950s, you are wrong, for Jews, Italians, and Poles were considered non-white at the time. The definition of 'white' was expanded later (which is always what happens in America).

    Whenever the population of whites goes below 65% in America, the definition of 'white' is expanded to make it over 80% again. WNs always go along with it, and will do so next time.

    This happened first when Irish were not considered white (1900), and then again when Italians, Jews, and Poles were not considered white (1950s). It will be done again, when Asians and Hispanics are reclassified as 'white', and WNs pretend that was always the case.

    And the idiots who can’t even follow a simple analogy continue to out themselves.

    We, the regular Americans, red yellow black and white, are Corleone. The people asking us how much we’re willing to pay to stop our elites (sic) from blood libeling us are the senator.

  182. @Anonymous

    a vague appeal to Catholics, who probably lost more under the post-1968 dispensation than they gained.
     
    They probably gained on the national level. There are more Catholics like Tom Donilon, Bannon, Brennan, etc. these days in positions that formerly would have been more dominated by WASPs and in places like elite universities, the Supreme Court, etc. On the other hand, the city neighborhood and machine politics that were once so thoroughly dominated by Catholics are no longer around.

    “On the other hand, the city neighborhood and machine politics that were once so thoroughly dominated by Catholics are no longer around.”

    Gravitated more to the county, state and national levels. Examples: Pelosi, Biden, Dick Durbin, Paul Ryan, Rudy Giuliani, Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and his daughter state AG Lisa, Martin O’ Malley, the entire states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, etc.

  183. @anonymous-antimarxist

    The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam
     
    Yes and no,

    I believe there were no easy options with Vietnam.

    Staying out completely would have the allowed the communists any easy uncontested victory that would have encouraged them to push their luck elsewhere with possibility of even greater tragedy.

    The other option would have been to cut across Laos and anchor the left flank on the Mekong River, wipe out the Viet Cong and push for a Korean style partition and stalemate. But some in the Far Right and US military did not like option because they saw Korea as a defeat. However, this option might have had the advantage of rallying the American public to take on domestic communists once again as it did in the early fifties.

    These were the options General Ridgeway confronted Ike and Kennedy with and they did not like them either.

    So America's leadership opted for a third option that was at least if not more bloody but it did at least prevent the communist take over of Thailand and Burma.

    Still less folks forget we won the Cold War!!!

    In the long run the real defeat of the Vietnam was enabling the more rapid Cultural Marxist take over of American Academia.


    But that fight will be won in the future!!!

    Staying out completely would have the allowed the communists any easy uncontested victory that would have encouraged them to push their luck elsewhere with possibility of even greater tragedy.

    But weren’t the Vietnamese communists nationalists first? As were pretty much all third world communists? The idea that the United Colors of Communism — Russian, African, Asian, Latin American — were going to combine and takeover America seems as daft now as the idea that diversity is our greatest strength. In reality, the Chinese and Russians weren’t allies, and the Vietnamese and Chinese fought a war against each other after we left Vietnam.

  184. @Tiny Duck
    America is moving towards becoming a minority majority country. Multiculturalism is going to win regardless of what those who are disenfranchised by it feel about it. Those who learn to adapt and thrive in this new reality will succeed in deciding what the future holds for our country.

    Trump and his movement represent the last gasp of a narrow vision of American life. What they are railing against is a set of progressive cultural values that are now ascendant: support for marriage equality; support for racial equality; a belief that health care is a right; environmentalism; and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. The culture is already being rebuilt, and that's what Trump and his supporter can't stand.

    It wasn't just the white "working class" that brought Trump into power. It was middle class, upper class, and wealthy whites, as well. In other words, it was whites. Trump won all white demographics. This isn't a class conflict. It's a racial conflict. It's about white racism and resentment that has been part of the country's social fabric for centuries. Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    This is the last time I will ever answer to this low intelligence/useless, disgusting person: Trump did not get the majority Jewish vote – your generalization about white demographics is total bullshit; and, people like you, will soooo wish you had power once you allow “the chosen people” to decide everything in this country for you– because, if you’re NOT Jewish, well, too bad.

    Enjoy the decline…and let my words echo in your stupid brain forever. Did you not once realize there are 50 shades of white and ethnic belief? And, if you are Jewish, well, enjoy the decline when no one is there to answer your 911 call. You disgust me.

  185. @Desiderius
    Maybe, but most have connections on the inside who aren't shy about looking out for their own in a way that whites and/or Americans of that class consider declasse.

    Most Jews have connections that can get them into the Ivy League without money or academic qualifications? You really believe that?

    You think the average 113 IQ Jew whose father is a high school teacher or whatever can finagle his way into the Ivy League via the Jewish superpower of nepotism?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Jews are now, not getting in (my son's friends) to the top U's of the USA. Having an IQ of 150 is no longer a thing! Jews in power, to influence media and govt....well, they just effed up their chosen people as far as their college acceptances: for their friends/family, and oops, their own kids....their kids will not find a box to check off but white. Race is truly a bitch.
    , @Desiderius
    Not nepotism, ethnic solidarity.
    , @Lagertha
    Dave. Jews are getting in, first choice, even if mediocre uni's, or mediocre student. Christians/Heathens, not. Sometimes, you must wake up if you are over 25 these day.
  186. @Issac
    Are you aware of where you are posting?

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    Sure. Perhaps Ron can weigh in here and tell me what I’ve written in this thread that’s wrong.

  187. Steve, both you and Brooks are completely wrong.

    Brooks is wrong in that the old WASP meritocracy was not a meritocracy, and “failed” only on the tidal wave of social change brought about by technology: the pill, condom, television, and rapidly rising female income and thus social power through female-oriented consumer advertising driving most things on television*

    The old elite could not cope with the Sexual Revolution brought on by the pill and condom; the female mores driving the culture, and demanding what had long been unthinkable: not merely decent and equal treatment for non-Whites who would remain a minority but elevating them over in particular White men, and making Non-Whites an absolute majority as fast as possible. This latter is organic to any Matriarchy, which the US rapidly became with the pill and condom. Matriarchies always favor disorganized but showy “warriors” who posture because that impresses women, who are to a woman stupid about violence and the relative capacities of say, the Zulu Warrior and the otherwise milquetoast Japanese in Okinawa in 1945. Or for that matter, Manila in 1945. The relative dutifulness and obedience made them sit still for things that would have the most posturing African run screaming.

    Jews did not cause these changes, and did not occupy many places of power. They surfed the wave and used ethnic nepotism which most resent to create niches in Wall Street and the Law/Gov/Politics. But were completely absent in the oil business, in aerospace, in the hard sciences after the War Generation died off, and very much the military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a very powerful position, just ask George Marshall. Same with Expeditionary Force commanders. Or the CEO of Exxon. [Hollywood was created by Jews and is still very much filled with them but real economic power seems to have passed from public companies to Chinese money.]

    And the new Elite are not “Jews out to destroy America and the West.” They are mindless urbanite aristocrats, mostly second generation elites, who idealize non-Whites particularly Blacks (see: Oprah) from a Matriarchal point of view. They earnestly believe in Utopia real soon now, and the bad old days being a bigoted Klan rally (in 1995 say) because: status. And mostly, their politics and social views are nothing but the tides of feelz by sluts and nascent cat ladies who because of the enabling technology supercharged by the internet and mobile phones: social status whoring always on! has gone full poz. Its VERY BAD for Jews, who are likely to get Reginald Denny’d first since Jews are the Whitest shades of pale and enrage Shontavious the most. [They are also a much easier nut to crack than your average weekend Harley rider with at least a few friends who are the other 1%ers and have a few firearms stashed around]

    *It is abundantly clear that the NFL owners want to DITCH their White male viewers in favor of White women who they figure rightly spend a lot more money and are more valuable to advertisers. That’s what “kneel before the almighty Sports Gods Black Athletes” has been all about. Chasing away White men; chasing after Black Athlete worshiping White women. Kind of like Food Network’s panic when they found half their viewership was men; and quickly canceled shows and came up with male-repellent “contests” to entice female viewers and chase away the men.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Just loved Whiskey's spiel...so funny...but with a side of truth. And, Brooks, so not cool, ever.
    , @Corvinus
    "*It is abundantly clear that the NFL owners want to DITCH their White male viewers in favor of White women who they figure rightly spend a lot more money and are more valuable to advertisers. That’s what “kneel before the almighty Sports Gods Black Athletes” has been all about. Chasing away White men; chasing after Black Athlete worshiping White women."

    In reality, it is apparent that white men will continue to be drawn in by the NFL, as evident by their attendance at the games, their creation of Fantasy football leagues, and their purchasing of merchandise. 'Tis accurate to say that the NFL is working to reach out to female fans, but to unequivocally state that the league powers are purposely trying to rid of their primary demographic is ludicrous.
  188. @Tiny Duck
    America is moving towards becoming a minority majority country. Multiculturalism is going to win regardless of what those who are disenfranchised by it feel about it. Those who learn to adapt and thrive in this new reality will succeed in deciding what the future holds for our country.

    Trump and his movement represent the last gasp of a narrow vision of American life. What they are railing against is a set of progressive cultural values that are now ascendant: support for marriage equality; support for racial equality; a belief that health care is a right; environmentalism; and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. The culture is already being rebuilt, and that's what Trump and his supporter can't stand.

    It wasn't just the white "working class" that brought Trump into power. It was middle class, upper class, and wealthy whites, as well. In other words, it was whites. Trump won all white demographics. This isn't a class conflict. It's a racial conflict. It's about white racism and resentment that has been part of the country's social fabric for centuries. Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    Hey TD, since you are reduced to cutting and pasting comments from somewhere else and passing them off as your own, would you at least find some that aren’t so silly?

  189. @Dave Pinsen
    Most Jews have connections that can get them into the Ivy League without money or academic qualifications? You really believe that?

    You think the average 113 IQ Jew whose father is a high school teacher or whatever can finagle his way into the Ivy League via the Jewish superpower of nepotism?

    Jews are now, not getting in (my son’s friends) to the top U’s of the USA. Having an IQ of 150 is no longer a thing! Jews in power, to influence media and govt….well, they just effed up their chosen people as far as their college acceptances: for their friends/family, and oops, their own kids….their kids will not find a box to check off but white. Race is truly a bitch.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jews can get in as Hispanics, Africans (North, South), and Middle Easterners.
  190. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    "Catholics, who probably lost more under the post 1968 dispensations then they gained..." Catholics, myself included, lost moral standing because of the priest pedophiles, that the Church shielded and defended. Say what you will about Jews, but the Church's role in covering for these sinful, shameful scum, left a wound that will probably never scab over.

    This abuse scandal was primarily about pedorasty not pedophilia. This was more about Homosexual subcultures within the Church than ‘pedophilia’.

    Not that it matters to the victims, but it certainly matters if you are looking to deal with the problem effectively. The profile of a pedophile is very different than a garden variety homosexual who is attracted to teenage boys.

    I’m not Catholic so I’m not making excuses, but the media has purposely created misconceptions about this issue for their own reasons.

    • Replies: @StillCARealist
    I don't understand the profile of a heterosexual man who's attracted to teen boys. If a priest is consumed by lust, why not seek out a woman? Frankly, I doubt too many parishioners would really care if he kept a side girlfriend (unmarried of course) and it would help get the Catholic Church away from the celibate priesthood that seems to be at the root of so many problems.

    But your larger point, I think, is that there's too many homosexuals in the Catholic clergy, right? The lack of honesty about the nature of homo men is pretty intense in our society these days and I wonder if the sex scandals are still going on and not being reported on in the church. Are altar boys still with us, or have they disappeared? I know the priests themselves are disappearing.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Anonymous, splitting hairs, but thank you for your reply.
  191. But weren’t the Vietnamese communists nationalists first?

    Not really. There arose nationalist groups in Vietnam which wanted a country free of both the French and the communists but they were snuffed out by the communists during the ten months between the fall of the Japanese and the arrival of French forces. Bernard Fall in his classic Street Without Joy (1961) said he was given access to a small book “completely unknown in the West” written by the secretary-general of the Indochinese Communist Party in 1946 which described how the communists succeeded in taking over the anti-colonialist movement during this time.

  192. @Dave Pinsen
    Most Jews have connections that can get them into the Ivy League without money or academic qualifications? You really believe that?

    You think the average 113 IQ Jew whose father is a high school teacher or whatever can finagle his way into the Ivy League via the Jewish superpower of nepotism?

    Not nepotism, ethnic solidarity.

  193. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    er... the WASP Senator in the Godfather II clip set in the 1950s specifically put down Sicilians like the Corleones for being non-white. He said that right before the 'My offer is nothing' retort from Michael Corleone.

    If you think America as 85% white in the 1950s, you are wrong, for Jews, Italians, and Poles were considered non-white at the time. The definition of 'white' was expanded later (which is always what happens in America).

    Whenever the population of whites goes below 65% in America, the definition of 'white' is expanded to make it over 80% again. WNs always go along with it, and will do so next time.

    This happened first when Irish were not considered white (1900), and then again when Italians, Jews, and Poles were not considered white (1950s). It will be done again, when Asians and Hispanics are reclassified as 'white', and WNs pretend that was always the case.

    It gets tiring hearing this so often, Steve points this out about once a month, but here goes…

    All immigrants to the USA were considered white. The law specifically stated that one HAD to be white to be accepted as an immigrant pre-1965. Various groups of European Immigrants may have seemed exotic to existing Americans, but they were never classified as non-white.

    These sorts of stories provide comfort to some, but they aren’t based in reality.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    It's useless arguing with a useless idiot like "Thomm".
  194. @biz
    How was Brooks "chickenhawking" if his son was in the one military on earth where one is most likely to see combat?

    How was Brooks “chickenhawking” if his son was in the one military on earth where one is most likely to see combat?

    Really? Most likely to see combat? What has the U.S. military been doing for the last sixteen years?

    • Agree: whoever
  195. @jim jones
    Roy Moore crushes Strange:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41409983

    Roy Moore crushes Strange:

    Alabama wants Moore, but not some Strange.

    • LOL: Kylie
  196. @Anonymous
    It gets tiring hearing this so often, Steve points this out about once a month, but here goes...

    All immigrants to the USA were considered white. The law specifically stated that one HAD to be white to be accepted as an immigrant pre-1965. Various groups of European Immigrants may have seemed exotic to existing Americans, but they were never classified as non-white.

    These sorts of stories provide comfort to some, but they aren't based in reality.

    It’s useless arguing with a useless idiot like “Thomm”.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    Yawn..... I point out facts that burst the bubble of WN wiggers like you.

    Remember, White Trashionalists have Negro IQs. That is why you comprise of genetic waste matter that nature is expelling from the white gene pool.
  197. @Opinionator
    Well, in the establishment’s defense, most of that rhetoric was a weaponized restatement of their own moral code.

    Such as?

    How about Brooks’ use of different forms of “merit,” for one? What American doesn’t believe in classless society, Horatio Alger-ness, and each man getting his own due rather than his father’s due. Level playing fields and “equality of opportunity,” that’s us, boy-oh.

    Brooks’ crew got into positions of power and influence through merit, like good Americans. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Not to say Legacy Americans actually lived by such ideals, nor that Jewish culture lacked all recognition of merit. (They certainly selected for intellectual and verbal prowess.) But the whole idea of judging a man by his deeds and attainments rather than his blood is more American than traditionally Jewish.

  198. @Lagertha
    Jews are now, not getting in (my son's friends) to the top U's of the USA. Having an IQ of 150 is no longer a thing! Jews in power, to influence media and govt....well, they just effed up their chosen people as far as their college acceptances: for their friends/family, and oops, their own kids....their kids will not find a box to check off but white. Race is truly a bitch.

    Jews can get in as Hispanics, Africans (North, South), and Middle Easterners.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    but, do they know the Torah? See Whiskye's post. Eff people taking down the American Empire. Eff them - traitors - imprison them.
    , @Lagertha
    yeah, get that. The USA just must stop all immigrants. We don't want immigrants anymore - too many problems and users.
  199. @anonymous-antimarxist

    What we older i-Stevers have to impress upon the younger, alt-right ones is that, on domestic social issues, those early neocons were generally right.
     
    No they weren't. The Neocons were always former Blank Slate Trotskyists who simply embraced an authoritarian solution to social ills that was almost as Utopian as the rest of the far left. "All we got to do is fix the schools, lets start with bringing back school uniforms, high standards for all, no child left behind, yearly exams, fire the incompetent teachers, and add lots of discipline."

    No Neocon questioned Open Borders or Multiculturalism, they felt immigrants would naturally embrace "American Exceptionalism". The Neocons were most importantly not race realists.

    Please reread Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. He has some good insights into the mind of the Jewish Neocons.

    The Neocons were most importantly not race realists.

    At least, they wouldn’t admit being such.

  200. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.
     
    What kind of deal is that for Jews?

    Despite the fanatical fear of many Jews that American whites are sharpening their pitchforks just waiting for a chance to chase down the local Jews, 99% of American whites barely even know if someone is Jewish, much less desire to hurt them.

    Ironically, outside of here, the only whites that I know who are aware of just how powerful Jews are in this country are extremely well-educated and successful whites because they are goys who deal with Jews eye-to-eye. And trust me, very successful lawyers, academics and businessman aren't planning on going after Jews, if for no other reason than many of their kids marry them.

    Also, highy successful white gentiles don't seem to give two shits about their working-class cousins.

    No, Jews pay no price for their attack on non-Jewish whites.

    The only reason that I could see for why influential Jews might take their foot off the Let's-Destroy-Goy-World pedal is because they might realize that a heavily Muslim Europe and a Brazil-like United States might not be "Good for the Jews."

    If Europe becomes a no-go zone for Jews, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If Europe starts to impose sanctions on Israel to placate its Muslims, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If Muslims start getting in powerful government positions in a nuclear-armed France, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If shit-hole Brazil-like United States starts to have problems fielding a reasonable military because, well, it's filled with blacks and browns, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    If shit-hole Brazil-like United States starts to seriously cut military spending to provide welfare for its many, many blacks and browns, that doesn't seem too good for the Jews.

    The destruction of the West will leave Israel alone in a very bad neighborhood. Israel and the Jews are tough and smart, but it's a bad position to put yourself in. But, apparently, influential Jews think that situation is safer than goy-populated countries. Maybe.

    At some point, you'd think that Jews would realize their destruction of the West was reaching a point of diminishing returns and maybe even turning negative. But, then again, Jews aren't known for pulling back when they might be pushing things too far so I'm not holding out hope.

    This post is a bit schizophrenic. Indeed, Jews don’t have to fear pitchforks from whites. But, as you say, they do from the browns. Not so much pitchforks, but gats and machetes. White civilization has been their repeated enemy, but it’s also, or used to be, the enemy of their enemies.

    Unless they’re going China’s way or retreating to Israel to go it alone, what choice do they have but jumping on Team White?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    duh. seriously - don't whine to us, posts from now on, how you are a product of Stanford or Harvard or some Shitard Uni, and that you are sooooo diplomatic and magnanimous! Once anarchy overwhelms your area, Once you are whitey, you have nothing but your hands.
  201. @Whiskey
    Steve, both you and Brooks are completely wrong.

    Brooks is wrong in that the old WASP meritocracy was not a meritocracy, and "failed" only on the tidal wave of social change brought about by technology: the pill, condom, television, and rapidly rising female income and thus social power through female-oriented consumer advertising driving most things on television*

    The old elite could not cope with the Sexual Revolution brought on by the pill and condom; the female mores driving the culture, and demanding what had long been unthinkable: not merely decent and equal treatment for non-Whites who would remain a minority but elevating them over in particular White men, and making Non-Whites an absolute majority as fast as possible. This latter is organic to any Matriarchy, which the US rapidly became with the pill and condom. Matriarchies always favor disorganized but showy "warriors" who posture because that impresses women, who are to a woman stupid about violence and the relative capacities of say, the Zulu Warrior and the otherwise milquetoast Japanese in Okinawa in 1945. Or for that matter, Manila in 1945. The relative dutifulness and obedience made them sit still for things that would have the most posturing African run screaming.

    Jews did not cause these changes, and did not occupy many places of power. They surfed the wave and used ethnic nepotism which most resent to create niches in Wall Street and the Law/Gov/Politics. But were completely absent in the oil business, in aerospace, in the hard sciences after the War Generation died off, and very much the military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a very powerful position, just ask George Marshall. Same with Expeditionary Force commanders. Or the CEO of Exxon. [Hollywood was created by Jews and is still very much filled with them but real economic power seems to have passed from public companies to Chinese money.]

    And the new Elite are not "Jews out to destroy America and the West." They are mindless urbanite aristocrats, mostly second generation elites, who idealize non-Whites particularly Blacks (see: Oprah) from a Matriarchal point of view. They earnestly believe in Utopia real soon now, and the bad old days being a bigoted Klan rally (in 1995 say) because: status. And mostly, their politics and social views are nothing but the tides of feelz by sluts and nascent cat ladies who because of the enabling technology supercharged by the internet and mobile phones: social status whoring always on! has gone full poz. Its VERY BAD for Jews, who are likely to get Reginald Denny'd first since Jews are the Whitest shades of pale and enrage Shontavious the most. [They are also a much easier nut to crack than your average weekend Harley rider with at least a few friends who are the other 1%ers and have a few firearms stashed around]



    *It is abundantly clear that the NFL owners want to DITCH their White male viewers in favor of White women who they figure rightly spend a lot more money and are more valuable to advertisers. That's what "kneel before the almighty Sports Gods Black Athletes" has been all about. Chasing away White men; chasing after Black Athlete worshiping White women. Kind of like Food Network's panic when they found half their viewership was men; and quickly canceled shows and came up with male-repellent "contests" to entice female viewers and chase away the men.

    Just loved Whiskey’s spiel…so funny…but with a side of truth. And, Brooks, so not cool, ever.

  202. @Anonymous
    Jews can get in as Hispanics, Africans (North, South), and Middle Easterners.

    but, do they know the Torah? See Whiskye’s post. Eff people taking down the American Empire. Eff them – traitors – imprison them.

  203. @Buffalo Joe
    "Catholics, who probably lost more under the post 1968 dispensations then they gained..." Catholics, myself included, lost moral standing because of the priest pedophiles, that the Church shielded and defended. Say what you will about Jews, but the Church's role in covering for these sinful, shameful scum, left a wound that will probably never scab over.

