The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Isn't "Systemic Racism" Particularly Non-Systemic?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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

iSteve commenter Jack D writes:

I guess it depends what you mean by “systemic racism”. If it means “institutional racism” then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants – if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions – if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be “racist”, your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males – your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being “not racist”.

Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of \$ doesn’t negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences – two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the “medicine” is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the “cure” doesn’t work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

iSteve commenter Sam Malone responded:

Nice try, except that your own examples – such as the landlord preferring non-black tenants, or the Sikh cab driver choosing not to pick up young black males – clearly demonstrate that the prejudice which exists in America today against blacks is the opposite of systemic as that term is meant to be understood by most people.

Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one’s thoughts.

What’s more, these numberless individual decisions are almost always made not due to animus against blacks as blacks, but by an awareness, whether inchoate or data-driven, that blacks are particularly prone to criminal/slovenly behavior and that, by and large, good things don’t come from interacting with them.

Giving in and agreeing to the charge that “systemic racism” exists today against blacks not only is untrue (and a slur on the Americans of all types who justifiably will continue to mostly avoid blacks until their societal behavior improves), but it also opens the door to all the radical demands of the left for the deconstruction of what’s left of the country as we know it.

I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like. The Establishment has established this antiquarian narrative — 1619 and all that — about how the roots of racism are the evildoing of the ancestors of white Americans, but the biggest crimethinkers about blacks tend to be immigrants who arrived at LAX during the Obama Administration.

 
Hide 400 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. >I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.

    Huh. Negative concrete experiences that can fatally damage the life you are making for your family override gauzy academic treatises. Who’da thunk it, yo?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @nebulafox


    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.
     
    Mr. Sailer seems to be emphasizing the "non-Americanness" as such for anti-blackism, but it has little to do with them being non-American so much as them having more daily contact with the black underclass than your average American. Indeed, as Charles Murray points out in his latest book, most white Americans live in rural, suburban, and exurban parts of America where underclass blacks are not highly present. It's those who live in non-wealthy areas of urban America (usually downscale immigrants and such) who have the greatest amount of contact with dysfunctional blacks.

    This is precisely why GoodWhites can virtue-signal - because that virtue-signaling costs them nothing in their daily lived experiences, in the way it would cost (often heavily and viciously) for those who have frequent interactions with underclass blacks.

    For that matter, those "racist" Korean shopkeepers and Pakistani cabdrivers aren't fools these days. There has been an exodus over the last two decades of even immigrant populations from places such as L.A. and NYC to the likes of Texas (esp. north of Dallas) and Northern Virgina super zip codes where they don't have to deal much with the underclass blacks.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Prester John, @S

    , @Bard of Bumperstickers
    @nebulafox

    Even the trees are in on it . . .
    https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/dekalb-county-boy-killed-by-falling-tree

    , @The Craw
    @nebulafox

    "... negative CONCRETE experiences..."
    Like when Reginald Denny met Damian Williams.

  2. Systemic racism is a Marxian bull#&%@ like sexual objectification or the labor theory of value or the collapse of capitalism. It’s a con and the correct response is to slap it away as a con. It is a disguise for the command, “recognize that I control you.” (Priesthood schtick: “You’re dirty, yes? You get clean by doing what I say.”) You get no points for dirtying yourself with this mental nettle and no Marxist will ever be moved by your reasoning. Reject forcememes, debunking shills means you are still giving them a (you).

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @J.Ross

    Systemic racism sounds technical and thus invites people to accept the term, because it lifts things up to a rather impersonal - and a little bit spooky (=catchy!) level: It's not you, it's something that's happening behind our backs.

    Systemic racism logically (or: organically) somehow culminated in the socio-psychological concepts of a) Unconscious Bias and b) Critical Race Theory ((a) founded b)).

    The unconscious part is interesting too, because it helps very well to make everything suspicious that you do. - And since it's looked upon as (at least in part) happening sub- or unconscious, it can be discussed in a rather relaxed way, because it can be - hm: sold - as something that is not personal. The mode then is: It's not you, you're a good person, it's that we as a society have to move forward (= to make progress) - and we invite you to come along - to a better future (by buying our ideas).

    Thus everyday life is pumped up with lots of secrets and lots of unknown emotionally loaded secrecy. - A re-sacralisation of everyday life (which somehow culminated with George Floyd's death. Seen from that angle, Derek Chauvins incarceration is a present day proto-religious sacrifice (= a necessity).

    Another one of the big effects of this method/ approach is that it covers/ overpaints / devalues billions of quite real everyday experiences.

    Seen from an (extremely) well-meaning perspective, this dynamic could be understood to keep optimism up in a tendentially unpleasant situation. - In other words: A way to release (or even heal - remember: We're in extremely blue-eyed territory here) - - to heal tensions on the basis of the old de-escalating insight, the brighter one should give in (in German it's a well known saying: Der Klügere gibt nach).