    While I don’t agree with your point about the severity of the PR crisis,* that’s at least debatable. But you’re simply wrong historically. Catholicism had already lost its unique cultural authority by the 60s, long before the scandal broke.

    It couldn’t muster the strength the stanch the Sexual Revolution, for instance. That juggernaut rolled right over it. Then Vatican II split its base and irreversibly weakened it.

    *Overblown, because, come on, far worse institutions like public schools remain respectable, at least to most people. Only because while people can think of living without Catholicism, they can’t imagine a world without public education. It’d be like joining Sebastian the crab under the sea.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    guest, Hmmm, I won't disagree with your points, but my point is very valid. Thank you.
  204. @Dave Pinsen
    Most Jews have connections that can get them into the Ivy League without money or academic qualifications? You really believe that?

    You think the average 113 IQ Jew whose father is a high school teacher or whatever can finagle his way into the Ivy League via the Jewish superpower of nepotism?

    Dave. Jews are getting in, first choice, even if mediocre uni’s, or mediocre student. Christians/Heathens, not. Sometimes, you must wake up if you are over 25 these day.

  205. @utu
    David has long used “meritocratic” as a euphemism for, basically, “Jewish.”

    HBD and IQ memes were invented to let David Brooks do exactly this. Thank you Charles Murray, Greg Cochran and Steve Sailer.

    I disagree. The IQ maymay isn’t mainstream enough and its proponents get all kinds of flak for it. It’s clearly not the way to the opinion-making Olymp which it would be if it was elite-promulgated (like the various SJW narratives.)
    Also, it’s real, i.e. there’s something in the real world it corresponds to, so ultimately it doesn’t matter who invented it and for what purpose or how the Brookses of this world use it (I think his point for why the “meritocratic elites” deserve to be where they are is more moralistic, not IQ based – desegregation, feminism.)

  206. “Catholics, who probably lost more under the post-1968 dispensation than they gained.”

    I don’t think we ever gonna see another Kennedy family in US politics or even a Catholic President again.

  207. @guest
    This post is a bit schizophrenic. Indeed, Jews don't have to fear pitchforks from whites. But, as you say, they do from the browns. Not so much pitchforks, but gats and machetes. White civilization has been their repeated enemy, but it's also, or used to be, the enemy of their enemies.

    Unless they're going China's way or retreating to Israel to go it alone, what choice do they have but jumping on Team White?

    duh. seriously – don’t whine to us, posts from now on, how you are a product of Stanford or Harvard or some Shitard Uni, and that you are sooooo diplomatic and magnanimous! Once anarchy overwhelms your area, Once you are whitey, you have nothing but your hands.

  208. @Anonymous
    Jews can get in as Hispanics, Africans (North, South), and Middle Easterners.

    yeah, get that. The USA just must stop all immigrants. We don’t want immigrants anymore – too many problems and users.

  209. @Dave Pinsen
    Not sure I entirely agree with you or Brooks here.

    The WASP establishment was likely as meritocratic as the current establishment. At the margins, they may have excluded a few smart Jews and elevated a few not as smart gentiles, but it's hard to argue men like Robert McNamara weren't meritocrats. Similarly, at the margins today's establishment elevates a few Michelle Obamas and excludes a few red state white gentiles.

    The broader problem, as Douthat pointed out a few years ago, is that meritocracy itself is no bulwark against creating a bad political class. The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam, but the current elite (which, let's be clear, included plenty of WASPs, such as W.) blundered into Iraq. And to use an example Douthat did, Jon Corzine, a textbook meritocrat, turned out to be a crook.

    well, the whole world will always model , always: Wasps: family formation; naming kids with rational names; preaching self sufficiency (sports at school) and personal responsibility (private school is a jungle), clothing/fashion choices that are old/neutral/non-sexual/duh; saving money; life insurance policies; large and safe SUVs; avoiding socialists; Rambling, of course. Main point: socialism kills more than it enlightens.

  210. @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    In college I did some business on the phone w/ a Jewish kid a few years older than me at a nearby college. I thought his idea was all flash no sizzle and eventually his business failed. BUT his failed business got bought by an NYC company. He became a multi-millionaire via stock in parent company. Almost everything he buys and tries to run fails, but he gets richer. He now owns a pro sports team.
    I believed in "meritocracy" once but then I kept seeing the same types of people manage to fail repeatedly into higher income brackets...

    Bingo, people don’t realise just how nepotistic Jews are, in fact the mistake Jews make is to assume the WASPs were as nepotistic as they are. Anyway the WASP was well in decline by the 1920s as some have noted already.

  211. @Yan Shen
    The best thing about the uh post WW 2 Jewish "takeover" of the United States... sexy Jewish chicks.

    Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Scarlett Johansson, Bar Refaeli, Dianna Agron, Gal Gadot, yes please! More uh former Miss Israels in the United States, I say.

    18 Yan Shen > sexy Jewish chicks

    first i scammed the Manhattan tribe into giving me their peninsula (it wasn’t actually a real island back then) for $24 of glass trinkets

    Next i’m gonna work on trading 3 Asian chicks for every askenaz girl i can get into the back of a pickup truck and dropped off at Yan Shen’s ranch

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  212. @Desiderius

    A bargain requires that both sides bring something to the table. What do non-Jewish whites bring to this bargain?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNe9fuqQ8o

    Capisce?

    28 Desiderius > Capisce?

    The Godfather needed Meyer Lansky a lot more than he needed YOUR grandfather

  213. @Anonymous
    Mr. Brooks’ notion is that the upheavals of the 1960s were largely about talented Jews elbowing their way into the top slots in our culture, which is exaggerated but pretty reasonable.

    Depends on how one defines "talented."

    51 Anonymous > Depends on how one defines “talented.”

    no, it depends on how one defines “elbowing”

    If your definition is that Jews keep their eyes on the ticket-sales revenue while whites are busy buying NFL paraphenalia…. then I guess I agree.

    When the cream rises to the top, the milk is busy saying that “it’s unfair!”

  214. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT (again) - Scholar's Stage on a new report into Chinese penetration into New Zealand. There's a big kerfuffle at present ("Four Corners") about the same thing in Australia.

    My take from a position of supreme distance and ignorance would be that China has discovered it can weaponise Western anti-racism, which will shout down those objecting to China buying up property, infrastructure and resources - and planting anchor babies behind the lines. Relative proximity makes getting too close to China more dangerous for Oz and NZ than for the US and Canada - at the moment.

    China's just opened her first overseas base, in Djibouti, and is buying video-chipper Imagination Technologies from the UK, who are in no position to put a block on at present, too busy hoping for a trade deal.

    https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2017/09/chinese-influence-and-intelligence.html


    "Soft-power influence has not come to the Party by convincing the world to love them. Influence has come by convincing the world that they are the future. The more buzzwords like “Chinese century” move from catch-phrase to zeitgeist the stronger their hand will be. They do not ask you to love the future, just to accept the futility in resisting it. China ascendant, China as the key node of the international order, China the responsible stake holder of world affairs. There is no love in these terms, but there is great power in them. With notions like these the Party weaves visions of a world where we have no choice but to be dependent on them and the stability they bring.

    You will hear that compromising the integrity of international law, betraying long-held alliances, or refusing to hold the Party to the same moral standard we hold other tyrannies to referred to as the “adult” or “responsible” thing to do. This is the voice of Chinese soft power. Most Westerners who say these things do so honestly (if naively). My intent is not to question their integrity. But we must recognize that this is exactly the path the Party prefers our thoughts to tread. They do not need anything else. The outcome Party’s assault on Taiwanese democracy, for example, depends so little on warm feelings for China. The Party’s victory, if it comes, will depend very much on how reasonable and inevitable this victory is perceived to be.

    Ground zero in this fight for global influence is the Chinese diaspora. This is not a new development. For Chinese communists it really is old hat. This heritage is only referenced in passing in Brady’s report, and is absent entirely from most discussions of the issue...the Party has made clear that it believes any man or woman of Chinese blood, no matter their citizenship or locale, is their ward."
     

    I have a Chinese Singaporean friend, a very bright chap, and if we are (say) in some obscure European airport and there's a Chinese group or family, he'll make a bee-line for them and engage in animated conversation - just as a European might have done in the Far East a century back on meeting other Europeans.

    87 YetAnotherAnon > I have a Chinese Singaporean friend

    well, I have LIVED AND WORKED in Singapore, and I say that you don’t your chinese social hierarchies very well.

    Chinese Singaporeans are REQUIRED in school to learn Mandarin…. as a FOREIGN language. Most Singaporean Chinese are descended from the people from the Appalachia part of China . Those folks never did speak Mandarin.

    You need to spend more time in the “hawker centres” of public-housing buildings in lower-middle-class neighborhoods of Singapore, shipmate. That will show you real life in Singapore

    I myself prefer the lower-lower class neighborhoods (e.g., surrounding the Sembawang MRT station) – the Malays. Better looking chicks.

    Their brothers are busy riding the ferry every weekend to Batam to fuck Indonesian hookers for cheap.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    My knowledge of Chinese social hierarchies is zero, I merely observe that Chinese ethnic solidarity seems to be alive and well (sample number = 1).
  215. @AM

    “The establishment” has a lot more jews in it now than it used to, but what changed is not that wealthy Whites are any less privileged, or any less in control, but that it’s now open season on non-wealthy Whites.
     
    This counts as failure, as does failure to protect the borders of hard won nation-states, as does the implementation of socialism, a way to pay off the masses, as does the collapse of any meaningful belief system in the West.

    There's no point in having an elite governing class if they don't even at least attempt to govern and protect the culture. They are just rich annoying people then.

    Another point of Trump that freaks the elites out, besides basic honesty, is the obvious display of responsibility. It sort of works when everyone in the elites all agree the highest virtue the elite can have is make money for themselves, in exchange for pretending they don't judge by class. Trump, for all his non-elite mannerisms, makes them look like the petty, dull, and self-centered people they are as a class.

    George W Bush can think of himself as noble and cowboyesque...until Trump had a Presidency, wherein he looks like the whimpy, push over, give away the store liberal he always was.

    This counts as failure, as does failure to protect the borders of hard won nation-states, as does the implementation of socialism, a way to pay off the masses, as does the collapse of any meaningful belief system in the West.

    There’s no point in having an elite governing class if they don’t even at least attempt to govern and protect the culture. They are just rich annoying people then.

    Who says that annoying rich people isn’t all they’ve ever* been? Who says they ever cared about defending borders or culture (read: cared about us non-wealthy Whites)?

    They as a class are not a monolith of course. There were factions that cared and factions that didn’t. But rather than saying the class failed, because they don’t protect us, we should ask whether they (as a whole) ever did.

    We (White workers, “labor” ) had to literally fight a war against the “old White establishment” to get Sundays off and a 12 (!) hour workday.

    The “old White establishment” was flooding America with new immigrants to crush wages in the early 20th century.

    In the depression of the 1930s, the “old White establishment” tried to assassinate FDR because they didn’t want him giving jobs or benefits to poor White people.

    The Beaver Cleaver era was less because the “old White establishment” cared about us and wanted us to have a good life than because they were afraid of us emulating the Soviet Union and imposing literal communism and killing them.

    *Well, ever = since industrialization/ after the civil war anyway. I think that the OGs, the signers of the declaration and etc were probably OK.

    • Replies: @AM
    "Who says they ever cared about defending borders or culture (read: cared about us non-wealthy Whites)?"

    Because we have a country and culture. Low culture of the masses is sort of a well spring and elite culture refines and hangs on to the best.

    Interestingly, I think the start of elite failure can be traced to about the Civil War era, when the industrial revolution picked up steam, which is about where you place it. Start of failure is latest when art went goofy (impressionism) and Neitzche could float his atheism without fear of reprisal.
  216. @Tiny Duck
    America is moving towards becoming a minority majority country. Multiculturalism is going to win regardless of what those who are disenfranchised by it feel about it. Those who learn to adapt and thrive in this new reality will succeed in deciding what the future holds for our country.

    Trump and his movement represent the last gasp of a narrow vision of American life. What they are railing against is a set of progressive cultural values that are now ascendant: support for marriage equality; support for racial equality; a belief that health care is a right; environmentalism; and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. The culture is already being rebuilt, and that's what Trump and his supporter can't stand.

    It wasn't just the white "working class" that brought Trump into power. It was middle class, upper class, and wealthy whites, as well. In other words, it was whites. Trump won all white demographics. This isn't a class conflict. It's a racial conflict. It's about white racism and resentment that has been part of the country's social fabric for centuries. Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    Beyond stupidity as usual duck, lets break this down for you, whites support gay marriage far more than non-whites do, support enviromentalism far more also, the welfare state was invented in Northern Europe, not West Africa, white people also invented abolitionism and civil rights, while Chiefs in West Africa sold their fellow Africans and based their entire economies on slavery.

    National parks and wildlife conservation were also invented by Northern Europeans like Roosevelt, Grant, and Muir, not as Ken Burns might have implied “persons of color”. You managed to put all of those lies in just a a single paragraph, you provide a target rich environment, keep it up duck.

  217. @Anonymouse
    Why do you distinguish between jews and whites? Jews are white. What is this jewish hypocrisy you speak of?

    I know you won't publish this nor do I expect you to. I write because I do so much enjoy most of your insights. Speaking as a jew of long experience, I know of no jewish hypocrisy. Jews like their fellow whites wish to succeed in the world ON THEIR MERITS. Are you saying "there's too many jews among the elite"? That would be unworthy of you.

    As for politically correct jews who are in favor of AA, they are it seems acting against their own self interest. I think they're nuts, but they are advocating as privileged whites (<-their opinion of themselves).

    Excellent satire.

  218. @Dave Pinsen

    No, because most Jews are far up enough the socioeconomic food chain *at this point* that affirmative action doesn’t hurt them that much. If some don’t get into Harvard on grades, others do as legacies or donors.
     
    No, most Jews do not have fathers who can make 7-figure donations to get them into Harvard. That's ludicrous. A smart middle class Jew faces the same headwind a smart middle class gentile white does. Schools will accept a less qualified black or Hispanic applicant over either.

    No, because of nepotism and favoring urban over rural, it is the gentile “white” that will get the axe.

    Every. Single. Time.

  219. @Tiny Duck
    America is moving towards becoming a minority majority country. Multiculturalism is going to win regardless of what those who are disenfranchised by it feel about it. Those who learn to adapt and thrive in this new reality will succeed in deciding what the future holds for our country.

    Trump and his movement represent the last gasp of a narrow vision of American life. What they are railing against is a set of progressive cultural values that are now ascendant: support for marriage equality; support for racial equality; a belief that health care is a right; environmentalism; and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. The culture is already being rebuilt, and that's what Trump and his supporter can't stand.

    It wasn't just the white "working class" that brought Trump into power. It was middle class, upper class, and wealthy whites, as well. In other words, it was whites. Trump won all white demographics. This isn't a class conflict. It's a racial conflict. It's about white racism and resentment that has been part of the country's social fabric for centuries. Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    Thumbs up to your new ghost-writer, TD. More erudite, fewer typos. It’s still the usual BS, of course. Have you considered gracing The Atlantic with your keen insights and giving iSteve a rest for awhile?

  220. It hardly makes sense to talk of black and brown beneficiaries of affirmative action, such as Michelle Obama, as “meritocrats.”

    It makes the opposite of sense. “Affirmative action” and meritocracy are opposites, the American regime chose the former, America is not a meritocracy, period, end of story.

    The prog-left has deemed equality of participation (outcomes) to be the ne plus ultra of fairness, and the desired objective of affirmative action, diversity and inclusion efforts. Why should any racial or ethnic identity group be overlooked in this regard…

    Exactamundo. Jews are kidding themselves if they think the threat is Whites ending “affirmative action.” No sir. The threat is them making it consistent, right down to the level that acknowledges Jews as a group. Whites will absolutely get behind that, make no mistake.

    and the idea that affirmative action for minorities would outlive its usefulness once they “caught up” is risible at this point

    This is a big part of why Whites going full “AA” is a far bigger threat to Jews than Whites ending AA. “We can’t get rid of it? Fine. But we’re going to make it fair, and we’re going to count EVERYONE. And we’re going to consider CLASS, too, boys. Goose, gander.”

    Seems like way too few white gentiles care about the latter, or are prepared to admit to it and risk getting sacked and rendered unemployable, to make abandoning the former remotely worthwhile.

    If nationalists, traditionalists and conservatives in the US sphere for whom anti-white politics and mass immigration are priority concerns really want to end the support by jewish elites for those causes by some kind of grand bargain, they are going to have to first make it clear they can’t be just ignored and taken for granted.

    Going “full AA” is a much more plausible strategy. It will maul Jewish power, and it can be done entirely under the aegis of equality, diversity, and race-blind fairness. It’s exactly what Jews would do, if the roles were reversed. Whites can pursue it and deny their ethnic angle with perfect plausibility, even to themselves.

    Um, do quotas limiting whites not proportionally affect Jews as they do other whites? Since Jews are counted as white in academia, Hollywood, etc.

    Only if you believe Brooks, the establishment, and Jews in general are lying (or wrong), and Jews have no more merit than Whites in general.

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    I have to agree here. The mean may be a bit higher, but the bell curve applies to Jews too.

    Entirely consistent with your positions: AA hurts whites more than it hurts Jews.

    If Jews get their own ethnic category, as some of them desire, then Harvard and the rest would have to cap them like they do Asians.

    If America goes full AA, there will have to be commissions, like in Brazil, to investigate family background, check physiology, perform DNA tests. Because Jews are gonna lie and game their asses off, that’s a given.

    Jews can get in as Hispanics, Africans (North, South), and Middle Easterners.

    At least then they’d be in conflict with Hispanics, Africans, and Middle Easterners.

    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    "Jews are kidding themselves if they think the threat is Whites ending 'affirmative action.' No sir. The threat is them making it consistent, right down to the level that acknowledges Jews as a group."

    White gentiles should absolutely go for strict racial/ethnic quotas in hiring/admissions at all prestigious institutions.

    Let Harvard & Yale look like America. Let Google & Facebook look like America. Let the New York Times and the Washington Post look like America. Let 2oth Century Fox & Warner Bros. look like America.
  221. “An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.”

    Actually, the better deal is for people, Jew and non-Jew, to forgo their “hate rhetoric”. In, more people would be less hypocritical and open. But, I realize that is way too idealistic, I realize, given people’s entrenched points of view.

  222. An obvious bargain: Jews should knock it off with the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric. In return, fewer white gentiles would care about Jewish hypocrisy, because there would be less Jewish hypocrisy to care about.

    An obvious strategy: Jews deny and deflect if you accuse them of running the “white privilege” scam. It’s all Whitey’s fault – it’s not Jews’ fault that Whitey hates himself. You’re an antisemite; you think Jews are doing the accusing in the “white privilege” scam. Etc.

    A woman came up to me after one of my book talks and said, “You realize what you’re talking about is the Jews taking over America.”

    My eyes bugged out, but then I realized that she was Jewish and she knew I was, too, and between us we could acknowledge there’s a lot of truth in that statement.

    Yeah, this sort of thing is a big part of why I’m not a fan.

    No, the Establishment failed because it ended Segregation and surrendered the moral highground to blacks and their Jewish enablers.

    Exactamundo. The establishment’s failure was one of insufficient ethnonationalism, insufficient racism and antisemitism. Yes, Jews are gonna kill you and take your stuff if you let them.

    Btw, many Jews were associated with leftism and communism. All those ideologies and movements failed, not just politically but morally as millions were destroyed. Why weren’t Jewish leftists and Liberals ever blamed for this?

    It’s all about ‘who controls the narrative’.

    The Jewish elite has failed miserably, but their failure has not been one of insufficient ethnonationalism. So it hasn’t resulted in their being replaced. And no, whites are not gonna kill Jews and take their stuff if Jews let them. Not yet, anyway. But trends are heading that way.

    They are terrified of being pogromed (that’s what all this is about) so maybe we could offer to explicitly agree never to pogrom them.

    That’s a great deal for us since we weren’t going to do it anyway, we basically give up nothing.

    Diaspora Jews’ real fear is reciprocity; that Euros will reciprocate Jewish policies in Israel, and Jews will lose access to Euro countries, the way Euros have no access to Israel.

    But mostly their neuroticism is an act/delusion that serves to justify and camouflage their aggression; it’s a way of keeping Whites on the Jewish plantation and suppressing uppity whites.

    Independent of what Jews do, Whites need to make themselves more difficult to govern. They need to be more demanding of fair treatment, they need to exercise their freedom of association far more and to work more as a team, from the level of office politics all the way up to international relations. Jews, for their part, can do whatever the hell they want. They always do anyway. Let them try and find the middle ground with us for a while. Personally I don’t care.

    This. Appealing to Jews’ better nature is a complete waste of time (muh holocaust muh pogroms muh antisemitism muh cossacks muh POCs). Their culture is entirely hardened and weaponized. I suppose there’s some merit in offering the hand to have it slapped away repeatedly, to sell this reality to White dummies, though.

    Jews are just as capable of feeling Jewish guilt as other whites are of feeling white guilt. It is just that, given global history, Jews have much less reason to feel such.

    Jewish guilt and White guilt are opposites. White guilt: we’ve been so ethnocentric, harmed so many of the “other”! Jewish guilt: I haven’t been ethnocentric enough, done enough for my tribe.

    Jews studiously ignore their own ethnic guilt. Medieval usurers, and bailiffs exploiting the peasantry, that’s their history. Squeezing poor people for taxes and rents much better than the natives would, because they felt zero sympathy for the goyim. That history extends into the USSR, but you can throw “overrepresented at the top of the genocidal regime that murdered tens of millions of white people” to the list, too. Being very prominent in the Opium trade in China? Key role in slave trade? Jews don’t feel guilty about any of this. They deny it. Or hand-wave it away with “no worse than anyone else, but much better.” “No True Scotsman” is a the main defense they use against Stalin’s Willing Executioners. Jews don’t do actual collective guilt because they’re very ethnocentric, and because their hardened and weaponized culture has yet to be cracked. Same reason narcissists don’t do personal guilt, basically.

    cwhatfuture says:
    September 27, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT • 200 Words

    Classic Princess and the Pea. Jews are spoiled rotten. Usually this is solved by bringing the princess down a few pegs, but Jews have that ethnocentrism and hardened, weaponized culture. Which is why Jewish history is as lachrymose as it is.

  223. @Whiskey
    Steve, both you and Brooks are completely wrong.

    Brooks is wrong in that the old WASP meritocracy was not a meritocracy, and "failed" only on the tidal wave of social change brought about by technology: the pill, condom, television, and rapidly rising female income and thus social power through female-oriented consumer advertising driving most things on television*

    The old elite could not cope with the Sexual Revolution brought on by the pill and condom; the female mores driving the culture, and demanding what had long been unthinkable: not merely decent and equal treatment for non-Whites who would remain a minority but elevating them over in particular White men, and making Non-Whites an absolute majority as fast as possible. This latter is organic to any Matriarchy, which the US rapidly became with the pill and condom. Matriarchies always favor disorganized but showy "warriors" who posture because that impresses women, who are to a woman stupid about violence and the relative capacities of say, the Zulu Warrior and the otherwise milquetoast Japanese in Okinawa in 1945. Or for that matter, Manila in 1945. The relative dutifulness and obedience made them sit still for things that would have the most posturing African run screaming.

    Jews did not cause these changes, and did not occupy many places of power. They surfed the wave and used ethnic nepotism which most resent to create niches in Wall Street and the Law/Gov/Politics. But were completely absent in the oil business, in aerospace, in the hard sciences after the War Generation died off, and very much the military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a very powerful position, just ask George Marshall. Same with Expeditionary Force commanders. Or the CEO of Exxon. [Hollywood was created by Jews and is still very much filled with them but real economic power seems to have passed from public companies to Chinese money.]

    And the new Elite are not "Jews out to destroy America and the West." They are mindless urbanite aristocrats, mostly second generation elites, who idealize non-Whites particularly Blacks (see: Oprah) from a Matriarchal point of view. They earnestly believe in Utopia real soon now, and the bad old days being a bigoted Klan rally (in 1995 say) because: status. And mostly, their politics and social views are nothing but the tides of feelz by sluts and nascent cat ladies who because of the enabling technology supercharged by the internet and mobile phones: social status whoring always on! has gone full poz. Its VERY BAD for Jews, who are likely to get Reginald Denny'd first since Jews are the Whitest shades of pale and enrage Shontavious the most. [They are also a much easier nut to crack than your average weekend Harley rider with at least a few friends who are the other 1%ers and have a few firearms stashed around]



    *It is abundantly clear that the NFL owners want to DITCH their White male viewers in favor of White women who they figure rightly spend a lot more money and are more valuable to advertisers. That's what "kneel before the almighty Sports Gods Black Athletes" has been all about. Chasing away White men; chasing after Black Athlete worshiping White women. Kind of like Food Network's panic when they found half their viewership was men; and quickly canceled shows and came up with male-repellent "contests" to entice female viewers and chase away the men.

    “*It is abundantly clear that the NFL owners want to DITCH their White male viewers in favor of White women who they figure rightly spend a lot more money and are more valuable to advertisers. That’s what “kneel before the almighty Sports Gods Black Athletes” has been all about. Chasing away White men; chasing after Black Athlete worshiping White women.”

    In reality, it is apparent that white men will continue to be drawn in by the NFL, as evident by their attendance at the games, their creation of Fantasy football leagues, and their purchasing of merchandise. ‘Tis accurate to say that the NFL is working to reach out to female fans, but to unequivocally state that the league powers are purposely trying to rid of their primary demographic is ludicrous.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    In this particular case Corvinus seems to be more in touch with reality.
  224. @Marty T
    Jews should turn their fire to Asian privilege. Asian income crushes white income.

    >> Jews should turn their fire to Asian privilege. Asian income crushes white income. <<

    They've already been doing so for decades.

    White gentiles aren't the only people who get screwed by Ivy League admissions.

  225. Jews made The Culture of Critique; time for them to its primary subject.

  226. And this is why we’re doomed. Our diaspora is clinically retarded.

    I get that Israeli Jews let the diaspora lead because the diaspora is where all the Jewish power is. But it’s time for Israelis to take the driver’s seat. Israelis are best served, in the long run, by a ethnonationalist Eurosphere. This is a direct parallel of the diaspora’s multiculturalism strategy. Just as the diaspora pushes multiculturalism on the Eurosphere because it makes Jews just one “other” among many “others” in a society of “others,” Israeli Jews should push ethnonationalism on the Eurosphere because it will make Israel just one ethnonationalist state among many ethnonationalist states. Israel’s made a few low-key moves in this direction but they need to man up and take a bold, confident, leadership role.

  227. “*It is abundantly clear that the NFL owners want to DITCH their White male viewers in favor of White women who they figure rightly spend a lot more money and are more valuable to advertisers. That’s what “kneel before the almighty Sports Gods Black Athletes” has been all about. Chasing away White men; chasing after Black Athlete worshiping White women.”

    In reality, it is apparent that white men will continue to be drawn in by the NFL, as evident by their attendance at the games, their creation of Fantasy football leagues, and their purchasing of merchandise. ‘Tis accurate to say that the NFL is working to reach out to female fans, but to unequivocally state that the league powers are purposely trying to rid of their primary demographic is ludicrous.

    An argument between these two idiots is almost internet perfection.

  228. Actually, the better deal is for people, Jew and non-Jew, to forgo their “hate rhetoric”. In, more people would be less hypocritical and open. But, I realize that is way too idealistic, I realize, given people’s entrenched points of view.

    FFS man, this reads like you dictated it to a chimpanzee.

  229. Honestly, I know little about American Jews and got something wrong.

    Then why TF did you come at me on the subject? And what have you been reading in the “half your life” you’ve been an iSteve reader? The lifestyle section?

  230. @Anon
    After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism, led the nation into war in Vietnam and became stultifying.

    After WWII, Protestant Establishment dominated the high ground of what? American Culture?

    Hollywood was controlled by Jews from the beginning. Jews had a huge stake in pop music as they composed many of the hits. And blacks were over-represented in pop music long before end of segregation.

    The Establishment failed because it tolerated segregation and 'sexism'? As I recall, the establishment did much to end Segregation. Even Republican Eisenhower rolled back Segregation and started the whole process.
    No, the Establishment failed because it ended Segregation and surrendered the moral highground to blacks and their Jewish enablers. White elites were not honest about the threat posed by blacks onto whites. If they'd been honest, much of US racial policy would have been halfway justified. White Southerners had morally justifiable reasons for segregation. Stronger and more aggressive blacks are a threat to whites. It's just that white male pride never admitted this, and therefore lost the moral credit it could have had.

    Blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, have always been a danger to whites. Also, how were Jews any less segregationist? They joined white flight from black crime. They forced the US to support the Zionist imperialist state of Israel.
    And speaking of 'sexism', which group did more to promote pornography? Which group exploited tons of women in music industry and Hollywood with promises of career boosts? Well, it sure didn't hurt the Jews any in the rise to power.
    And what of neo-segregation of gentric cleansing and stop-and-frisk and using tons of immigrant-colonizers as buffers against blacks and bulwark against the white electorate?

    Btw, many Jews were associated with leftism and communism. All those ideologies and movements failed, not just politically but morally as millions were destroyed. Why weren't Jewish leftists and Liberals ever blamed for this?

    It's all about 'who controls the narrative'.

    “Hollywood was controlled by Jews from the beginning. Jews had a huge stake in pop music as they composed many of the hits. And blacks were over-represented in pop music long before end of segregation.”

    And when Jews became in charge of making movies, almost no films were made about particular Jewish experiences or characters, as they had become culturally assimilated as Americans. Producer David Selznick distanced himself as being characterized as a “Hollywood Jew” by stating “I’m an American and not a Jew.” People want to be entertained, then and now. Did they find it troubling that they were enriching Jews by going to movies and buying music? Did they find it noxious that black musicians were gaining notoriety simply because they were moved by their songs?

    “No, the Establishment failed because it ended Segregation and surrendered the moral highground to blacks and their Jewish enablers.”

    No, increasing numbers of American citizens, which included Jews and blacks, sought to rip apart segregation because they had the moral high ground.

    “White elites were not honest about the threat posed by blacks onto whites.”

    Talk about dishonesty. The Justices in the Plessy case were explicit in that “separate but equal” was the law of the land. Unfortunately, southrons decided to ignore the ruling and put enact unconstitutional laws that stripped blacks of their legal rights. The direct threat came from this particular group to EVERYONE’s liberty.

    “Blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, have always been a danger to whites. Also, how were Jews any less segregationist? They joined white flight from black crime. They forced the US to support the Zionist imperialist state of Israel.”

    What was the actual danger to whites were southrons who made these overblown generalizations and insisted that southern whites be denied of their freedom of association. That is, there were southern whites who sought to mix with blacks, but laws prohibited this “unnatural” interaction.

    “And speaking of ‘sexism’, which group did more to promote pornography? Which group exploited tons of women in music industry and Hollywood with promises of career boosts?”

    Human beings.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    There was more than enough dishonesty to go around after the end of the Civil War. The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen. They didn't have to live (back then) with feral Negroes on a daily basis. It was understood since the time of Jefferson that two races as different as blacks and whites could never really live side by side in a democratic society and history has not proven them wrong. Politically blacks are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting. Socially, they need to be kept separate from whites for the same reason that you can't keep sheep and wolves in the same enclosure. The present semi-truce that prevails exists only because whites have paid the Danegeld in the form of massive subsidies to blacks.

    Everyone (including Lincoln) always thought that the solution was to send blacks back to Africa but no one was ever really able to work this out except on a very limited scale (Liberia) so the great unsolved problem of American history is no closer to being truly solved today than it was in 1865. And for HBD reasons alone, it will likely NEVER be solved. There is a small % of blacks (the ones you see playing doctors on TV), mostly mixed race, who could be comfortably integrated into white society and not cause problems, but the rest will always be a source of crime, welfare dependency, etc. until the end of American history. Homer Plessy himself:

    https://funeratic.com/image/goo-square/celebrity-goo-game/source/homer-plessy.jpg

    was purposely selected as a model plaintiff from this small mixed race class (at least in the 19th century they had enough sense to do this - today our "model Negroes" like Michael Brown and Trayvon are just thugs). Sure it would be possible to give mulattoes like the Creole Plessy equal rights with whites, but they are in no way representative of typical blacks. In almost every city and institution where "integration" has been attempted, the long term result is not really integration but just completely chasing whites out of the publicly funded system, whether it is the transit system, the school system or whatever. Of course it was never going to be possible to have "equal" schools for whites and blacks because they cannot be taught on an equal level. You could build them similar buildings but this is just cargo cult materialism that has nothing to do with the actual education going on. Even if the buildings start out equal, the blacks will be much harder on their facilities so they will deteriorate faster.
  231. @Heros
    There is a recent infographic showing that the average IQ in Israel is 85.

    I simply do not believe that the average IQ of Jews is 115. In the sampling I have conducted in my life I would say that Jews are even more susceptible to Zio-propaganda than goyim.

    If, as a group, Jews have a higher intelligence than goyim, then the only way this superior intelligence has manifested itself over the last century is precisely through their ability to convince us that the reason their oligarchy of tribal patronage has dominated US culture is because they are more "intelligent".

    >> There is a recent infographic showing that the average IQ in Israel is 85.

    I simply do not believe that the average IQ of Jews is 115. <<

    In order for the average IQ of Israeli Jews to be 115, the average IQ of Israeli Arabs would have to be negative.

    That is quite unlikely.

    If we assume an Israeli Jewish IQ of 100, that would give us an Israeli Arab IQ of 25.

    Also unlikely.

    The average IQ in Lebanon is 82.

  232. @Mr. Anon
    It's useless arguing with a useless idiot like "Thomm".

    Yawn….. I point out facts that burst the bubble of WN wiggers like you.

    Remember, White Trashionalists have Negro IQs. That is why you comprise of genetic waste matter that nature is expelling from the white gene pool.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    And what education and/or experience do you have that anybody should think you are anything other than what you outwardly appear to be – a foul idiot? For example, you still won’t answer – appropos a previous thread – simple question: how much math have you had? Well? How much?

    Your posts are nothing but a grab-bag of your own self-coined idiot catch-phrases.

    “That is why you comprise of genetic…..”

    “you comprise of”? You claim to be some kind of superior specimen, and yet you write like a very stupid person. Evidently, you are one.
  233. @guest
    These people are obsessed with themselves (we all are, but we don't all monopolize the Megaphone), but usually clever enough to conceal the fact. I find they generally can't help revealing it when talking about the foundation of their rise, which was the gradual "emancipation" of the higher reaches of American civilization from pure WASP domination. WASP-bashing amongst them has actually been tampered down (in the Jewish discourse with which I'm familiar) as it's been ratcheted up for the rest of the anti-WASP complainers under PC (who've really let themselves go recently). Though country club resentment remains, more and more they're identifying with the white ruling class.

    They're still acutely self-conscious, though, and hold a special place in their hearts for the arrival. If they're (relatively) conservative, they also maintain a special contempt for the New Left backlash, which embarrassed them. As with all conservatives, it was "this far! No farther!" They were in, but blacks, for instance, had to learn to behave themselves, just like Jews did.

    I was reading a book called America Lite, at a point in my life when I should've known better. Which was ostensibly about the dumbing down of our culture--especially academia--in the PC era. But the first part of the book, and the only part I read, was all, and I mean ALL about Jews. I could tell from sentence one it was neoconservative, and I don't know anything about the author but I'm sure if I looked up his surname it would be of a certain ethnic flavor. But I had no idea just how thoroughly it would be an ethnocentric book.

    The clear intent was to start out by describing the Old Order, which was the WASP order, and how it fell. Which apparently was because it promoted men only capable of Gentlemanly C's to the Ivies, relegating capable men of unfortunate background to City College and worse. The book gets mired in excruciating details about inter-Jewish conflict in college lunchrooms between followers of Stalin and followers of Trotsky. And I'm thinking, "What am I reading? Is this real life?" But I shoulda known better.

    I gave up, but presumably the upshot is that after the WASPs justly fell, there was a Golden Age of people getting what they deserved. That is, before the barbarians stormed the gates (literally, in the case of many campus takeovers) and ruined our culture. That singular, pure, meritocratic moment, when colorblindness was to reign came post-Civil Rights but pre-New Left (if any chronological gap existed), and it was like the Garden of Eden plopped in the middle of our history.

    Coincidentally, it just so happened to be the sane moment Jews arrived in white society. Fancy that. They had, of course, power and influence before. In banking, it hardly needs be mentioned, and entertainment, but also at all levels of politics, business, and culture. But that was hit and miss. The time we're talking about here is when the ruling class was open for them to be a permanent part. When no "gentlemen's agreements" would officially or semi-officially keep them out.

    They never put it this way, because they fear the Rumpelstiltskin Effect. But they can't help making it too obvious. That book, America Lite,was for a general audience. I have no idea why the author would get that carried away. It would make even less sense if he wasn't Jewish, though.

    David Gelernter, no surprise. I think he lost a hand or a thumb to the Unabomber (WASP!) and turned him into a neocon shill.

  234. @Anonymous
    This abuse scandal was primarily about pedorasty not pedophilia. This was more about Homosexual subcultures within the Church than 'pedophilia'.

    Not that it matters to the victims, but it certainly matters if you are looking to deal with the problem effectively. The profile of a pedophile is very different than a garden variety homosexual who is attracted to teenage boys.

    I'm not Catholic so I'm not making excuses, but the media has purposely created misconceptions about this issue for their own reasons.

    I don’t understand the profile of a heterosexual man who’s attracted to teen boys. If a priest is consumed by lust, why not seek out a woman? Frankly, I doubt too many parishioners would really care if he kept a side girlfriend (unmarried of course) and it would help get the Catholic Church away from the celibate priesthood that seems to be at the root of so many problems.

    But your larger point, I think, is that there’s too many homosexuals in the Catholic clergy, right? The lack of honesty about the nature of homo men is pretty intense in our society these days and I wonder if the sex scandals are still going on and not being reported on in the church. Are altar boys still with us, or have they disappeared? I know the priests themselves are disappearing.

    • Replies: @guest
    The Narrative had a lot of success against the Catholic Church, obviously, but they had to be very cagey about the homosex aspect. Their go-to with pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles is that even when they go after boys they're mostly heterosexuals. Meaning they "identify" as heterosexuals. And unlike the rest of the population, who could easily be 90% true homo for all we know, none of them are ever "in the closet."

    With priests, obviously it's hard to say who identifies as what. Because none of them are married, they don't openly date, and they don't sermonize to their parishioners about the lust they have in their hearts for females. So it's tough to use the "just heteros getting off on, uh, 'power?'" argument. They're forced mostly to ignore the issue, and if pressed come up with weird arguments.

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they're kids themselves. They've have arrested development, or something, and don't have normal adult feelings? Which still doesn't explain why they go after kids of their own sex. But which was a brave explanation, in that it sought a way to ignore gender altogether m
  235. @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    In college I did some business on the phone w/ a Jewish kid a few years older than me at a nearby college. I thought his idea was all flash no sizzle and eventually his business failed. BUT his failed business got bought by an NYC company. He became a multi-millionaire via stock in parent company. Almost everything he buys and tries to run fails, but he gets richer. He now owns a pro sports team.
    I believed in "meritocracy" once but then I kept seeing the same types of people manage to fail repeatedly into higher income brackets...

    By any chance, Dan Snyder?

  236. @Tiny Duck
    America is moving towards becoming a minority majority country. Multiculturalism is going to win regardless of what those who are disenfranchised by it feel about it. Those who learn to adapt and thrive in this new reality will succeed in deciding what the future holds for our country.

    Trump and his movement represent the last gasp of a narrow vision of American life. What they are railing against is a set of progressive cultural values that are now ascendant: support for marriage equality; support for racial equality; a belief that health care is a right; environmentalism; and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. The culture is already being rebuilt, and that's what Trump and his supporter can't stand.

    It wasn't just the white "working class" that brought Trump into power. It was middle class, upper class, and wealthy whites, as well. In other words, it was whites. Trump won all white demographics. This isn't a class conflict. It's a racial conflict. It's about white racism and resentment that has been part of the country's social fabric for centuries. Being a white person not committed to progressivism is racism. Full stop.

    Why is anyone surprised that Jews do well in America? We know that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ’s – around 112-115. We know that nations with high IQ’s prosper. We know that individuals and races with high IQ’s have high incomes – Japanese and Koreans earn more than native whites. East Asians have IQ’s around 103-105.

    So if Jews didn’t do well in business, science, and letters it would be a major departure from universal and global patterns.

    • Replies: @renfro
    '' We know that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ’s – around 112-115. We know that nations with high IQ’s prosper''>>>

    Its not that simple. Jews did well in America because we let them do well.
    To explain what I mean by that would take an essay.
    To short form it...you need to study the Jewish history prior to the 'Enlightenment' period....after which the gentile world opened up its halls of learning to the Jews for the first time.
    Prior to that Jewish education was 99% 'Jewish religious studies"....it did not include math, science, philosophy, the arts, history (except Jewish) etc, etc. .
    Also the history of Jews in Russia beginning in the 1700's is another good example of Jews when allowed into non Jewish educational establishments becoming 'educated' in subjects other than Jewish religious books and etc..

    Every one has a theory about 'Ashkenazi' Jewish IQ ---and if you consider that the Israeli Jewish IQ is 14 points lower around 85-95 (which is below the standard world 100 average) AND you also do study the Jewish history across countries and time the obvious conclusion is European Jews benefited from gentile, European etc....'more advanced less primitive and less religious educations.


    The fact that Israeli Jews have IQ much lower even though they have their own universities----says that their education conceived and taught by Jews..... doesnt stack up with gentile and etc educations.
    Hence there is no particular 'inherently' higher Jewish intelligence.
    For US Jews (and others) to have even a 115 IQ, which isnt all that high, depends on what they are exposed to and if they take advantage of the better educations offered by non Jewish centered learning.

  237. @J1234
    What counter-cultural leftists did most effectively in the 1960's was to get a significant number of white Americans to self-identify by generation instead of culture (and culture is, by most meaningful definitions, inter-generational.) This was much more alluring and chic than identifying specifically to a political movement, though many of that generation's "leaders" were militantly leftist. For many of in the mindless ranks of followers among the baby boomers, their leader's militant leftism was perceived as a relatively small part of their mystique, rather than the main point of it all that it actually was. Of course, this generation-first identity was made much easier during a time when only young men were drafted to fight in a bogus war choreographed by LBJ.

    The generational division thing is still very much with us today. When blacks shoot each other en masse in Chicago over a long weekend, nobody says, "well, looks like the millennials are at it again," even though that may accurately describe the age group involved. They don't even say "black millennials." This is because the left (especially the media) want's to maintain African America as a culture, a culture not weakened by generational divisions. If you talk about white America, however, generational delineation figures prominently. Many on the left claim there is no such thing as "white culture" in America. That's because a cohesive unified white culture in the US would be a threat to leftist agenda.

    Agreed. I sensed this but couldn’t articulate it. Thank you.

  238. @newrouter
    "Polls consistently show the American public moving in these directions, and away from the white- and Christian- dominated culture of our grandparents. "

    you go grrl!!!11!!!

    Do you think Tiny is related to Fup Duck?

  239. @Anon
    After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated segregation and sexism, led the nation into war in Vietnam and became stultifying.

    After WWII, Protestant Establishment dominated the high ground of what? American Culture?

    Hollywood was controlled by Jews from the beginning. Jews had a huge stake in pop music as they composed many of the hits. And blacks were over-represented in pop music long before end of segregation.

    The Establishment failed because it tolerated segregation and 'sexism'? As I recall, the establishment did much to end Segregation. Even Republican Eisenhower rolled back Segregation and started the whole process.
    No, the Establishment failed because it ended Segregation and surrendered the moral highground to blacks and their Jewish enablers. White elites were not honest about the threat posed by blacks onto whites. If they'd been honest, much of US racial policy would have been halfway justified. White Southerners had morally justifiable reasons for segregation. Stronger and more aggressive blacks are a threat to whites. It's just that white male pride never admitted this, and therefore lost the moral credit it could have had.

    Blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, have always been a danger to whites. Also, how were Jews any less segregationist? They joined white flight from black crime. They forced the US to support the Zionist imperialist state of Israel.
    And speaking of 'sexism', which group did more to promote pornography? Which group exploited tons of women in music industry and Hollywood with promises of career boosts? Well, it sure didn't hurt the Jews any in the rise to power.
    And what of neo-segregation of gentric cleansing and stop-and-frisk and using tons of immigrant-colonizers as buffers against blacks and bulwark against the white electorate?

    Btw, many Jews were associated with leftism and communism. All those ideologies and movements failed, not just politically but morally as millions were destroyed. Why weren't Jewish leftists and Liberals ever blamed for this?

    It's all about 'who controls the narrative'.

    Blacks, being more muscular …

    This just isn’t true. Blacks do well in all sports that require or benefit from fast reactions and superior foot speed. But whites are pound for pound stronger. All the weight lifting and strong man competitions are dominated by Caucasians.

    But weight lifting is not now and will never be an interesting sport to watch on TV. They broadcast “The World’s Strongest Man” once a year – and that’s plenty. Sports fans much prefer the excitement of men running down the field or on the bases. Basketball is mostly running back and forth.

    Whites and blacks are remarkably similar in height and weight. The biggest difference is that blacks (at least West African descended blacks) have more ‘fast twitch muscle fibers’ whereas white have the slower but stronger ‘slow twitch’ fibers. There are scientists, I’m sure, working on ways to put ‘fast twitch’ muscle fibers in white legs and arms. On the day that technique is perfected we may once again see a competitive white sprinter.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Baseball seems to be increasingly dominated by Afro-Latinos from the Caribbean (D.R., Cuba, etc.). I think this is for cultural reasons. For an American boy to invest the necessary 10,000 hours for a 1 in 1,000 change at the Big Leagues seems like a risky bet. In the D.R. it's a risky bet too but the alternative (a lifetime of digging up cassava roots) is much worse.
  240. @Corvinus
    "Hollywood was controlled by Jews from the beginning. Jews had a huge stake in pop music as they composed many of the hits. And blacks were over-represented in pop music long before end of segregation."

    And when Jews became in charge of making movies, almost no films were made about particular Jewish experiences or characters, as they had become culturally assimilated as Americans. Producer David Selznick distanced himself as being characterized as a "Hollywood Jew" by stating “I’m an American and not a Jew." People want to be entertained, then and now. Did they find it troubling that they were enriching Jews by going to movies and buying music? Did they find it noxious that black musicians were gaining notoriety simply because they were moved by their songs?

    "No, the Establishment failed because it ended Segregation and surrendered the moral highground to blacks and their Jewish enablers."

    No, increasing numbers of American citizens, which included Jews and blacks, sought to rip apart segregation because they had the moral high ground.

    "White elites were not honest about the threat posed by blacks onto whites."

    Talk about dishonesty. The Justices in the Plessy case were explicit in that "separate but equal" was the law of the land. Unfortunately, southrons decided to ignore the ruling and put enact unconstitutional laws that stripped blacks of their legal rights. The direct threat came from this particular group to EVERYONE's liberty.

    "Blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, have always been a danger to whites. Also, how were Jews any less segregationist? They joined white flight from black crime. They forced the US to support the Zionist imperialist state of Israel."

    What was the actual danger to whites were southrons who made these overblown generalizations and insisted that southern whites be denied of their freedom of association. That is, there were southern whites who sought to mix with blacks, but laws prohibited this "unnatural" interaction.

    "And speaking of ‘sexism’, which group did more to promote pornography? Which group exploited tons of women in music industry and Hollywood with promises of career boosts?"

    Human beings.

    There was more than enough dishonesty to go around after the end of the Civil War. The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen. They didn’t have to live (back then) with feral Negroes on a daily basis. It was understood since the time of Jefferson that two races as different as blacks and whites could never really live side by side in a democratic society and history has not proven them wrong. Politically blacks are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting. Socially, they need to be kept separate from whites for the same reason that you can’t keep sheep and wolves in the same enclosure. The present semi-truce that prevails exists only because whites have paid the Danegeld in the form of massive subsidies to blacks.

    Everyone (including Lincoln) always thought that the solution was to send blacks back to Africa but no one was ever really able to work this out except on a very limited scale (Liberia) so the great unsolved problem of American history is no closer to being truly solved today than it was in 1865. And for HBD reasons alone, it will likely NEVER be solved. There is a small % of blacks (the ones you see playing doctors on TV), mostly mixed race, who could be comfortably integrated into white society and not cause problems, but the rest will always be a source of crime, welfare dependency, etc. until the end of American history. Homer Plessy himself:

    was purposely selected as a model plaintiff from this small mixed race class (at least in the 19th century they had enough sense to do this – today our “model Negroes” like Michael Brown and Trayvon are just thugs). Sure it would be possible to give mulattoes like the Creole Plessy equal rights with whites, but they are in no way representative of typical blacks. In almost every city and institution where “integration” has been attempted, the long term result is not really integration but just completely chasing whites out of the publicly funded system, whether it is the transit system, the school system or whatever. Of course it was never going to be possible to have “equal” schools for whites and blacks because they cannot be taught on an equal level. You could build them similar buildings but this is just cargo cult materialism that has nothing to do with the actual education going on. Even if the buildings start out equal, the blacks will be much harder on their facilities so they will deteriorate faster.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen."

    It had little to do with dishonesty and more to do with integrity. Northern sentiments remained steadfast against southern refusal to afford free blacks with basic liberties. Indeed, the road would be rough to ensure that ex-slaves would be legally protected, rather than be hoodwinked into a different form of slavery. But it was that damn Virginian Thomas Jefferson who stated "All men are created equal".

    "They didn’t have to live (back then) with feral Negroes on a daily basis."

    Negroes at that time were other than "feral". They tilled the soil, toted that barge, and lifted that bail. All for three squares and a cot...what a great deal! Now, IF blacks were feral, let us not forget that it was southern whites who clearly put them in that position by perpetuating the "peculiar institution" and making it illegal for them to read and write. So much for Christian hospitality.

    "It was understood since the time of Jefferson that two races as different as blacks and whites could never really live side by side in a democratic society and history has not proven them wrong."

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts. People regardless of race and ethnicity have the intellectual capacity to comprehend and put into practice those fundamental freedoms. Moreover, there were several communities in the North and South by which free blacks and whites were able to, at the very least, peacefully co-exist. The conditions by which blacks and whites would be challenged to live side by side were created by greedy Europeans who sought black gold and justified it on moral and economic grounds.

    "Politically blacks are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting."

    Using your logic, politically southern whites are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting for Republicans.

    "Socially, they need to be kept separate from whites for the same reason that you can’t keep sheep and wolves in the same enclosure."

    Assuming that blacks by their very nature are in repeated predation mode.

    "The present semi-truce that prevails exists only because whites have paid the Danegeld in the form of massive subsidies to blacks."

    While our nation still endures racial strife, black and white relations have markedly improved over the course of our history. Furthermore, using your logic once again, there is a semi-truce that prevails between the haves and have-nots because the haves occasionally pay the shekels in the form of gimmedats to placate the have-nots.

    "Everyone (including Lincoln) always thought that the solution was to send blacks back to Africa but no one was ever really able to work this out except on a very limited scale (Liberia) so the great unsolved problem of American history is no closer to being truly solved today than it was in 1865."

    Not everyone. Some whites and blacks agreed with that plan. Other whites and blacks believed that shipping them the freedman served no purpose since the homeland for blacks was here. You, on the other hand, well, you have to go back.

    "And for HBD reasons alone, it will likely NEVER be solved."

    HBD reasons? Based on hearsay, confirmation bias, and voodooism.
  241. the elite always claim that they are elite because they are better, more meritorious.

    but in the case of american jews this is not the case as unz has demonstrated.

    those jews who identify as jews when they register for the PSAT should be no more than 6% of the elite. how many more national merit scholars are jews or half jews but don’t identify themselves as such?

    and jewish business success is only in two fields, broadly construed, finance and media, just as their success in science is almost 100% theoretical. google and facebook are media companies. all of their revenues are from ads.

    stereotypes are true…at least in the case of american jews.

    not so much profit in mass media anymore. its companies are cheap. why don’t some gulf arabs just buy all of american media?

    there’d by a lot more truth…except for the pro-islam-ism bias.

  242. Has Brooks actually quantified how disproportionately-Protestant and elite the old pre-1970s “establishment” actually was? Or is that just his impression? A good starting point might be to look at JFK’s cabinet since Kennedy was the first non-Protestant president and he took office prior to Brooks’ “meritocratic” revolution:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_John_F._Kennedy#Cabinet

    Of the two WASPiest-looking people on that list, one was a quarter Polish-Jewish and grew up wealthy, and the other was a former cotton-mill worker from North Carolina.

    And what about Walt Whitman Rostow? He was a major architect of the US strategy in Vietnam of from Eisenhower right up to the end of the Johnson administration and was one of the strongest advocates for sending US troops:

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

    http://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/15/archives/letter-from-rostow-favoring-commitment-of-troops-by-us.html

    And of course it was rumored that Kissinger was Jewish…

    In David Brooks’ world, shouldn’t scapegoating be considered a form of cultural appropriation? With such a poor record of getting things right, why does anyone still listen to this guy? If we lived in a true meritocracy, Brooks would have been fired years, or even decades ago.

  243. @Desiderius
    Who said anything about the dissident right?

    If you think that's who Sailer is suggesting is on our end of the bargain, you've got your head up your ass.

    Jeez, dude, what’s with the profanity?

    With respect, I think you misunderstood the point that “Simon in London” was trying to make.

    I mean, look: the only white gentiles who care about, or even notice, “Jewish hypocrisy” are a few utterly powerless dissident right folk posting on websites like this one – people who pose absolutely no threat to the Jews.

    So why should the Jews bargain away anything in return for white gentiles ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy? Why pay for what you’re already getting for free?

    In other words, SIL was not writing from the standpoint of a Jewish supremacist, but from that of a realistic dissident righter. He can correct me if I’m wrong.

    Sure, “the regular Americans, red yellow black and white” ought to offer David Brooks and his ilk precisely nothing in return for knocking off “the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric.” But the only regular Americans who are ready to make that offer are guys like us who speak from a position of weakness.

    • Replies: @guest
    "So why should Jews bargain away anything in return for white gentiles ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy?"

    Because white gentiles won't be in charge of their own countries forever. It's strange to have to spell this out on a "dissident right" site, but there's a Rising Tide of Color. Western Civilization is going to reap in racio-ethnic conflict what it has sown in multicultural tolerance. Jews won't be able to play their extra-special white people game anymore.

    It's not so much white people ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy, because most of them haven't caught on. That's the wrong way to cast it. It's really about Jews dropping the double posture and actually becoming regular white people in their hearts. Believing that we're not sharpening our long knives, waiting to holocaust them again. We can't give them that belied, of course. It has to come from within themselves.
    , @Desiderius

    Jeez, dude, what’s with the profanity?
     
    To remind you of the 100 million or so people you're forgetting. They don't consider "ass" profanity, nor are they so powerless.

    With respect, I think you misunderstood the point that “Simon in London” was trying to make.
     
    He didn't make a point. He asked a question. I gave him a simple answer - oen that those 100 million understand even if it somehow eludes the geniuses who saw fit to offer their rebuttals.

    But the only regular Americans who are ready to make that offer are guys like us who speak from a position of weakness.

     

    Some weakness.

    Let me speak right down to earth in a language that everyone here can easily understand: we continue to protect the David Brookses of the world from the 2 billion odd savages who'd like nothing better than to wipe he and his off the face of the earth. In exchange, he cuts out the bullshit and takes his proverbial hands off our proverbial balls.

    Deal?
  244. @Svigor

    It hardly makes sense to talk of black and brown beneficiaries of affirmative action, such as Michelle Obama, as “meritocrats.”
     
    It makes the opposite of sense. "Affirmative action" and meritocracy are opposites, the American regime chose the former, America is not a meritocracy, period, end of story.

    The prog-left has deemed equality of participation (outcomes) to be the ne plus ultra of fairness, and the desired objective of affirmative action, diversity and inclusion efforts. Why should any racial or ethnic identity group be overlooked in this regard…
     
    Exactamundo. Jews are kidding themselves if they think the threat is Whites ending "affirmative action." No sir. The threat is them making it consistent, right down to the level that acknowledges Jews as a group. Whites will absolutely get behind that, make no mistake.

    and the idea that affirmative action for minorities would outlive its usefulness once they “caught up” is risible at this point
     
    This is a big part of why Whites going full "AA" is a far bigger threat to Jews than Whites ending AA. "We can't get rid of it? Fine. But we're going to make it fair, and we're going to count EVERYONE. And we're going to consider CLASS, too, boys. Goose, gander."

    Seems like way too few white gentiles care about the latter, or are prepared to admit to it and risk getting sacked and rendered unemployable, to make abandoning the former remotely worthwhile.

    If nationalists, traditionalists and conservatives in the US sphere for whom anti-white politics and mass immigration are priority concerns really want to end the support by jewish elites for those causes by some kind of grand bargain, they are going to have to first make it clear they can’t be just ignored and taken for granted.
     
    Going "full AA" is a much more plausible strategy. It will maul Jewish power, and it can be done entirely under the aegis of equality, diversity, and race-blind fairness. It's exactly what Jews would do, if the roles were reversed. Whites can pursue it and deny their ethnic angle with perfect plausibility, even to themselves.

    Um, do quotas limiting whites not proportionally affect Jews as they do other whites? Since Jews are counted as white in academia, Hollywood, etc.
     
    Only if you believe Brooks, the establishment, and Jews in general are lying (or wrong), and Jews have no more merit than Whites in general.

    Admissions is zero-sum, so affirmative action for NAMs hurts marginal Jews as much as it hurts marginal gentile whites.

    I have to agree here. The mean may be a bit higher, but the bell curve applies to Jews too.
     
    Entirely consistent with your positions: AA hurts whites more than it hurts Jews.

    If Jews get their own ethnic category, as some of them desire, then Harvard and the rest would have to cap them like they do Asians.
     
    If America goes full AA, there will have to be commissions, like in Brazil, to investigate family background, check physiology, perform DNA tests. Because Jews are gonna lie and game their asses off, that's a given.

    Jews can get in as Hispanics, Africans (North, South), and Middle Easterners.
     
    At least then they'd be in conflict with Hispanics, Africans, and Middle Easterners.

    “Jews are kidding themselves if they think the threat is Whites ending ‘affirmative action.’ No sir. The threat is them making it consistent, right down to the level that acknowledges Jews as a group.”

    White gentiles should absolutely go for strict racial/ethnic quotas in hiring/admissions at all prestigious institutions.

    Let Harvard & Yale look like America. Let Google & Facebook look like America. Let the New York Times and the Washington Post look like America. Let 2oth Century Fox & Warner Bros. look like America.

  245. @Corvinus
    "*It is abundantly clear that the NFL owners want to DITCH their White male viewers in favor of White women who they figure rightly spend a lot more money and are more valuable to advertisers. That’s what “kneel before the almighty Sports Gods Black Athletes” has been all about. Chasing away White men; chasing after Black Athlete worshiping White women."

    In reality, it is apparent that white men will continue to be drawn in by the NFL, as evident by their attendance at the games, their creation of Fantasy football leagues, and their purchasing of merchandise. 'Tis accurate to say that the NFL is working to reach out to female fans, but to unequivocally state that the league powers are purposely trying to rid of their primary demographic is ludicrous.

    In this particular case Corvinus seems to be more in touch with reality.

  246. @StillCARealist
    I don't understand the profile of a heterosexual man who's attracted to teen boys. If a priest is consumed by lust, why not seek out a woman? Frankly, I doubt too many parishioners would really care if he kept a side girlfriend (unmarried of course) and it would help get the Catholic Church away from the celibate priesthood that seems to be at the root of so many problems.

    But your larger point, I think, is that there's too many homosexuals in the Catholic clergy, right? The lack of honesty about the nature of homo men is pretty intense in our society these days and I wonder if the sex scandals are still going on and not being reported on in the church. Are altar boys still with us, or have they disappeared? I know the priests themselves are disappearing.

    The Narrative had a lot of success against the Catholic Church, obviously, but they had to be very cagey about the homosex aspect. Their go-to with pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles is that even when they go after boys they’re mostly heterosexuals. Meaning they “identify” as heterosexuals. And unlike the rest of the population, who could easily be 90% true homo for all we know, none of them are ever “in the closet.”

    With priests, obviously it’s hard to say who identifies as what. Because none of them are married, they don’t openly date, and they don’t sermonize to their parishioners about the lust they have in their hearts for females. So it’s tough to use the “just heteros getting off on, uh, ‘power?’” argument. They’re forced mostly to ignore the issue, and if pressed come up with weird arguments.

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they’re kids themselves. They’ve have arrested development, or something, and don’t have normal adult feelings? Which still doesn’t explain why they go after kids of their own sex. But which was a brave explanation, in that it sought a way to ignore gender altogether m

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The typical priest in a scandal is a gentle, alcoholic, lonely gay man. Not surprisingly, most of the physical acts they got in trouble for were a lot less brutal than what Jerry Sandusky got in trouble for.
    , @Jack D
    Richard Sipe has done extensive work in this area, enough to come up with statistics that are pretty firm. He estimates around 6% of priests are child molestors. On this basis, the Spotlight crew looked for around 90 pedophile priests in Boston and they came up with almost exactly that number.

    http://www.awrsipe.com/diocesan_profiles/diocese_of_burlington.htm

    Of 102 priests in Burlington Vt who were accused of sexual misconduct from 1950 to 2002, forty-four (44) can be determined to have a heterosexual orientation based on accounts of their behaviors; forty-nine (49) priests can be said to have a homosexual orientation; six (6) priests can be called bi-sexual from accounts of their behaviors. There was insufficient information to determine the orientation of three (3) priests.

    Alcohol was noted as an element in eighteen (18) cases of problem behavior.

    Twenty-nine (29) priests were involved in sex with minors over the age of 14. Two (2) of the priests were sexually active with teen-aged girls, twenty-seven (27) with teen-aged boys.

    Twenty-three (23) priests were sexually involved with children under the age of 13 years. Nineteen (19) priests were sexually in involved with boys. Four (4) priests were sexually involved with girls under the age of 13. Three priests sexually abused both boys and girls under the age of 13. The youngest child victim reported was a girl 3 years old; the youngest boy was 5 years old.

    Priests who are child molestors strongly prefer boys and priests who are gay seem to strongly prefer minors. Gays in general seem to have a preference for youth since ancient times and I suppose a Catholic church is really not a great place to pick up adult gay men anyway.

    It appears that sexually active heterosexual priests prefer to sleep with adult parishioners instead of underage girls.
    , @Anonymous
    I'm not in any way trying to excuse the misdeeds that were done.What I'm trying to show is the media and haters of the church really don't even care about this beyond using it as a bat to club Christianity.

    If a very large percent of the perpetrators could be classified as garden variety Homosexuals, this would naturally cause a great deal of concern in society, but we see the exact opposite -- people actively agitating for gay Scout leaders or foster parents. How does this add up?

    They are correctly cautious about single, middle-age men getting involved with a group for boys, but they will literally call you a bigot if you have concerns about homosexuals leading Scout groups. There's something very wrong with this sort of thinking. It just doesn't add up.
    , @Desiderius

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they’re kids themselves.
     
    Decent general explanation for homosexuality.
  247. @Vinteuil
    Jeez, dude, what's with the profanity?

    With respect, I think you misunderstood the point that "Simon in London" was trying to make.

    I mean, look: the only white gentiles who care about, or even notice, "Jewish hypocrisy" are a few utterly powerless dissident right folk posting on websites like this one - people who pose absolutely no threat to the Jews.

    So why should the Jews bargain away anything in return for white gentiles ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy? Why pay for what you're already getting for free?

    In other words, SIL was not writing from the standpoint of a Jewish supremacist, but from that of a realistic dissident righter. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

    Sure, "the regular Americans, red yellow black and white" ought to offer David Brooks and his ilk precisely nothing in return for knocking off "the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric.” But the only regular Americans who are ready to make that offer are guys like us who speak from a position of weakness.

    “So why should Jews bargain away anything in return for white gentiles ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy?”

    Because white gentiles won’t be in charge of their own countries forever. It’s strange to have to spell this out on a “dissident right” site, but there’s a Rising Tide of Color. Western Civilization is going to reap in racio-ethnic conflict what it has sown in multicultural tolerance. Jews won’t be able to play their extra-special white people game anymore.

    It’s not so much white people ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy, because most of them haven’t caught on. That’s the wrong way to cast it. It’s really about Jews dropping the double posture and actually becoming regular white people in their hearts. Believing that we’re not sharpening our long knives, waiting to holocaust them again. We can’t give them that belied, of course. It has to come from within themselves.

    • Agree: Vinteuil, Desiderius
  248. @guest
    The Narrative had a lot of success against the Catholic Church, obviously, but they had to be very cagey about the homosex aspect. Their go-to with pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles is that even when they go after boys they're mostly heterosexuals. Meaning they "identify" as heterosexuals. And unlike the rest of the population, who could easily be 90% true homo for all we know, none of them are ever "in the closet."

    With priests, obviously it's hard to say who identifies as what. Because none of them are married, they don't openly date, and they don't sermonize to their parishioners about the lust they have in their hearts for females. So it's tough to use the "just heteros getting off on, uh, 'power?'" argument. They're forced mostly to ignore the issue, and if pressed come up with weird arguments.

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they're kids themselves. They've have arrested development, or something, and don't have normal adult feelings? Which still doesn't explain why they go after kids of their own sex. But which was a brave explanation, in that it sought a way to ignore gender altogether m

    The typical priest in a scandal is a gentle, alcoholic, lonely gay man. Not surprisingly, most of the physical acts they got in trouble for were a lot less brutal than what Jerry Sandusky got in trouble for.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Whatever Father Geoghan lacked in quality he made up for in quantity. He was accused of molesting more that 130 boys.
    , @StillCARealist
    Then why is the Catholic church attracting lonely, alcoholic, gay men to be their spiritual leaders? I don't know if "gentleness" is really the word you're looking for (a fruit of the spirit, after all) when it comes to predation. Perhaps "crafty" is better.

    So this all comes back to Buffalo Joe's original comment that the Catholic church has given itself a wound that may never fully heal.
  249. @Steve Sailer
    The typical priest in a scandal is a gentle, alcoholic, lonely gay man. Not surprisingly, most of the physical acts they got in trouble for were a lot less brutal than what Jerry Sandusky got in trouble for.

    Whatever Father Geoghan lacked in quality he made up for in quantity. He was accused of molesting more that 130 boys.

  250. @inertial
    Brook's Exhibit One of the new "meritocratic elite" in modern times is Hillary Clinton. So he probably won't agree with your interpretation.

    Her husband is Bubba, as per the practices of the old Protestant establishment.

    But as she has demonstrated on countless occasions, she is actually married to The Meritocratic Elite.

    The more I think about it, the more deliciously total is her November defeat. Team Trump annulled her genuine marriage.

    No wonder she hates married white (Christian) women who voted against her…. They have the one thing she wanted more than any other…but rejected to whore herself to The Meritocratic Elite.

  251. @AM

    While Trump is clearly extremely pro-Semitic, his tendency to blurt out inconvenient truths has alarmed much of the “meritocratic establishment” that he will someday blurt out the most unmentionable fact of all: how over-represented Jews are in the best jobs.
     
    I don't know if it will happen, but if it does I plan to pop batches of popcorn if it does.

    I plan to prepare a bacon cheeseburger with fried oysters on the side.

  252. @Steve Sailer
    The typical priest in a scandal is a gentle, alcoholic, lonely gay man. Not surprisingly, most of the physical acts they got in trouble for were a lot less brutal than what Jerry Sandusky got in trouble for.

    Then why is the Catholic church attracting lonely, alcoholic, gay men to be their spiritual leaders? I don’t know if “gentleness” is really the word you’re looking for (a fruit of the spirit, after all) when it comes to predation. Perhaps “crafty” is better.

    So this all comes back to Buffalo Joe’s original comment that the Catholic church has given itself a wound that may never fully heal.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Then why is the Catholic church attracting lonely, alcoholic, gay men to be their spiritual leaders?"

    The pay is lousy?

    Being a Catholic parishioner is cheap relative to being a tithing Protestant. Catholics don't generally contribute enough to pay for a man with a wife and kids.

  253. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Perhaps the better strategy is to convince Jews that their fates are intertwined with the fates of whites and that they will not wind up on the top of a big brown human pyramud
     
    Well, that's the issue, isn't it. Do influential Jews feels that Jews are safer surrounded by blacks and browns or by gentile whites - outside of Israel, of course?

    From their actions, they side with blacks and browns. Personally, I think that they're wrong, but they obviously disagree. And I'm not sure how you convince them otherwise.

    Also, let's not forget that they know that if they turn out to be wrong, they have an escape hatch.

    We don't.

    From their actions, they side with blacks and browns.

    But rarely live among them desu.

  254. @guest
    The Narrative had a lot of success against the Catholic Church, obviously, but they had to be very cagey about the homosex aspect. Their go-to with pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles is that even when they go after boys they're mostly heterosexuals. Meaning they "identify" as heterosexuals. And unlike the rest of the population, who could easily be 90% true homo for all we know, none of them are ever "in the closet."

    With priests, obviously it's hard to say who identifies as what. Because none of them are married, they don't openly date, and they don't sermonize to their parishioners about the lust they have in their hearts for females. So it's tough to use the "just heteros getting off on, uh, 'power?'" argument. They're forced mostly to ignore the issue, and if pressed come up with weird arguments.

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they're kids themselves. They've have arrested development, or something, and don't have normal adult feelings? Which still doesn't explain why they go after kids of their own sex. But which was a brave explanation, in that it sought a way to ignore gender altogether m

    Richard Sipe has done extensive work in this area, enough to come up with statistics that are pretty firm. He estimates around 6% of priests are child molestors. On this basis, the Spotlight crew looked for around 90 pedophile priests in Boston and they came up with almost exactly that number.

    http://www.awrsipe.com/diocesan_profiles/diocese_of_burlington.htm

    Of 102 priests in Burlington Vt who were accused of sexual misconduct from 1950 to 2002, forty-four (44) can be determined to have a heterosexual orientation based on accounts of their behaviors; forty-nine (49) priests can be said to have a homosexual orientation; six (6) priests can be called bi-sexual from accounts of their behaviors. There was insufficient information to determine the orientation of three (3) priests.

    Alcohol was noted as an element in eighteen (18) cases of problem behavior.

    Twenty-nine (29) priests were involved in sex with minors over the age of 14. Two (2) of the priests were sexually active with teen-aged girls, twenty-seven (27) with teen-aged boys.

    Twenty-three (23) priests were sexually involved with children under the age of 13 years. Nineteen (19) priests were sexually in involved with boys. Four (4) priests were sexually involved with girls under the age of 13. Three priests sexually abused both boys and girls under the age of 13. The youngest child victim reported was a girl 3 years old; the youngest boy was 5 years old.

    Priests who are child molestors strongly prefer boys and priests who are gay seem to strongly prefer minors. Gays in general seem to have a preference for youth since ancient times and I suppose a Catholic church is really not a great place to pick up adult gay men anyway.

    It appears that sexually active heterosexual priests prefer to sleep with adult parishioners instead of underage girls.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What percentage of rabbis are child molesters?
  255. @Anonymous
    This abuse scandal was primarily about pedorasty not pedophilia. This was more about Homosexual subcultures within the Church than 'pedophilia'.

    Not that it matters to the victims, but it certainly matters if you are looking to deal with the problem effectively. The profile of a pedophile is very different than a garden variety homosexual who is attracted to teenage boys.

    I'm not Catholic so I'm not making excuses, but the media has purposely created misconceptions about this issue for their own reasons.

    Anonymous, splitting hairs, but thank you for your reply.

  256. @Jack D
    There was more than enough dishonesty to go around after the end of the Civil War. The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen. They didn't have to live (back then) with feral Negroes on a daily basis. It was understood since the time of Jefferson that two races as different as blacks and whites could never really live side by side in a democratic society and history has not proven them wrong. Politically blacks are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting. Socially, they need to be kept separate from whites for the same reason that you can't keep sheep and wolves in the same enclosure. The present semi-truce that prevails exists only because whites have paid the Danegeld in the form of massive subsidies to blacks.

    Everyone (including Lincoln) always thought that the solution was to send blacks back to Africa but no one was ever really able to work this out except on a very limited scale (Liberia) so the great unsolved problem of American history is no closer to being truly solved today than it was in 1865. And for HBD reasons alone, it will likely NEVER be solved. There is a small % of blacks (the ones you see playing doctors on TV), mostly mixed race, who could be comfortably integrated into white society and not cause problems, but the rest will always be a source of crime, welfare dependency, etc. until the end of American history. Homer Plessy himself:

    https://funeratic.com/image/goo-square/celebrity-goo-game/source/homer-plessy.jpg

    was purposely selected as a model plaintiff from this small mixed race class (at least in the 19th century they had enough sense to do this - today our "model Negroes" like Michael Brown and Trayvon are just thugs). Sure it would be possible to give mulattoes like the Creole Plessy equal rights with whites, but they are in no way representative of typical blacks. In almost every city and institution where "integration" has been attempted, the long term result is not really integration but just completely chasing whites out of the publicly funded system, whether it is the transit system, the school system or whatever. Of course it was never going to be possible to have "equal" schools for whites and blacks because they cannot be taught on an equal level. You could build them similar buildings but this is just cargo cult materialism that has nothing to do with the actual education going on. Even if the buildings start out equal, the blacks will be much harder on their facilities so they will deteriorate faster.

    “The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen.”

    It had little to do with dishonesty and more to do with integrity. Northern sentiments remained steadfast against southern refusal to afford free blacks with basic liberties. Indeed, the road would be rough to ensure that ex-slaves would be legally protected, rather than be hoodwinked into a different form of slavery. But it was that damn Virginian Thomas Jefferson who stated “All men are created equal”.

    “They didn’t have to live (back then) with feral Negroes on a daily basis.”

    Negroes at that time were other than “feral”. They tilled the soil, toted that barge, and lifted that bail. All for three squares and a cot…what a great deal! Now, IF blacks were feral, let us not forget that it was southern whites who clearly put them in that position by perpetuating the “peculiar institution” and making it illegal for them to read and write. So much for Christian hospitality.

    “It was understood since the time of Jefferson that two races as different as blacks and whites could never really live side by side in a democratic society and history has not proven them wrong.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts. People regardless of race and ethnicity have the intellectual capacity to comprehend and put into practice those fundamental freedoms. Moreover, there were several communities in the North and South by which free blacks and whites were able to, at the very least, peacefully co-exist. The conditions by which blacks and whites would be challenged to live side by side were created by greedy Europeans who sought black gold and justified it on moral and economic grounds.

    “Politically blacks are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting.”

    Using your logic, politically southern whites are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting for Republicans.

    “Socially, they need to be kept separate from whites for the same reason that you can’t keep sheep and wolves in the same enclosure.”

    Assuming that blacks by their very nature are in repeated predation mode.

    “The present semi-truce that prevails exists only because whites have paid the Danegeld in the form of massive subsidies to blacks.”

    While our nation still endures racial strife, black and white relations have markedly improved over the course of our history. Furthermore, using your logic once again, there is a semi-truce that prevails between the haves and have-nots because the haves occasionally pay the shekels in the form of gimmedats to placate the have-nots.

    “Everyone (including Lincoln) always thought that the solution was to send blacks back to Africa but no one was ever really able to work this out except on a very limited scale (Liberia) so the great unsolved problem of American history is no closer to being truly solved today than it was in 1865.”

    Not everyone. Some whites and blacks agreed with that plan. Other whites and blacks believed that shipping them the freedman served no purpose since the homeland for blacks was here. You, on the other hand, well, you have to go back.

    “And for HBD reasons alone, it will likely NEVER be solved.”

    HBD reasons? Based on hearsay, confirmation bias, and voodooism.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    "Now, IF blacks were feral, let us not forget that it was southern whites who clearly put them in that position "

    Just like in Rwanda. When blacks kill blacks, it's always whitey's fault, somehow.

    Keep wearing those rose colored glasses, Polyanna. The Gap will be closing any day now, any day now.

    , @Mr. Anon

    Using your logic, politically southern whites are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting for Republicans.
     
    As per usual, you are either lying or ignorant. The Republican / Democrat split in southern states (in the last election, for example) is about 60-65% / 40-35%. That is not "bloc voting"; it is simply expressing a preference. Or if it is voting by bloc, then whites in the North are everybit as prone to it. The white vote in northeastern states breaks down about the same way in favor of Democrats. So why did you single out southern whites? Because you hate them would seem to be the answer. That's okay; they would mostly hate you right back. Blacks, on the other hand, always vote at 90% or greater for the Democrats.

    You could have looked all this up yourself, if you weren't too lazy and/or stupid to do so.

    Personally, I don't care if blacks vote 90% or 99.999% Democrat. That is clearly their preference - they should vote that way. And Republicans should write them off and just represent the interests of their white constituents.
  257. @guest
    While I don't agree with your point about the severity of the PR crisis,* that's at least debatable. But you're simply wrong historically. Catholicism had already lost its unique cultural authority by the 60s, long before the scandal broke.

    It couldn't muster the strength the stanch the Sexual Revolution, for instance. That juggernaut rolled right over it. Then Vatican II split its base and irreversibly weakened it.

    *Overblown, because, come on, far worse institutions like public schools remain respectable, at least to most people. Only because while people can think of living without Catholicism, they can't imagine a world without public education. It'd be like joining Sebastian the crab under the sea.

    guest, Hmmm, I won’t disagree with your points, but my point is very valid. Thank you.

  258. @StillCARealist
    Then why is the Catholic church attracting lonely, alcoholic, gay men to be their spiritual leaders? I don't know if "gentleness" is really the word you're looking for (a fruit of the spirit, after all) when it comes to predation. Perhaps "crafty" is better.

    So this all comes back to Buffalo Joe's original comment that the Catholic church has given itself a wound that may never fully heal.

    “Then why is the Catholic church attracting lonely, alcoholic, gay men to be their spiritual leaders?”

    The pay is lousy?

    Being a Catholic parishioner is cheap relative to being a tithing Protestant. Catholics don’t generally contribute enough to pay for a man with a wife and kids.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    Catholics used to give a lot more to support their institutions. In New York city it astounds the number of beautiful churches and accompanying schools, rectories and convents and parish centers that were built from the late 19th century through the mid twentieth century. Most of this money came from relatively poor parishioners making their weekly donations.

    Protestant churches and meeting houses look a shambles in comparison.

    Generally, Jewish synagogues, too, do not compare in grandeur and scale to the Catholic churches.

    , @renfro
    The estimates I've seen in Forbes and elsewhere say the Vatican has about 10 to 15 billion dollars that they know of.....the Vatican is the most secret bank on earth and will not respond to questions about its wealth but they own 177 million acres of land that can be traced, most of it high end commercial property in major cities and farming land in SA.
    The Vatican has also always gotten windfalls of huge fortunes left to it by its richer faithful...not to mention 'gifts from kings and queens going back centuries.
    There is also the question about what and how much is stored in the Vatican's vaults.....probably another billion at least there in gold, art and other valuables.
  259. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinteuil
    Does anybody in his right mind really believe that there's any serious chance of Jews being "pogromed" in America, today? or that Jews are really, honestly "terrified" by that prospect? Have we all run stark mad?

    It may happen. They are increasingly resented not only by gentile whites, but also by the minorities they manipulate.

    Foreign Policy magazine published an article where a group of national security experts concluded there was at least a 30% of second American civil war occurring. Some of the contributors felt the odds were much higher.

    Fact is, the American System is seriously broken. If it can’t be fixed the future is not looking good. Jews make up the backbone of the elite. They’re going to have to shoulder a lot of the blame when/if the whole thing implodes.

  260. @Steve Sailer
    "Then why is the Catholic church attracting lonely, alcoholic, gay men to be their spiritual leaders?"

    The pay is lousy?

    Being a Catholic parishioner is cheap relative to being a tithing Protestant. Catholics don't generally contribute enough to pay for a man with a wife and kids.

    Catholics used to give a lot more to support their institutions. In New York city it astounds the number of beautiful churches and accompanying schools, rectories and convents and parish centers that were built from the late 19th century through the mid twentieth century. Most of this money came from relatively poor parishioners making their weekly donations.

    Protestant churches and meeting houses look a shambles in comparison.

    Generally, Jewish synagogues, too, do not compare in grandeur and scale to the Catholic churches.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Catholic Church was able to build more and nicer physical plant because they saved on payroll. Of course they ended selling a lot of it to pay for child abuse settlements. There is such a thing as false economy.
    , @StillCARealist
    "Protestant churches and meeting houses look a shambles in comparison."

    Should the money go for a building or for salaries?

    I know that poverty is/was considered more spiritual in the Catholic mind, considering the state of a monk or nun. I don't know if the average Catholic thinks about that anymore but plenty of Presbyterians, for example, consider wealth to be if not more spiritual, then at least more desirable than poverty for its pastors. It never occurred to me that this might help keep out the creeps.

    When my spouse was on the finance committee for a local Baptist church he commented on how much was spent on salaries and benefits. A good way to allocate $$ I guess.
  261. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    The Narrative had a lot of success against the Catholic Church, obviously, but they had to be very cagey about the homosex aspect. Their go-to with pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles is that even when they go after boys they're mostly heterosexuals. Meaning they "identify" as heterosexuals. And unlike the rest of the population, who could easily be 90% true homo for all we know, none of them are ever "in the closet."

    With priests, obviously it's hard to say who identifies as what. Because none of them are married, they don't openly date, and they don't sermonize to their parishioners about the lust they have in their hearts for females. So it's tough to use the "just heteros getting off on, uh, 'power?'" argument. They're forced mostly to ignore the issue, and if pressed come up with weird arguments.

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they're kids themselves. They've have arrested development, or something, and don't have normal adult feelings? Which still doesn't explain why they go after kids of their own sex. But which was a brave explanation, in that it sought a way to ignore gender altogether m

    I’m not in any way trying to excuse the misdeeds that were done.What I’m trying to show is the media and haters of the church really don’t even care about this beyond using it as a bat to club Christianity.

    If a very large percent of the perpetrators could be classified as garden variety Homosexuals, this would naturally cause a great deal of concern in society, but we see the exact opposite — people actively agitating for gay Scout leaders or foster parents. How does this add up?

    They are correctly cautious about single, middle-age men getting involved with a group for boys, but they will literally call you a bigot if you have concerns about homosexuals leading Scout groups. There’s something very wrong with this sort of thinking. It just doesn’t add up.

  262. @Corvinus
    "The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen."

    It had little to do with dishonesty and more to do with integrity. Northern sentiments remained steadfast against southern refusal to afford free blacks with basic liberties. Indeed, the road would be rough to ensure that ex-slaves would be legally protected, rather than be hoodwinked into a different form of slavery. But it was that damn Virginian Thomas Jefferson who stated "All men are created equal".

    "They didn’t have to live (back then) with feral Negroes on a daily basis."

    Negroes at that time were other than "feral". They tilled the soil, toted that barge, and lifted that bail. All for three squares and a cot...what a great deal! Now, IF blacks were feral, let us not forget that it was southern whites who clearly put them in that position by perpetuating the "peculiar institution" and making it illegal for them to read and write. So much for Christian hospitality.

    "It was understood since the time of Jefferson that two races as different as blacks and whites could never really live side by side in a democratic society and history has not proven them wrong."

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts. People regardless of race and ethnicity have the intellectual capacity to comprehend and put into practice those fundamental freedoms. Moreover, there were several communities in the North and South by which free blacks and whites were able to, at the very least, peacefully co-exist. The conditions by which blacks and whites would be challenged to live side by side were created by greedy Europeans who sought black gold and justified it on moral and economic grounds.

    "Politically blacks are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting."

    Using your logic, politically southern whites are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting for Republicans.

    "Socially, they need to be kept separate from whites for the same reason that you can’t keep sheep and wolves in the same enclosure."

    Assuming that blacks by their very nature are in repeated predation mode.

    "The present semi-truce that prevails exists only because whites have paid the Danegeld in the form of massive subsidies to blacks."

    While our nation still endures racial strife, black and white relations have markedly improved over the course of our history. Furthermore, using your logic once again, there is a semi-truce that prevails between the haves and have-nots because the haves occasionally pay the shekels in the form of gimmedats to placate the have-nots.

    "Everyone (including Lincoln) always thought that the solution was to send blacks back to Africa but no one was ever really able to work this out except on a very limited scale (Liberia) so the great unsolved problem of American history is no closer to being truly solved today than it was in 1865."

    Not everyone. Some whites and blacks agreed with that plan. Other whites and blacks believed that shipping them the freedman served no purpose since the homeland for blacks was here. You, on the other hand, well, you have to go back.

    "And for HBD reasons alone, it will likely NEVER be solved."

    HBD reasons? Based on hearsay, confirmation bias, and voodooism.

    “Now, IF blacks were feral, let us not forget that it was southern whites who clearly put them in that position ”

    Just like in Rwanda. When blacks kill blacks, it’s always whitey’s fault, somehow.

    Keep wearing those rose colored glasses, Polyanna. The Gap will be closing any day now, any day now.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Just like in Rwanda. When blacks kill blacks, it’s always whitey’s fault, somehow."

    Well, thanks to the benevolence of European powers who granted their African colonies independence, a power vacuum resulted. Tribal groups who laid down their arms to fight for freedom now have turned on themselves. With the natural resources going to the motherland, and enough infrastructure built to keep the apes at bay, what does one expect when strongman after strongman comes and goes?

    "Keep wearing those rose colored glasses, Polyanna."

    The train is fine, Jack D, the train is fine.
  263. @Daniel H
    Catholics used to give a lot more to support their institutions. In New York city it astounds the number of beautiful churches and accompanying schools, rectories and convents and parish centers that were built from the late 19th century through the mid twentieth century. Most of this money came from relatively poor parishioners making their weekly donations.

    Protestant churches and meeting houses look a shambles in comparison.

    Generally, Jewish synagogues, too, do not compare in grandeur and scale to the Catholic churches.

    Catholic Church was able to build more and nicer physical plant because they saved on payroll. Of course they ended selling a lot of it to pay for child abuse settlements. There is such a thing as false economy.

  264. @Pat Boyle
    Blacks, being more muscular ...

    This just isn't true. Blacks do well in all sports that require or benefit from fast reactions and superior foot speed. But whites are pound for pound stronger. All the weight lifting and strong man competitions are dominated by Caucasians.

    But weight lifting is not now and will never be an interesting sport to watch on TV. They broadcast "The World's Strongest Man" once a year - and that's plenty. Sports fans much prefer the excitement of men running down the field or on the bases. Basketball is mostly running back and forth.

    Whites and blacks are remarkably similar in height and weight. The biggest difference is that blacks (at least West African descended blacks) have more 'fast twitch muscle fibers' whereas white have the slower but stronger 'slow twitch' fibers. There are scientists, I'm sure, working on ways to put 'fast twitch' muscle fibers in white legs and arms. On the day that technique is perfected we may once again see a competitive white sprinter.

    Baseball seems to be increasingly dominated by Afro-Latinos from the Caribbean (D.R., Cuba, etc.). I think this is for cultural reasons. For an American boy to invest the necessary 10,000 hours for a 1 in 1,000 change at the Big Leagues seems like a risky bet. In the D.R. it’s a risky bet too but the alternative (a lifetime of digging up cassava roots) is much worse.

  265. @Karl
    87 YetAnotherAnon > I have a Chinese Singaporean friend

    well, I have LIVED AND WORKED in Singapore, and I say that you don't your chinese social hierarchies very well.

    Chinese Singaporeans are REQUIRED in school to learn Mandarin.... as a FOREIGN language. Most Singaporean Chinese are descended from the people from the Appalachia part of China . Those folks never did speak Mandarin.

    You need to spend more time in the "hawker centres" of public-housing buildings in lower-middle-class neighborhoods of Singapore, shipmate. That will show you real life in Singapore

    I myself prefer the lower-lower class neighborhoods (e.g., surrounding the Sembawang MRT station) - the Malays. Better looking chicks.

    Their brothers are busy riding the ferry every weekend to Batam to fuck Indonesian hookers for cheap.

    My knowledge of Chinese social hierarchies is zero, I merely observe that Chinese ethnic solidarity seems to be alive and well (sample number = 1).

  266. @Daniel H
    Catholics used to give a lot more to support their institutions. In New York city it astounds the number of beautiful churches and accompanying schools, rectories and convents and parish centers that were built from the late 19th century through the mid twentieth century. Most of this money came from relatively poor parishioners making their weekly donations.

    Protestant churches and meeting houses look a shambles in comparison.

    Generally, Jewish synagogues, too, do not compare in grandeur and scale to the Catholic churches.

    “Protestant churches and meeting houses look a shambles in comparison.”

    Should the money go for a building or for salaries?

    I know that poverty is/was considered more spiritual in the Catholic mind, considering the state of a monk or nun. I don’t know if the average Catholic thinks about that anymore but plenty of Presbyterians, for example, consider wealth to be if not more spiritual, then at least more desirable than poverty for its pastors. It never occurred to me that this might help keep out the creeps.

    When my spouse was on the finance committee for a local Baptist church he commented on how much was spent on salaries and benefits. A good way to allocate $$ I guess.

  267. Perhaps the R.C. Church should cease to demand (formal) priestly celibacy. The Church already has married priests who came in from estranged churches like the C of E (Episcopalian), so it’s not unthinkable or impossible, and the Eastern Orthodox have married priests so a change could only promote rapprochement. Then the Church could assign married priests to parishes that raise more money to fund them (they could be a kind of luxury at first). A lot of bishops are poofs but only those in charge of seminaries would be really vexed and they could be eased out.

    It used to be that a large family could send a son into the priesthood without much risk that the family line would go extinct, but now small families can’t, so most candidates are sons who have poor reproductive prospects anyway. Allowing married priests would expand the candidate pool a lot, perhaps helping the Church find priests who can gather in and guide more parishioners. Priestly celibacy is really a prudential policy rather than a core religious tenet and circumstances are different now so the Church should perhaps reconsider its rules. Growing the flock is arguably more important than averting nepotism in the exercise of powers the Church no longer possesses.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @AM
    "Allowing married priests would expand the candidate pool a lot, perhaps helping the Church find priests who can gather in and guide more parishioners"

    It doesn't help the Lutherans or Anglicans who are also experiencing Priest problems. Such a change would probably happen with people trying to have heretical women Priests, which would be the end of the RCs.

    At any rate, it doesn't matter. Most of Christianity has lost most of it's young people, married Priests/Pastors or no. Anglicans will be the first to disappear and Catholics have some of oldest parishioners. Evangelicals and Mormons look a little better, but it's grim out there.

    The only parishes who are conservative/orthodox of any denomination are growing. In that sense, given the tradition of celibate Catholic Priests, "reform" is probably the last thing that would help.
  268. ”But it’s not reasonable for Jews to insist upon quotas limiting whites, of whom Jews make up only 3%”’>>>

    Jews wanted quotas—because they could benefit two ways.
    Even though now considered white they also are considered a ‘minority.
    So they got the best of both worlds in college admissions.
    Preference as a minority while still being white ….and increasing other non white non gentile college admissions.
    Perfect vehicle for decreasing the college admissions of gentiles and usurping the WASP establishment and leadership.

    For the Uber Jews the gentiles are and always will be enemy number one.

  269. @Steve Sailer
    "Then why is the Catholic church attracting lonely, alcoholic, gay men to be their spiritual leaders?"

    The pay is lousy?

    Being a Catholic parishioner is cheap relative to being a tithing Protestant. Catholics don't generally contribute enough to pay for a man with a wife and kids.

    The estimates I’ve seen in Forbes and elsewhere say the Vatican has about 10 to 15 billion dollars that they know of…..the Vatican is the most secret bank on earth and will not respond to questions about its wealth but they own 177 million acres of land that can be traced, most of it high end commercial property in major cities and farming land in SA.
    The Vatican has also always gotten windfalls of huge fortunes left to it by its richer faithful…not to mention ‘gifts from kings and queens going back centuries.
    There is also the question about what and how much is stored in the Vatican’s vaults…..probably another billion at least there in gold, art and other valuables.

    • Replies: @AM
    "probably another billion at least there in gold, art and other valuables."

    The existence of large bank accounts is an issue worth discussing, but the art the Vatican holds belongs to all of humanity. Is selling off the Cistine Chapel to the highest bidder the world we're looking for?
  270. jews are smart. who doesn’t know that?

    how smart? that is the question.

    way too much mileage out of this “jews are smart” trope.

    they’re smart.

    but they aren’t that smart.

    ken jennings and brad rutter and tyler hinman and trip (gay) payne…not jewish…are they?

    and that’s just the purely verbal IQ/VIQ…where gentiles suck…usually.

    i know.

    it didn’t count for the BGI study but i made the highest score on the old SoA exam 100 in the US and canada in 1998. i’ve worked with (((them))). i’ve been friends with (((them))). they’re not that smart. believe me.

    oh believe me.

    • Replies: @renfro
    Not so smart people think Jews are smart....because they tend not to question particularly anything repeated over and over and over....they just accept it as a given.

    While not a genius I am not so dumb as to be taken in by the claims of Jewish intelligence----I am always irritated by Jewish writing and Brooks is a good example.
    If one does not have good critical reading skills they might be impressed by the Jewish way of writing and argument....But if one does... one is going to be very irritated having wasted time reading an article in which the author spends 500 to 1000 words thinking he is cleverly convincing
    the reader that what he writes is what he means,....when actually he sets up a premise , then debates it with himself and concludes with his original premise.....iow he isn't really saying what he is saying.

    I use to see this all the time and it frustrated me to the point that I wondered if I was the only one seeing this which shell is the pea under style of opinionating.

    Then I came across this and finally had a name for the myth of so called Jewish excellence:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522.html

    What Is Pilpul , And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?
    excerpt...

    ''What this means for contemporary Jewish discourse is critical: Even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.''

  271. @anonymous-antimarxist

    The WASP elite may have blundered into Vietnam
     
    Yes and no,

    I believe there were no easy options with Vietnam.

    Staying out completely would have the allowed the communists any easy uncontested victory that would have encouraged them to push their luck elsewhere with possibility of even greater tragedy.

    The other option would have been to cut across Laos and anchor the left flank on the Mekong River, wipe out the Viet Cong and push for a Korean style partition and stalemate. But some in the Far Right and US military did not like option because they saw Korea as a defeat. However, this option might have had the advantage of rallying the American public to take on domestic communists once again as it did in the early fifties.

    These were the options General Ridgeway confronted Ike and Kennedy with and they did not like them either.

    So America's leadership opted for a third option that was at least if not more bloody but it did at least prevent the communist take over of Thailand and Burma.

    Still less folks forget we won the Cold War!!!

    In the long run the real defeat of the Vietnam was enabling the more rapid Cultural Marxist take over of American Academia.


    But that fight will be won in the future!!!

    America was generally successful in Westward Expansion, including annihilation of the Indian Tribes and settlement of the Mexican Southwest. The Civil War was fought mainly to determine who would make the rules going forward. The brush wars in Cuba, Guatemala, Philippines, etc. appear to mainly be wars of commercial (colonial) expansion, with no consequent migration of American peoples or lasting authority. The world wars were primarily European wars, again, arguably, with no significant transfer of sustainable authority (point contested by those who claim America is the world’s teacher or hall monitor).

    My point is that for America to succeed in War, it must either annihilate the natives to replace with our own, or perhaps, to vanquish a large share and reduce the remainder to rigorous slavery. The first option is foreclosed by the fact that few Americans would find settling in Vietnam or any other part of the planet worth the sacrifice. The second option is removed by the fact that Americans have neither the patience nor the emotional and psychological resources to sustain slavery in perpetuity. It has never been a preferred business model for the majority of folks who settled here.

    How does controlling the expansion of Communism fit this model?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    What's the furthest place Americans settled in numbers? Hawaii?

    I don't think many Americans moved to Guam or American Samoa or even the Philippines, or no at least no American families, just expat bachelors/divorcees like Dennis Rodman's dad Philander Rodman Jr.

    Barely any Americans have moved to Puerto Rico.

    No, Hawaii was about it.

  272. @Jack D
    Richard Sipe has done extensive work in this area, enough to come up with statistics that are pretty firm. He estimates around 6% of priests are child molestors. On this basis, the Spotlight crew looked for around 90 pedophile priests in Boston and they came up with almost exactly that number.

    http://www.awrsipe.com/diocesan_profiles/diocese_of_burlington.htm

    Of 102 priests in Burlington Vt who were accused of sexual misconduct from 1950 to 2002, forty-four (44) can be determined to have a heterosexual orientation based on accounts of their behaviors; forty-nine (49) priests can be said to have a homosexual orientation; six (6) priests can be called bi-sexual from accounts of their behaviors. There was insufficient information to determine the orientation of three (3) priests.

    Alcohol was noted as an element in eighteen (18) cases of problem behavior.

    Twenty-nine (29) priests were involved in sex with minors over the age of 14. Two (2) of the priests were sexually active with teen-aged girls, twenty-seven (27) with teen-aged boys.

    Twenty-three (23) priests were sexually involved with children under the age of 13 years. Nineteen (19) priests were sexually in involved with boys. Four (4) priests were sexually involved with girls under the age of 13. Three priests sexually abused both boys and girls under the age of 13. The youngest child victim reported was a girl 3 years old; the youngest boy was 5 years old.

    Priests who are child molestors strongly prefer boys and priests who are gay seem to strongly prefer minors. Gays in general seem to have a preference for youth since ancient times and I suppose a Catholic church is really not a great place to pick up adult gay men anyway.

    It appears that sexually active heterosexual priests prefer to sleep with adult parishioners instead of underage girls.

    What percentage of rabbis are child molesters?

    • Replies: @Tyrion

    What percentage of rabbis are child molesters?
     
    Probably not many. Rabbis can marry and have families. It is a job for lazy intellectuals, unlike being a Catholic priest, which is a job for weirdos.

    It made sense to have celibate priests in medieval times. It reduced corruption. Now it is ridiculous. What type of healthy young man would voluntarily choose to become an evolutionary dead branch, have no chance for romantic love and forgo sex? Very weird!

    It is also stupid on many other levels. Like having your most devoted believers having no kids! Really, Catholics need to get a grip on this issue. It is mandated by nothing anyway.
  273. @ChrisZ
    Brooks is pretty uncharitable with his bald statement about the causes of the "failure" of the old WASP elite.

    Steve occasionally brings up the notion of "noblesse oblige," and it seems relevant here. At its best the WASP establishment really did try to live up its ideals, admitting people of excellence into its ranks (schools, etc.) regardless of background. At its most feckless, the same elite got tired of competing with the more energetic ethnicities and retired to its enclaves in country clubs and boutique causes. Both attitudes hastened its displacement.

    One enduring legacy of the WASP elite is the way its institutions and habits--clothing fashions, schools, standards of beauty, uses of liesure time--remain the standard by which the new elite measures its success.

    I've always thought the movie "Quiz Show" was an interesting dramatization of this change from a nobly-obligated but fragile establishment to a no-nonsense energetic one.

    Brooks is like a lot of Jews.
    A lot of Jewish put downs of WASP is because they want to be WASP…want to be admired like the carefree self assured wasp models in glossy magazines……BUT they cant be……so they hate WASP and put them down to elevate and comfort themselves.
    All the self promoting we see Jews doing?….pay attention and you will see that when they write about their superior whatever they always ‘compare’ themselves to gentiles….they don’t just write about how great they are—it is necessary for their egos to ‘compare’ themselves to gentiles and then conclude they are the superior.
    Their need to promote themselves by using a ‘comparison’ to another is is indicative of a ‘inferiority complex —not a real superitory complex.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It's the conundrum of the Old Testament. Saul/Paul resolved it by taking the perfect Christ as his standard.
  274. @27 year old

    This counts as failure, as does failure to protect the borders of hard won nation-states, as does the implementation of socialism, a way to pay off the masses, as does the collapse of any meaningful belief system in the West.

    There’s no point in having an elite governing class if they don’t even at least attempt to govern and protect the culture. They are just rich annoying people then.
     
    Who says that annoying rich people isn't all they've ever* been? Who says they ever cared about defending borders or culture (read: cared about us non-wealthy Whites)?

    They as a class are not a monolith of course. There were factions that cared and factions that didn't. But rather than saying the class failed, because they don't protect us, we should ask whether they (as a whole) ever did.

    We (White workers, "labor" ) had to literally fight a war against the "old White establishment" to get Sundays off and a 12 (!) hour workday.

    The "old White establishment" was flooding America with new immigrants to crush wages in the early 20th century.

    In the depression of the 1930s, the "old White establishment" tried to assassinate FDR because they didn't want him giving jobs or benefits to poor White people.

    The Beaver Cleaver era was less because the "old White establishment" cared about us and wanted us to have a good life than because they were afraid of us emulating the Soviet Union and imposing literal communism and killing them.

    *Well, ever = since industrialization/ after the civil war anyway. I think that the OGs, the signers of the declaration and etc were probably OK.

    “Who says they ever cared about defending borders or culture (read: cared about us non-wealthy Whites)?”

    Because we have a country and culture. Low culture of the masses is sort of a well spring and elite culture refines and hangs on to the best.

    Interestingly, I think the start of elite failure can be traced to about the Civil War era, when the industrial revolution picked up steam, which is about where you place it. Start of failure is latest when art went goofy (impressionism) and Neitzche could float his atheism without fear of reprisal.

  275. @Veracitor
    Perhaps the R.C. Church should cease to demand (formal) priestly celibacy. The Church already has married priests who came in from estranged churches like the C of E (Episcopalian), so it's not unthinkable or impossible, and the Eastern Orthodox have married priests so a change could only promote rapprochement. Then the Church could assign married priests to parishes that raise more money to fund them (they could be a kind of luxury at first). A lot of bishops are poofs but only those in charge of seminaries would be really vexed and they could be eased out.

    It used to be that a large family could send a son into the priesthood without much risk that the family line would go extinct, but now small families can't, so most candidates are sons who have poor reproductive prospects anyway. Allowing married priests would expand the candidate pool a lot, perhaps helping the Church find priests who can gather in and guide more parishioners. Priestly celibacy is really a prudential policy rather than a core religious tenet and circumstances are different now so the Church should perhaps reconsider its rules. Growing the flock is arguably more important than averting nepotism in the exercise of powers the Church no longer possesses.

    “Allowing married priests would expand the candidate pool a lot, perhaps helping the Church find priests who can gather in and guide more parishioners”

    It doesn’t help the Lutherans or Anglicans who are also experiencing Priest problems. Such a change would probably happen with people trying to have heretical women Priests, which would be the end of the RCs.

    At any rate, it doesn’t matter. Most of Christianity has lost most of it’s young people, married Priests/Pastors or no. Anglicans will be the first to disappear and Catholics have some of oldest parishioners. Evangelicals and Mormons look a little better, but it’s grim out there.

    The only parishes who are conservative/orthodox of any denomination are growing. In that sense, given the tradition of celibate Catholic Priests, “reform” is probably the last thing that would help.

  276. @renfro
    The estimates I've seen in Forbes and elsewhere say the Vatican has about 10 to 15 billion dollars that they know of.....the Vatican is the most secret bank on earth and will not respond to questions about its wealth but they own 177 million acres of land that can be traced, most of it high end commercial property in major cities and farming land in SA.
    The Vatican has also always gotten windfalls of huge fortunes left to it by its richer faithful...not to mention 'gifts from kings and queens going back centuries.
    There is also the question about what and how much is stored in the Vatican's vaults.....probably another billion at least there in gold, art and other valuables.

    “probably another billion at least there in gold, art and other valuables.”

    The existence of large bank accounts is an issue worth discussing, but the art the Vatican holds belongs to all of humanity. Is selling off the Cistine Chapel to the highest bidder the world we’re looking for?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Pope could scrape Raphael's "School of Athens" off his living room wall and auction it on E-Bay.
  277. A different time.

  278. @AM
    "probably another billion at least there in gold, art and other valuables."

    The existence of large bank accounts is an issue worth discussing, but the art the Vatican holds belongs to all of humanity. Is selling off the Cistine Chapel to the highest bidder the world we're looking for?

    The Pope could scrape Raphael’s “School of Athens” off his living room wall and auction it on E-Bay.

  279. @guest
    The Narrative had a lot of success against the Catholic Church, obviously, but they had to be very cagey about the homosex aspect. Their go-to with pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles is that even when they go after boys they're mostly heterosexuals. Meaning they "identify" as heterosexuals. And unlike the rest of the population, who could easily be 90% true homo for all we know, none of them are ever "in the closet."

    With priests, obviously it's hard to say who identifies as what. Because none of them are married, they don't openly date, and they don't sermonize to their parishioners about the lust they have in their hearts for females. So it's tough to use the "just heteros getting off on, uh, 'power?'" argument. They're forced mostly to ignore the issue, and if pressed come up with weird arguments.

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they're kids themselves. They've have arrested development, or something, and don't have normal adult feelings? Which still doesn't explain why they go after kids of their own sex. But which was a brave explanation, in that it sought a way to ignore gender altogether m

    The movie Spotlight, as I recall, tried to argue the reason they go after kids is because they’re kids themselves.

    Decent general explanation for homosexuality.

  280. @Neil Templeton
    America was generally successful in Westward Expansion, including annihilation of the Indian Tribes and settlement of the Mexican Southwest. The Civil War was fought mainly to determine who would make the rules going forward. The brush wars in Cuba, Guatemala, Philippines, etc. appear to mainly be wars of commercial (colonial) expansion, with no consequent migration of American peoples or lasting authority. The world wars were primarily European wars, again, arguably, with no significant transfer of sustainable authority (point contested by those who claim America is the world's teacher or hall monitor).

    My point is that for America to succeed in War, it must either annihilate the natives to replace with our own, or perhaps, to vanquish a large share and reduce the remainder to rigorous slavery. The first option is foreclosed by the fact that few Americans would find settling in Vietnam or any other part of the planet worth the sacrifice. The second option is removed by the fact that Americans have neither the patience nor the emotional and psychological resources to sustain slavery in perpetuity. It has never been a preferred business model for the majority of folks who settled here.

    How does controlling the expansion of Communism fit this model?

    What’s the furthest place Americans settled in numbers? Hawaii?

    I don’t think many Americans moved to Guam or American Samoa or even the Philippines, or no at least no American families, just expat bachelors/divorcees like Dennis Rodman’s dad Philander Rodman Jr.

    Barely any Americans have moved to Puerto Rico.

    No, Hawaii was about it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    According to Infogalatic, during the American colonial period (1898–1946), more than 800,000 Americans were born in the Philippines.
  281. @renfro
    Brooks is like a lot of Jews.
    A lot of Jewish put downs of WASP is because they want to be WASP...want to be admired like the carefree self assured wasp models in glossy magazines......BUT they cant be......so they hate WASP and put them down to elevate and comfort themselves.
    All the self promoting we see Jews doing?....pay attention and you will see that when they write about their superior whatever they always 'compare' themselves to gentiles....they don't just write about how great they are---it is necessary for their egos to 'compare' themselves to gentiles and then conclude they are the superior.
    Their need to promote themselves by using a 'comparison' to another is is indicative of a 'inferiority complex ---not a real superitory complex.

    It’s the conundrum of the Old Testament. Saul/Paul resolved it by taking the perfect Christ as his standard.

  282. @Vinteuil
    Jeez, dude, what's with the profanity?

    With respect, I think you misunderstood the point that "Simon in London" was trying to make.

    I mean, look: the only white gentiles who care about, or even notice, "Jewish hypocrisy" are a few utterly powerless dissident right folk posting on websites like this one - people who pose absolutely no threat to the Jews.

    So why should the Jews bargain away anything in return for white gentiles ceasing to care about Jewish hypocrisy? Why pay for what you're already getting for free?

    In other words, SIL was not writing from the standpoint of a Jewish supremacist, but from that of a realistic dissident righter. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

    Sure, "the regular Americans, red yellow black and white" ought to offer David Brooks and his ilk precisely nothing in return for knocking off "the White Privilege / Huddled Masses hate rhetoric.” But the only regular Americans who are ready to make that offer are guys like us who speak from a position of weakness.

    Jeez, dude, what’s with the profanity?

    To remind you of the 100 million or so people you’re forgetting. They don’t consider “ass” profanity, nor are they so powerless.

    With respect, I think you misunderstood the point that “Simon in London” was trying to make.

    He didn’t make a point. He asked a question. I gave him a simple answer – oen that those 100 million understand even if it somehow eludes the geniuses who saw fit to offer their rebuttals.

    But the only regular Americans who are ready to make that offer are guys like us who speak from a position of weakness.

    Some weakness.

    Let me speak right down to earth in a language that everyone here can easily understand: we continue to protect the David Brookses of the world from the 2 billion odd savages who’d like nothing better than to wipe he and his off the face of the earth. In exchange, he cuts out the bullshit and takes his proverbial hands off our proverbial balls.

    Deal?

  283. @Anonymous
    What percentage of rabbis are child molesters?

    What percentage of rabbis are child molesters?

    Probably not many. Rabbis can marry and have families. It is a job for lazy intellectuals, unlike being a Catholic priest, which is a job for weirdos.

    It made sense to have celibate priests in medieval times. It reduced corruption. Now it is ridiculous. What type of healthy young man would voluntarily choose to become an evolutionary dead branch, have no chance for romantic love and forgo sex? Very weird!

    It is also stupid on many other levels. Like having your most devoted believers having no kids! Really, Catholics need to get a grip on this issue. It is mandated by nothing anyway.

  284. @Jack D
    "Now, IF blacks were feral, let us not forget that it was southern whites who clearly put them in that position "

    Just like in Rwanda. When blacks kill blacks, it's always whitey's fault, somehow.

    Keep wearing those rose colored glasses, Polyanna. The Gap will be closing any day now, any day now.

    “Just like in Rwanda. When blacks kill blacks, it’s always whitey’s fault, somehow.”

    Well, thanks to the benevolence of European powers who granted their African colonies independence, a power vacuum resulted. Tribal groups who laid down their arms to fight for freedom now have turned on themselves. With the natural resources going to the motherland, and enough infrastructure built to keep the apes at bay, what does one expect when strongman after strongman comes and goes?

    “Keep wearing those rose colored glasses, Polyanna.”

    The train is fine, Jack D, the train is fine.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The train is fine, Jack D, the train is fine.
     
    Not in Africa it isn't:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/17/at-least-250-injured-in-train-crash-near-johannesburg

    "The country’s commuter trains, used mainly by the black working class, are notoriously slow, overcrowded and dangerous. Almost 900 people were killed in railway accidents between 2007 and 2009, according to a survey by the South African Institute of Race Relations."

    Apparently, in South Africa, train wrecks are some kind of race problem that needs to be studied by the "South African Institute of Race Relations".

    But I'm sure Africa is a great place. You should go there...............and stay..........indefinitely.

  285. @Steve Sailer
    What's the furthest place Americans settled in numbers? Hawaii?

    I don't think many Americans moved to Guam or American Samoa or even the Philippines, or no at least no American families, just expat bachelors/divorcees like Dennis Rodman's dad Philander Rodman Jr.

    Barely any Americans have moved to Puerto Rico.

    No, Hawaii was about it.

    According to Infogalatic, during the American colonial period (1898–1946), more than 800,000 Americans were born in the Philippines.

  286. Anonymous [AKA "King Tommy"] says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    David Brooks knows damn well that what we got here is failure of the WASP / Jew ruling class. David Brooks is a man that you just can't reach. I don't like it anymore than the rest of you. David Brooks cooks up some rancid baby boomer bullshit about a "meritocratic establishment" to cover the fact that the WASP / Jew ruling class is an evil flop that is destroying the United States.

    David Brooks was the baby boomer Jew who was telling White Americans to embrace the Houston, Texas model of economic and cultural development. Houston is a waterlogged Third World hellhole with 90 percent humidity. David Brooks has been rabidly pushing open borders mass immigration for decades. Houston has been inundated by foreigners and flood water and if the price of oil don't rise that sucker is going down -- to paraphrase that WASP baby boomer boob George W Bush.

    The Houston thing was in reference to the two dominant schools of urban development theory in academia.

    Google “Joel Kotkin” and Google “Richard Florida.”

    My point being, it has nothing to do with what you think it does.

  287. @Corvinus
    "The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen."

    It had little to do with dishonesty and more to do with integrity. Northern sentiments remained steadfast against southern refusal to afford free blacks with basic liberties. Indeed, the road would be rough to ensure that ex-slaves would be legally protected, rather than be hoodwinked into a different form of slavery. But it was that damn Virginian Thomas Jefferson who stated "All men are created equal".

    "They didn’t have to live (back then) with feral Negroes on a daily basis."

    Negroes at that time were other than "feral". They tilled the soil, toted that barge, and lifted that bail. All for three squares and a cot...what a great deal! Now, IF blacks were feral, let us not forget that it was southern whites who clearly put them in that position by perpetuating the "peculiar institution" and making it illegal for them to read and write. So much for Christian hospitality.

    "It was understood since the time of Jefferson that two races as different as blacks and whites could never really live side by side in a democratic society and history has not proven them wrong."

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal concepts. People regardless of race and ethnicity have the intellectual capacity to comprehend and put into practice those fundamental freedoms. Moreover, there were several communities in the North and South by which free blacks and whites were able to, at the very least, peacefully co-exist. The conditions by which blacks and whites would be challenged to live side by side were created by greedy Europeans who sought black gold and justified it on moral and economic grounds.

    "Politically blacks are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting."

    Using your logic, politically southern whites are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting for Republicans.

    "Socially, they need to be kept separate from whites for the same reason that you can’t keep sheep and wolves in the same enclosure."

    Assuming that blacks by their very nature are in repeated predation mode.

    "The present semi-truce that prevails exists only because whites have paid the Danegeld in the form of massive subsidies to blacks."

    While our nation still endures racial strife, black and white relations have markedly improved over the course of our history. Furthermore, using your logic once again, there is a semi-truce that prevails between the haves and have-nots because the haves occasionally pay the shekels in the form of gimmedats to placate the have-nots.

    "Everyone (including Lincoln) always thought that the solution was to send blacks back to Africa but no one was ever really able to work this out except on a very limited scale (Liberia) so the great unsolved problem of American history is no closer to being truly solved today than it was in 1865."

    Not everyone. Some whites and blacks agreed with that plan. Other whites and blacks believed that shipping them the freedman served no purpose since the homeland for blacks was here. You, on the other hand, well, you have to go back.

    "And for HBD reasons alone, it will likely NEVER be solved."

    HBD reasons? Based on hearsay, confirmation bias, and voodooism.

    Using your logic, politically southern whites are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting for Republicans.

    As per usual, you are either lying or ignorant. The Republican / Democrat split in southern states (in the last election, for example) is about 60-65% / 40-35%. That is not “bloc voting”; it is simply expressing a preference. Or if it is voting by bloc, then whites in the North are everybit as prone to it. The white vote in northeastern states breaks down about the same way in favor of Democrats. So why did you single out southern whites? Because you hate them would seem to be the answer. That’s okay; they would mostly hate you right back. Blacks, on the other hand, always vote at 90% or greater for the Democrats.

    You could have looked all this up yourself, if you weren’t too lazy and/or stupid to do so.

    Personally, I don’t care if blacks vote 90% or 99.999% Democrat. That is clearly their preference – they should vote that way. And Republicans should write them off and just represent the interests of their white constituents.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As per usual, you are either lying or ignorant. The Republican / Democrat split in southern states (in the last election, for example) is about 60-65% / 40-35%. That is not “bloc voting”; it is simply expressing a preference."

    When 2/3 of a group perpetually votes for a particular political party, that trend is representative of a bloc. Consider that the white vote in the South is solidly Republican. In the 2006 House elections, Republicans won Southern white voters 58 percent to 41 percent, according to the CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study]. In 2014, southern whites voted Republican 70 percent to 28 percent, more than double the GOP’s margin among white Southerners in 2006. This phenomenon can be accurately defined as a bloc.

    "So why did you single out southern whites? Because you hate them would seem to be the answer."

    I hate everybody. Bear witness to my Anglo-Saxon anger. Grrr!
  288. And when Jews became in charge of making movies, almost no films were made about particular Jewish experiences or characters, as they had become culturally assimilated as Americans.

    Jews made tons of Shoah movies. That’s a pretty salient particularist Jewish move. Hundreds of the things, but not one about the Holodomor or Armenian genocide, lest we get the mistaken impression that they simply want to raise awareness about genocide. Jews largely stay out of the American spotlight qua Jews, yes. Why is open to interpretation. One could just as easily say that they don’t want to be the subject of the goyim’s attention. Jews have the Jewish press, it’s very much a thing, has been since before Selznick’s time. The Irish press? Not much of a thing in the USA. The Italian press? The Polish press? No. Organized Jewry is godzilla. Are organized Irish-America or Italian-America much of a thing? Not as far as I’m aware. If you want to bring my attention to the Irish or Italian equivalent of the ADL or AIPAC or the Congress of Jewish Presidents (or whatever it’s called), be my guest.

    Jews love to get attention from other Jews qua Jews, they’re always giving each other awards or whatever, but they don’t consider that stuff for public consumption. This seems entirely consistent with the Jewish multicultural plan; protect Jews from antisemitism by making them just one “other” in a sea of “others.” The idea being that if Americans aren’t thinking about Jews, they aren’t hating them, either.

    Producer David Selznick distanced himself as being characterized as a “Hollywood Jew” by stating “I’m an American and not a Jew.”

    Yeah that was a long time ago, in a very different, much more demanding America. In a way, it sounds like a profession of loyalty. I’ve never maintained that Jews never profess their loyalty. That would be kinda nuts.

    Jews had an ethnostate since 1948. One they certainly didn’t oppose. Pretty much makes a mockery of their opposition to Segregation, Apartheid, etc., shows it for something other than a simple, straightforward matter of moral principle. Beams and motes.

    “Blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, have always been a danger to whites. Also, how were Jews any less segregationist? They joined white flight from black crime. They forced the US to support the Zionist imperialist state of Israel.”

    What was the actual danger to whites were southrons who made these overblown generalizations and insisted that southern whites be denied of their freedom of association. That is, there were southern whites who sought to mix with blacks, but laws prohibited this “unnatural” interaction.

    “And speaking of ‘sexism’, which group did more to promote pornography? Which group exploited tons of women in music industry and Hollywood with promises of career boosts?”

    Human beings.

    When whites and southerners do it, it’s whites and southerners doing it. When Jews do it, it’s “human beings.” Guy doesn’t even have the sense to put some space between the paragraphs showing his obvious double standard, racism against whites.

    There was more than enough dishonesty to go around after the end of the Civil War. The Yankees were dishonest to think that they could equalize the social and legal status of blacks overnight with a stroke of the pen.

    One of my favorite WBtS facts is that Lincoln freed the slaves in the rebel states at the start of the war with the Emancipation Proclamation… and only in the rebel states. The Union would not free the slaves in the Union until the war was over, in 1865. LOL, muh civil war was because slavery…

  289. themselves to gentiles and then conclude they are the superior.
    Their need to promote themselves by using a ‘comparison’ to another is is indicative of a ‘inferiority complex —not a real superiority complex.

    I think the source of it is an overinflated ego, though (I call it an superiority-inferiority complex; not sure if that’s an official thing but it doesn’t matter, because psychology isn’t a real science). See, the proper comparison for Jews to make is to other White ethnicities: Jews vs. English, Jews vs. Germans, etc. But Jews overinflated ego doesn’t allow for that; they see the gulf between them and Europeans as too vast, so they must compare themselves to Europeans as a whole. Jews do very well in the first sort of comparison. They can hold their own with any European ethnicity. But against Europeans as a whole? Fuggedabout it, they’re distant second fiddles. But Jews’ whole schtick is based around them not being just another European or White ethnicity, but around them being basically another race. And they just don’t measure up, by that criterion. Hence, the subtle inferiority complex. If they just reframed their idea of their own importance, they’d settle into it fine, but that’s not good enough for their current levels of ethnic egotism, and it would involve some deflation.

    Just a theory (but it, or something similar (another is that reality has rarely lived up to the “God’s Chosen People” narrative Jews sell themselves), would explain a lot of Jewish striving over the years).

  290. @Corvinus
    "Just like in Rwanda. When blacks kill blacks, it’s always whitey’s fault, somehow."

    Well, thanks to the benevolence of European powers who granted their African colonies independence, a power vacuum resulted. Tribal groups who laid down their arms to fight for freedom now have turned on themselves. With the natural resources going to the motherland, and enough infrastructure built to keep the apes at bay, what does one expect when strongman after strongman comes and goes?

    "Keep wearing those rose colored glasses, Polyanna."

    The train is fine, Jack D, the train is fine.

    The train is fine, Jack D, the train is fine.

    Not in Africa it isn’t:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/17/at-least-250-injured-in-train-crash-near-johannesburg

    “The country’s commuter trains, used mainly by the black working class, are notoriously slow, overcrowded and dangerous. Almost 900 people were killed in railway accidents between 2007 and 2009, according to a survey by the South African Institute of Race Relations.”

    Apparently, in South Africa, train wrecks are some kind of race problem that needs to be studied by the “South African Institute of Race Relations”.

    But I’m sure Africa is a great place. You should go there……………and stay……….indefinitely.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Apparently, in South Africa, train wrecks are some kind of race problem that needs to be studied by the “South African Institute of Race Relations”."

    Well, the white power structure dindunuffin when it came to ensuring consistent safe train for decades for all of its citizens.

    "In 2012, Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa spokesman Lawrence Venkile doesn’t deny that over-congestion is a problem that threatens passenger safety. “We will be the first to admit that there is a challenge with regards to the availability of trains, and that this has led to the congestion of our environment,” says Venkile. “We do have day-to-day incidents in our environment, but I am not aware of people who die because the train is congested.”

    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-06-01-metrorail-unsafe-overcrowded-dangerous/#.Wc0kfxNSw_U

    But, silly me, I should know better, since white people created everything nice, from airplanes to submachine guns to ice cream. Of course, it's not their fault. Carry on...

    "But I’m sure Africa is a great place. You should go there……………and stay……….indefinitely."

    It is a great place. Once went on a safari. But I'll stay here in America alongside you, my white brethren.
  291. @Thomm
    Yawn..... I point out facts that burst the bubble of WN wiggers like you.

    Remember, White Trashionalists have Negro IQs. That is why you comprise of genetic waste matter that nature is expelling from the white gene pool.

    And what education and/or experience do you have that anybody should think you are anything other than what you outwardly appear to be – a foul idiot? For example, you still won’t answer – appropos a previous thread – simple question: how much math have you had? Well? How much?

    Your posts are nothing but a grab-bag of your own self-coined idiot catch-phrases.

    “That is why you comprise of genetic…..”

    “you comprise of”? You claim to be some kind of superior specimen, and yet you write like a very stupid person. Evidently, you are one.

  292. @Mr. Anon

    Using your logic, politically southern whites are unsuited for democracy as revealed by their bloc voting for Republicans.
     
    As per usual, you are either lying or ignorant. The Republican / Democrat split in southern states (in the last election, for example) is about 60-65% / 40-35%. That is not "bloc voting"; it is simply expressing a preference. Or if it is voting by bloc, then whites in the North are everybit as prone to it. The white vote in northeastern states breaks down about the same way in favor of Democrats. So why did you single out southern whites? Because you hate them would seem to be the answer. That's okay; they would mostly hate you right back. Blacks, on the other hand, always vote at 90% or greater for the Democrats.

    You could have looked all this up yourself, if you weren't too lazy and/or stupid to do so.

    Personally, I don't care if blacks vote 90% or 99.999% Democrat. That is clearly their preference - they should vote that way. And Republicans should write them off and just represent the interests of their white constituents.

    “As per usual, you are either lying or ignorant. The Republican / Democrat split in southern states (in the last election, for example) is about 60-65% / 40-35%. That is not “bloc voting”; it is simply expressing a preference.”

    When 2/3 of a group perpetually votes for a particular political party, that trend is representative of a bloc. Consider that the white vote in the South is solidly Republican. In the 2006 House elections, Republicans won Southern white voters 58 percent to 41 percent, according to the CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study]. In 2014, southern whites voted Republican 70 percent to 28 percent, more than double the GOP’s margin among white Southerners in 2006. This phenomenon can be accurately defined as a bloc.

    “So why did you single out southern whites? Because you hate them would seem to be the answer.”

    I hate everybody. Bear witness to my Anglo-Saxon anger. Grrr!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    When 2/3 of a group perpetually votes for a particular political party, that trend is representative of a bloc.
     
    Northeastern whites vote in the same proportions for the other party. So they also engage in bloc voting. So why did you single out southerners?

    I hate everybody.
     
    You evidently hate a lot of us. Sentiment returned.
  293. When 2/3 of a group perpetually votes for a particular political party, that trend is representative of a bloc. Consider that the white vote in the South is solidly Republican. In the 2006 House elections, Republicans won Southern white voters 58 percent to 41 percent, according to the CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study]. In 2014, southern whites voted Republican 70 percent to 28 percent, more than double the GOP’s margin among white Southerners in 2006. This phenomenon can be accurately defined as a bloc.

    So Jews are a super-bloc (70% Democrat, minimum) and blacks are a mega-bloc (85% Democrat, minimum)? Hispanics are just a plain old Democrat bloc. Funny, yesterday it was just “humans.” Now it’s “blocs” n’ sheit.

    What’s great is that Diversity causes this White bloc voting. Dems do much better in Maine.

  294. @Mr. Anon

    The train is fine, Jack D, the train is fine.
     
    Not in Africa it isn't:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/17/at-least-250-injured-in-train-crash-near-johannesburg

    "The country’s commuter trains, used mainly by the black working class, are notoriously slow, overcrowded and dangerous. Almost 900 people were killed in railway accidents between 2007 and 2009, according to a survey by the South African Institute of Race Relations."

    Apparently, in South Africa, train wrecks are some kind of race problem that needs to be studied by the "South African Institute of Race Relations".

    But I'm sure Africa is a great place. You should go there...............and stay..........indefinitely.

    “Apparently, in South Africa, train wrecks are some kind of race problem that needs to be studied by the “South African Institute of Race Relations”.”

    Well, the white power structure dindunuffin when it came to ensuring consistent safe train for decades for all of its citizens.

    “In 2012, Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa spokesman Lawrence Venkile doesn’t deny that over-congestion is a problem that threatens passenger safety. “We will be the first to admit that there is a challenge with regards to the availability of trains, and that this has led to the congestion of our environment,” says Venkile. “We do have day-to-day incidents in our environment, but I am not aware of people who die because the train is congested.”

    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-06-01-metrorail-unsafe-overcrowded-dangerous/#.Wc0kfxNSw_U

    But, silly me, I should know better, since white people created everything nice, from airplanes to submachine guns to ice cream. Of course, it’s not their fault. Carry on…

    “But I’m sure Africa is a great place. You should go there……………and stay……….indefinitely.”

    It is a great place. Once went on a safari. But I’ll stay here in America alongside you, my white brethren.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Well, the white power structure dindunuffin when it came to ensuring consistent safe train for decades for all of its citizens.
     
    The trains ran much better under white rule. Can you name a white-run country that suffers 900 rail-accident deaths in a two-year period? Even with muslims trying to blow up the trains, they can't match SAs' sterling record in that regard.

    It is a great place. Once went on a safari. But I’ll stay here in America alongside you, my white brethren.
     
    It's a pity you came back. You ain't my brother, cretin.
  295. @Thomm
    er... the WASP Senator in the Godfather II clip set in the 1950s specifically put down Sicilians like the Corleones for being non-white. He said that right before the 'My offer is nothing' retort from Michael Corleone.

    If you think America as 85% white in the 1950s, you are wrong, for Jews, Italians, and Poles were considered non-white at the time. The definition of 'white' was expanded later (which is always what happens in America).

    Whenever the population of whites goes below 65% in America, the definition of 'white' is expanded to make it over 80% again. WNs always go along with it, and will do so next time.

    This happened first when Irish were not considered white (1900), and then again when Italians, Jews, and Poles were not considered white (1950s). It will be done again, when Asians and Hispanics are reclassified as 'white', and WNs pretend that was always the case.

    Senator Geary in Godfather 2 was Irish and was based on Nevada’s Pat McCarran, a Democrat well known for his staunch anti-communism. There was quite a bit of subtext to the Italian vs Irish conflict in the Godfather films, as well as the book (ex., the corrupt police Captain McCluskey who breaks Michael’s jaw in the first film, Tom Hagen’s half Irish ancestry, etc).

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The irony is that neither Puzo nor Coppola had any firsthand knowledge of the Mafia. Coppola's father was a classical musician who played the flute and named his son in honor of Henry Ford. Some of the Mafia business they got from reading the pulp press and some they just made up. But after the movies came out real Mafiosos patterned themselves after the gangsters they saw on the screen.
  296. @Evocatus
    Senator Geary in Godfather 2 was Irish and was based on Nevada's Pat McCarran, a Democrat well known for his staunch anti-communism. There was quite a bit of subtext to the Italian vs Irish conflict in the Godfather films, as well as the book (ex., the corrupt police Captain McCluskey who breaks Michael's jaw in the first film, Tom Hagen's half Irish ancestry, etc).

    The irony is that neither Puzo nor Coppola had any firsthand knowledge of the Mafia. Coppola’s father was a classical musician who played the flute and named his son in honor of Henry Ford. Some of the Mafia business they got from reading the pulp press and some they just made up. But after the movies came out real Mafiosos patterned themselves after the gangsters they saw on the screen.

  297. @Corvinus
    "As per usual, you are either lying or ignorant. The Republican / Democrat split in southern states (in the last election, for example) is about 60-65% / 40-35%. That is not “bloc voting”; it is simply expressing a preference."

    When 2/3 of a group perpetually votes for a particular political party, that trend is representative of a bloc. Consider that the white vote in the South is solidly Republican. In the 2006 House elections, Republicans won Southern white voters 58 percent to 41 percent, according to the CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study]. In 2014, southern whites voted Republican 70 percent to 28 percent, more than double the GOP’s margin among white Southerners in 2006. This phenomenon can be accurately defined as a bloc.

    "So why did you single out southern whites? Because you hate them would seem to be the answer."

    I hate everybody. Bear witness to my Anglo-Saxon anger. Grrr!

    When 2/3 of a group perpetually votes for a particular political party, that trend is representative of a bloc.

    Northeastern whites vote in the same proportions for the other party. So they also engage in bloc voting. So why did you single out southerners?

    I hate everybody.

    You evidently hate a lot of us. Sentiment returned.

  298. @Corvinus
    "Apparently, in South Africa, train wrecks are some kind of race problem that needs to be studied by the “South African Institute of Race Relations”."

    Well, the white power structure dindunuffin when it came to ensuring consistent safe train for decades for all of its citizens.

    "In 2012, Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa spokesman Lawrence Venkile doesn’t deny that over-congestion is a problem that threatens passenger safety. “We will be the first to admit that there is a challenge with regards to the availability of trains, and that this has led to the congestion of our environment,” says Venkile. “We do have day-to-day incidents in our environment, but I am not aware of people who die because the train is congested.”

    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-06-01-metrorail-unsafe-overcrowded-dangerous/#.Wc0kfxNSw_U

    But, silly me, I should know better, since white people created everything nice, from airplanes to submachine guns to ice cream. Of course, it's not their fault. Carry on...

    "But I’m sure Africa is a great place. You should go there……………and stay……….indefinitely."

    It is a great place. Once went on a safari. But I'll stay here in America alongside you, my white brethren.

    Well, the white power structure dindunuffin when it came to ensuring consistent safe train for decades for all of its citizens.

    The trains ran much better under white rule. Can you name a white-run country that suffers 900 rail-accident deaths in a two-year period? Even with muslims trying to blow up the trains, they can’t match SAs’ sterling record in that regard.

    It is a great place. Once went on a safari. But I’ll stay here in America alongside you, my white brethren.

    It’s a pity you came back. You ain’t my brother, cretin.

  299. @jorge videla (BGI volunteer)
    jews are smart. who doesn't know that?

    how smart? that is the question.

    way too much mileage out of this "jews are smart" trope.

    they're smart.

    but they aren't that smart.

    ken jennings and brad rutter and tyler hinman and trip (gay) payne...not jewish...are they?

    and that's just the purely verbal IQ/VIQ...where gentiles suck...usually.

    i know.

    it didn't count for the BGI study but i made the highest score on the old SoA exam 100 in the US and canada in 1998. i've worked with (((them))). i've been friends with (((them))). they're not that smart. believe me.

    oh believe me.

    Not so smart people think Jews are smart….because they tend not to question particularly anything repeated over and over and over….they just accept it as a given.

    While not a genius I am not so dumb as to be taken in by the claims of Jewish intelligence—-I am always irritated by Jewish writing and Brooks is a good example.
    If one does not have good critical reading skills they might be impressed by the Jewish way of writing and argument….But if one does… one is going to be very irritated having wasted time reading an article in which the author spends 500 to 1000 words thinking he is cleverly convincing
    the reader that what he writes is what he means,….when actually he sets up a premise , then debates it with himself and concludes with his original premise…..iow he isn’t really saying what he is saying.

    I use to see this all the time and it frustrated me to the point that I wondered if I was the only one seeing this which shell is the pea under style of opinionating.

    Then I came across this and finally had a name for the myth of so called Jewish excellence:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522.html

    What Is Pilpul , And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?
    excerpt…

    ”What this means for contemporary Jewish discourse is critical: Even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.”

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Pilpul, see Tarbaby, and hope through dat ol' briar patch.
  300. @Pat Boyle
    Why is anyone surprised that Jews do well in America? We know that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ's - around 112-115. We know that nations with high IQ's prosper. We know that individuals and races with high IQ's have high incomes - Japanese and Koreans earn more than native whites. East Asians have IQ's around 103-105.

    So if Jews didn't do well in business, science, and letters it would be a major departure from universal and global patterns.

    ” We know that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ’s – around 112-115. We know that nations with high IQ’s prosper”>>>

    Its not that simple. Jews did well in America because we let them do well.
    To explain what I mean by that would take an essay.
    To short form it…you need to study the Jewish history prior to the ‘Enlightenment’ period….after which the gentile world opened up its halls of learning to the Jews for the first time.
    Prior to that Jewish education was 99% ‘Jewish religious studies”….it did not include math, science, philosophy, the arts, history (except Jewish) etc, etc. .
    Also the history of Jews in Russia beginning in the 1700’s is another good example of Jews when allowed into non Jewish educational establishments becoming ‘educated’ in subjects other than Jewish religious books and etc..

    Every one has a theory about ‘Ashkenazi’ Jewish IQ —and if you consider that the Israeli Jewish IQ is 14 points lower around 85-95 (which is below the standard world 100 average) AND you also do study the Jewish history across countries and time the obvious conclusion is European Jews benefited from gentile, European etc….’more advanced less primitive and less religious educations.

    The fact that Israeli Jews have IQ much lower even though they have their own universities—-says that their education conceived and taught by Jews….. doesnt stack up with gentile and etc educations.
    Hence there is no particular ‘inherently’ higher Jewish intelligence.
    For US Jews (and others) to have even a 115 IQ, which isnt all that high, depends on what they are exposed to and if they take advantage of the better educations offered by non Jewish centered learning.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    You seem to have an ax to grind about Jews. Your arguments are strange. You might try reading "Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray or the writings of Gregory Cochran. Or failing that just consider classical music.

    At one time there were hardly any Jewish composers aside from Mendelsohn and Halevy. Then strictures loosened and now about half of all the composers for the movies (the last refuge for symphonic music) are Jews and virtually all pop music. The best explanation for this phenomenon is that Jews were not needed or wanted for Gregorian chant and other forms of Christian music. Then when music became more secular - generations of Jewish composers soon followed.

    So it was in many other fields. Western Civilization loosened the strictures against Jews and suddenly Jewish accomplishments exploded.

    You are weak in math. It is true that a single person with an IQ of 115 isn't that impressive. I'm not sure if I've ever had a personal friend with that low of an IQ. But an IQ of 115 for a whole people is sensational and stupefying. Just look at the Nobel Prize winners in medicine and the hard sciences.
  301. “Northeastern whites vote in the same proportions for the other party. So they also engage in bloc voting. So why did you single out southerners?”

    Had you been paying closer attention, JackD made reference about southerners. So, in this vein, I made a comment about this particular group of people. There was no “singling out” since the context was already established by JackD.

    “The trains ran much better under white rule.”

    The trains in South Africa are continued to be under white supervision.

    “Can you name a white-run country that suffers 900 rail-accident deaths in a two-year period?

    White run nations have their own fair share of rail-accident deaths.

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Rail_accident_fatalities_in_the_EU

    “It’s a pity you came back. You ain’t my brother, cretin.”

    Of course I’m your brother. We are white, we are American, and we are Christian.

    “You evidently hate a lot of us. Sentiment returned.”

    Obviously you lack the ability to comprehend sarcasm.

  302. @renfro
    Not so smart people think Jews are smart....because they tend not to question particularly anything repeated over and over and over....they just accept it as a given.

    While not a genius I am not so dumb as to be taken in by the claims of Jewish intelligence----I am always irritated by Jewish writing and Brooks is a good example.
    If one does not have good critical reading skills they might be impressed by the Jewish way of writing and argument....But if one does... one is going to be very irritated having wasted time reading an article in which the author spends 500 to 1000 words thinking he is cleverly convincing
    the reader that what he writes is what he means,....when actually he sets up a premise , then debates it with himself and concludes with his original premise.....iow he isn't really saying what he is saying.

    I use to see this all the time and it frustrated me to the point that I wondered if I was the only one seeing this which shell is the pea under style of opinionating.

    Then I came across this and finally had a name for the myth of so called Jewish excellence:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522.html

    What Is Pilpul , And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?
    excerpt...

    ''What this means for contemporary Jewish discourse is critical: Even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.''

    Pilpul, see Tarbaby, and hope through dat ol’ briar patch.

  303. @renfro
    '' We know that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ’s – around 112-115. We know that nations with high IQ’s prosper''>>>

    Its not that simple. Jews did well in America because we let them do well.
    To explain what I mean by that would take an essay.
    To short form it...you need to study the Jewish history prior to the 'Enlightenment' period....after which the gentile world opened up its halls of learning to the Jews for the first time.
    Prior to that Jewish education was 99% 'Jewish religious studies"....it did not include math, science, philosophy, the arts, history (except Jewish) etc, etc. .
    Also the history of Jews in Russia beginning in the 1700's is another good example of Jews when allowed into non Jewish educational establishments becoming 'educated' in subjects other than Jewish religious books and etc..

    Every one has a theory about 'Ashkenazi' Jewish IQ ---and if you consider that the Israeli Jewish IQ is 14 points lower around 85-95 (which is below the standard world 100 average) AND you also do study the Jewish history across countries and time the obvious conclusion is European Jews benefited from gentile, European etc....'more advanced less primitive and less religious educations.


    The fact that Israeli Jews have IQ much lower even though they have their own universities----says that their education conceived and taught by Jews..... doesnt stack up with gentile and etc educations.
    Hence there is no particular 'inherently' higher Jewish intelligence.
    For US Jews (and others) to have even a 115 IQ, which isnt all that high, depends on what they are exposed to and if they take advantage of the better educations offered by non Jewish centered learning.

    You seem to have an ax to grind about Jews. Your arguments are strange. You might try reading “Human Accomplishment” by Charles Murray or the writings of Gregory Cochran. Or failing that just consider classical music.

    At one time there were hardly any Jewish composers aside from Mendelsohn and Halevy. Then strictures loosened and now about half of all the composers for the movies (the last refuge for symphonic music) are Jews and virtually all pop music. The best explanation for this phenomenon is that Jews were not needed or wanted for Gregorian chant and other forms of Christian music. Then when music became more secular – generations of Jewish composers soon followed.

    So it was in many other fields. Western Civilization loosened the strictures against Jews and suddenly Jewish accomplishments exploded.

    You are weak in math. It is true that a single person with an IQ of 115 isn’t that impressive. I’m not sure if I’ve ever had a personal friend with that low of an IQ. But an IQ of 115 for a whole people is sensational and stupefying. Just look at the Nobel Prize winners in medicine and the hard sciences.

    • Replies: @renfro
    ''You seem to have an ax to grind about Jews.'' >>>>


    No I have a objection to myth and propaganda .
    And you use classical music as an argument for 'inherent' Jewish IQ? Classical music is Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner, not popular or movie music.
    If Jews were or had been inherently (genetically ) superior their 'accomplishments would have
    'led' western culture and education not 'blossomed after' being exposed to it.

    You say 'Western Civilization loosened the strictures against Jews and suddenly Jewish accomplishments exploded'. There were no strictures against what ever Jews wanted to teach to Jews---there were restrictions against Jews partaking in gentile European educations.

    Jewish accomplishment would have 'bloomed' if they had been inherently more intelligent----it wouldn't gave 'waited' till after they were admitted into western education and culture.

    So you have lost your 'claim ' in your own argument.

  304. @Pat Boyle
    You seem to have an ax to grind about Jews. Your arguments are strange. You might try reading "Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray or the writings of Gregory Cochran. Or failing that just consider classical music.

    At one time there were hardly any Jewish composers aside from Mendelsohn and Halevy. Then strictures loosened and now about half of all the composers for the movies (the last refuge for symphonic music) are Jews and virtually all pop music. The best explanation for this phenomenon is that Jews were not needed or wanted for Gregorian chant and other forms of Christian music. Then when music became more secular - generations of Jewish composers soon followed.

    So it was in many other fields. Western Civilization loosened the strictures against Jews and suddenly Jewish accomplishments exploded.

    You are weak in math. It is true that a single person with an IQ of 115 isn't that impressive. I'm not sure if I've ever had a personal friend with that low of an IQ. But an IQ of 115 for a whole people is sensational and stupefying. Just look at the Nobel Prize winners in medicine and the hard sciences.

    ”You seem to have an ax to grind about Jews.” >>>>

    No I have a objection to myth and propaganda .
    And you use classical music as an argument for ‘inherent’ Jewish IQ? Classical music is Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner, not popular or movie music.
    If Jews were or had been inherently (genetically ) superior their ‘accomplishments would have
    ‘led’ western culture and education not ‘blossomed after’ being exposed to it.

    You say ‘Western Civilization loosened the strictures against Jews and suddenly Jewish accomplishments exploded’. There were no strictures against what ever Jews wanted to teach to Jews—there were restrictions against Jews partaking in gentile European educations.

    Jewish accomplishment would have ‘bloomed’ if they had been inherently more intelligent—-it wouldn’t gave ‘waited’ till after they were admitted into western education and culture.

    So you have lost your ‘claim ‘ in your own argument.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The dissenting Protestants who largely launched the Industrial Revolution in Britain in 1750-1850 were mostly banned from attending the Church of England's Oxford and Cambridge. They started their own educational academies.
  305. @renfro
    ''You seem to have an ax to grind about Jews.'' >>>>


    No I have a objection to myth and propaganda .
    And you use classical music as an argument for 'inherent' Jewish IQ? Classical music is Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner, not popular or movie music.
    If Jews were or had been inherently (genetically ) superior their 'accomplishments would have
    'led' western culture and education not 'blossomed after' being exposed to it.

    You say 'Western Civilization loosened the strictures against Jews and suddenly Jewish accomplishments exploded'. There were no strictures against what ever Jews wanted to teach to Jews---there were restrictions against Jews partaking in gentile European educations.

    Jewish accomplishment would have 'bloomed' if they had been inherently more intelligent----it wouldn't gave 'waited' till after they were admitted into western education and culture.

    So you have lost your 'claim ' in your own argument.

    The dissenting Protestants who largely launched the Industrial Revolution in Britain in 1750-1850 were mostly banned from attending the Church of England’s Oxford and Cambridge. They started their own educational academies.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Most education in that period, especially industrial education, didn't take place in academies at all.
    , @renfro
    Phil Weiss once insinuated that gentiles never had the love of learning or education that Jews did.
    I like Phil well enough but his left handed insults to gentiles (that comparison thing again) and his desire to be among the 'elite' just because he is Jewish makes him say stupid things.

    July 8, 2012, 4:42 pm
    ....... my people deeply valued education and literacy. in my experience, nonjews who also valued education gravitated toward jewish life to share in that value. but today that value is widely shared in the american privileged set. among many groups and the jewish cultural difference there is disappearing,''......Phil


    My reply:

    Do Jews value learning more than lesser mortals? I don’t think so.
    “If” Jews did always and do value it more than Gentiles where are all their Jewish created elite and renown Ivies? They have always been free to create universities out of their love for learning--but they didn't.
    Why are they wanting to go our Ivies created by Gentiles who value learning less than Jews for educational creds?:….it’s a mystery.

    Harvard
    Harvard was established by the Unitarian clergy. Harvard’s curriculum and students became secular throughout the 18th century and by the 19th century had emerged as the central cultural establishment among Boston elites
    In 1945–1960 admissions policies were opened up to bring in students from a more diverse applicant pool. No longer drawing mostly from rich alumni of select New England prep schools, the undergraduate college was now open to striving middle class students from public schools; many more Jews and Catholics were admitted, but few blacks, Hispanics or Asians

    Brown
    Brown owes its founding to the support of the Baptist Church association

    Yale
    Elija Yale who provided the original seed money for Yale was a Wlesh Anglican/Protestant with East India Company

    Columbia Univ.
    The university was founded in 1754 as King’s College by royal charter of George II of Great Britain.

    Cornell
    Ezra Cornell was a birthright Quaker, but was later married a Methodist. White, his co-founder of Cornell was a Episcopalian.

    Dartmouth
    Dartmouth College was established in 1769 by Congregational minister Eleazar Wheelock. One of the nine Colonial colleges etablished before the Revolution.

    Princeton
    New Light Presbyterians founded the College of New Jersey, later Princeton University, in 1746 in order to train ministers. The college was the educational and religious capital of Scots-Irish America. In 1756, the college moved to Princeton, New Jersey. Its home in Princeton was Nassau Hall, named for the royal house of William III of England

    Univ of Pennsylvania
    Benjamin Franklin, Penn’s founder, advocated an educational program that focused as much on practical education for commerce and public service as on the classics and theology. Penn was one of the first academic institutions to follow a multidisciplinary model pioneered by several European universities.

    Here are their Jewish established colleges......that gentiles aren't clamoring to go to:

    Sperytus
    The Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies is a leading center for Jewish learning and culture in Chicago, Illinois

    Yeshiva
    Students at Yeshiva College pursue a dual educational program that combines liberal arts and sciences and pre-professional studies with the study of Torah and Jewish heritage

    The Karaite Jewish University
    Is a non-profit corporation incorporated in California, U.S.A., in November 2005 for the purposes of disseminating the study of Karaite Judaism. Karaite Jewish University is not accredited as an academic institution.

    The Jewish Theological Seminary of America
    JTS or JTSA) is one of the academic and spiritual centers of Conservative Judaism, and a major center for academic scholarship in Jewish studies. JTS operates five schools: Albert A. List College of Jewish Studies (which is affiliated with Columbia University and offers joint/double bachelors degree programs with both Columbia and Barnard College); The Graduate School; the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education; the H. L. Miller Cantorial School and College of Jewish Music; and The Rabbinical School.

    The Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
    The College-Institute) is the oldest extant Jewish seminary in the Americas[1] and the main seminary for training rabbis, cantors, educators and communal workers in Reform Judaism

    Hebrew College
    I1s an accredited college of Jewish studies in Newton Centre, near Boston, Massachusetts. Founded in 1921, Hebrew College is committed to Jewish scholarship in a transdenominational academic environment. The president of the college is Rabbi Daniel Lehmann.

    Gratz College
    Is a general college of Jewish studies founded in 1895 offering a broad array of credentials and programs in virtually every area of higher Judaic learning to aspiring Jewish educators/

    Baltimore Hebrew University
    Was founded as Baltimore Hebrew College and Teachers Training School in 1919 to promote Jewish scholarship and academic excellence, it continues to be the only institution of higher learning in Maryland devoted solely to all aspects of Judaic and Hebraic studies.

    The American Jewish University, formerly the separate institutions University of Judaism and Brandeis-Bardin Institute, is a Jewish, non-denominational educational institution in Los Angeles, California.

    Brandeis
    Founded in 1948 as a nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored coeducational institution on the site of the former Middlesex University. The university is named for Louis Brandeis (1856–1941), the first Jewish Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

    (Jewish college listings from Wiki)
  306. @Steve Sailer
    The dissenting Protestants who largely launched the Industrial Revolution in Britain in 1750-1850 were mostly banned from attending the Church of England's Oxford and Cambridge. They started their own educational academies.

    Most education in that period, especially industrial education, didn’t take place in academies at all.

  307. @Steve Sailer
    The dissenting Protestants who largely launched the Industrial Revolution in Britain in 1750-1850 were mostly banned from attending the Church of England's Oxford and Cambridge. They started their own educational academies.

    Phil Weiss once insinuated that gentiles never had the love of learning or education that Jews did.
    I like Phil well enough but his left handed insults to gentiles (that comparison thing again) and his desire to be among the ‘elite’ just because he is Jewish makes him say stupid things.

    July 8, 2012, 4:42 pm
    ……. my people deeply valued education and literacy. in my experience, nonjews who also valued education gravitated toward jewish life to share in that value. but today that value is widely shared in the american privileged set. among many groups and the jewish cultural difference there is disappearing,”……Phil

    My reply:

    Do Jews value learning more than lesser mortals? I don’t think so.
    “If” Jews did always and do value it more than Gentiles where are all their Jewish created elite and renown Ivies? They have always been free to create universities out of their love for learning–but they didn’t.
    Why are they wanting to go our Ivies created by Gentiles who value learning less than Jews for educational creds?:….it’s a mystery.

    Harvard
    Harvard was established by the Unitarian clergy. Harvard’s curriculum and students became secular throughout the 18th century and by the 19th century had emerged as the central cultural establishment among Boston elites
    In 1945–1960 admissions policies were opened up to bring in students from a more diverse applicant pool. No longer drawing mostly from rich alumni of select New England prep schools, the undergraduate college was now open to striving middle class students from public schools; many more Jews and Catholics were admitted, but few blacks, Hispanics or Asians

    Brown
    Brown owes its founding to the support of the Baptist Church association

    Yale
    Elija Yale who provided the original seed money for Yale was a Wlesh Anglican/Protestant with East India Company

    Columbia Univ.
    The university was founded in 1754 as King’s College by royal charter of George II of Great Britain.

    Cornell
    Ezra Cornell was a birthright Quaker, but was later married a Methodist. White, his co-founder of Cornell was a Episcopalian.

    Dartmouth
    Dartmouth College was established in 1769 by Congregational minister Eleazar Wheelock. One of the nine Colonial colleges etablished before the Revolution.

    Princeton
    New Light Presbyterians founded the College of New Jersey, later Princeton University, in 1746 in order to train ministers. The college was the educational and religious capital of Scots-Irish America. In 1756, the college moved to Princeton, New Jersey. Its home in Princeton was Nassau Hall, named for the royal house of William III of England

    Univ of Pennsylvania
    Benjamin Franklin, Penn’s founder, advocated an educational program that focused as much on practical education for commerce and public service as on the classics and theology. Penn was one of the first academic institutions to follow a multidisciplinary model pioneered by several European universities.

    Here are their Jewish established colleges……that gentiles aren’t clamoring to go to:

    Sperytus
    The Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies is a leading center for Jewish learning and culture in Chicago, Illinois

    Yeshiva
    Students at Yeshiva College pursue a dual educational program that combines liberal arts and sciences and pre-professional studies with the study of Torah and Jewish heritage

    The Karaite Jewish University
    Is a non-profit corporation incorporated in California, U.S.A., in November 2005 for the purposes of disseminating the study of Karaite Judaism. Karaite Jewish University is not accredited as an academic institution.

    The Jewish Theological Seminary of America
    JTS or JTSA) is one of the academic and spiritual centers of Conservative Judaism, and a major center for academic scholarship in Jewish studies. JTS operates five schools: Albert A. List College of Jewish Studies (which is affiliated with Columbia University and offers joint/double bachelors degree programs with both Columbia and Barnard College); The Graduate School; the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education; the H. L. Miller Cantorial School and College of Jewish Music; and The Rabbinical School.

    The Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
    The College-Institute) is the oldest extant Jewish seminary in the Americas[1] and the main seminary for training rabbis, cantors, educators and communal workers in Reform Judaism

    Hebrew College
    I1s an accredited college of Jewish studies in Newton Centre, near Boston, Massachusetts. Founded in 1921, Hebrew College is committed to Jewish scholarship in a transdenominational academic environment. The president of the college is Rabbi Daniel Lehmann.

    Gratz College
    Is a general college of Jewish studies founded in 1895 offering a broad array of credentials and programs in virtually every area of higher Judaic learning to aspiring Jewish educators/

    Baltimore Hebrew University
    Was founded as Baltimore Hebrew College and Teachers Training School in 1919 to promote Jewish scholarship and academic excellence, it continues to be the only institution of higher learning in Maryland devoted solely to all aspects of Judaic and Hebraic studies.

    The American Jewish University, formerly the separate institutions University of Judaism and Brandeis-Bardin Institute, is a Jewish, non-denominational educational institution in Los Angeles, California.

    Brandeis
    Founded in 1948 as a nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored coeducational institution on the site of the former Middlesex University. The university is named for Louis Brandeis (1856–1941), the first Jewish Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

    (Jewish college listings from Wiki)

  308. @Yan Shen
    The best thing about the uh post WW 2 Jewish "takeover" of the United States... sexy Jewish chicks.

    Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Scarlett Johansson, Bar Refaeli, Dianna Agron, Gal Gadot, yes please! More uh former Miss Israels in the United States, I say.

    When the Jew-crit gets too real, a vulgar commenter always shows up in full Libido Dominandi mode pretending to salivate over the looks of various Jewesses and inviting us to join in.

    Argument: “Jews have too much power and have misused it.”

    Rebuttal: “Hoo boy, how ’bout that Sarah Jessica Parker! I wanna hump her! Don’t you? Huh? Don’t you, fellas?”

    This strategy works only to the extent of Jewish pulchritude. Which is to say, it’s the last hand in a losing game.

  309. Anonymous [AKA "freespkr"] says:

    What would happen if white advocates began to acknowledge, publicly, that Jews have proven themselves to be superior to whites in all measures of accomplishment? Mention them by name every day, with many examples, regarding their extraordinary successes in every area of society. Shower them with accolades about their positions in the media, government, banking, etc.

    Former VP Biden gave a speech in this vein to a Jewish group, and they were terrified. Because, more than anything, they want their power to be a secret, if for no other reason than to preserve their status as victims. As a tactic, why not ease their paranoia, and massage their egos so as to bring them out of hiding? (As a group.) If nothing else, our public praise of “the Jewish people” might undermine their weapon of “white supremacy.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2