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @J.Ross

    Exactly. Systemic racism, anti-Semitism (which Jack naturally throws into the mix), etc. These are simply psychological weapons to get whites to shut up and allow their lands invaded and their people subjugated.

    JackD doesn't care about "systemic racism." He cares about Jews. And in his mind, keeping the idea of systemic racism alive with whites helps Jews. (Btw, Jack is such a fanatic that he probably makes himself actually believe in systemic racism. Jack will immediately believe deep in his soul anything that he believes will help Jews - an admirable trait, btw.) That's it. There's nothing more to it.

    Steve and the Sperg Right crowd can't understand this. They keep thinking that the other side can be convinced with charts, tables and logic. They don't understand the game being played.

    Jack is tribal. Steve and the other colorblind CivNats aren't. That's why Jack's side is winning and colorblind civic nationalism has failed miserably for 50 years and will continue to fail going forward. For all his brains, Steve can't seem to figure out that he's playing for the Washington Generals.

  3. It’s hard to define the attitudes described in the first post as racism when:

    1) a black cab driver, small business-owner, landlord, etc. will not necessarily be better disposed toward young black males, and as you say might often be more strongly prejudiced against them;

    2) the decision-making calculus might look very different with more information than just skin color, e.g. the young male is an educated African immigrant, the people trying to rent an apartment are a middle-class, maybe military married couple, etc.

    • Replies: @Larry, San Francisco
    @S Johnson

    That's correct. What sucks about Ban the Box and other methods to hide bad behavior is that people who are diligent in not being criminal cannot distinguish themselves from the bad actors.

  4. I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America

    Same for Australia.

    Around 30 years ago I attended a local fair at which some aborigines did a dance. Accompanying my wife and I were another couple who dragged along their visiting Chinese mother/mother-in-law. When she saw the dance, the Chinese woman started to laugh uproariously and shouted out loudly that they looked like monkeys. At one point she even mimicked them.

    You would have been hard pressed to find a white in attendance who would have thought such things about the First Invaders, let alone voiced them.

    Of course, it’s Australia (Invasion) Day today, so we have wall-to-wall coverage of smoking ceremonies fabricated in the 70s with terrified whites looking on reverentially.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Change that Matters

    1) I remember well having been called a dancing monkey or an ape myself quite often in 1970 ff.****

    2) As a kid, I was out of my head about a monkey-drummer, my mother gave as an easter present. I lvoved that thing to death (I remember this state of mind and the monkey which had a mechanism in it and did indeed drum! vividly - so I was most likely three or our years old then). - My parents had a dancehall with live music (The Dominos; The Steidel Brothers... always THE). I loved the drums I could hear when I was brought to bed in the neighboring house.

    **** In my case it was't that far off from what I did, admittedly. - All can say though is, that the girls liked it quite a bit. Utterly beautiful ones too, which was a very interesting - and intense-experience.

    , @Clyde
    @Change that Matters

    Australia should be renamed clown island, where you have the perfect mash of paranoia, megalomania and hypochondria. When you sink beneath the waves like Atlantis, no one will miss you.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @jay ritchie
    @Change that Matters

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60120997

    I'm sure the events are all the better for having a $20 million flag.

  5. Anonymous[353] • Disclaimer says:

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences – two wrongs do not make a right.

    What makes systemic racism “wrong”?

    What makes racism or antisemitism wrong?

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @TyRade
    @Anonymous

    Since by 'systemic' most mean 'statistical', you have a point. For it's the 'normal' distribution - aka Bell Curve - that guides behaviour towards 'others'. It's 'normal' to be more wary of blacks if (for any dumb reason) you think you're in risky location. Doing nothing and losing your life is a pretty heavy (Type 2 , I think) error to make. Better to be 'normal'.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anonymous

    Nothing. These are simply psychological weapons to get whites to shut up and allow their lands invaded and their people subjugated.

    JackD doesn't care about "systemic racism." He cares about Jews. And in his mind, keeping the idea of systemic racism alive with whites helps Jews. (Btw, Jack is such a fanatic, he probably makes himself actually believe in systemic racism.) That's it. There's nothing more to it.

    Steve and the Sperg Right crowd can't understand this. They keep thinking that the other side can be convinced with charts, tables and logic. They don't understand the game being played.

  6. @S Johnson
    It's hard to define the attitudes described in the first post as racism when:

    1) a black cab driver, small business-owner, landlord, etc. will not necessarily be better disposed toward young black males, and as you say might often be more strongly prejudiced against them;

    2) the decision-making calculus might look very different with more information than just skin color, e.g. the young male is an educated African immigrant, the people trying to rent an apartment are a middle-class, maybe military married couple, etc.

    Replies: @Larry, San Francisco

    That’s correct. What sucks about Ban the Box and other methods to hide bad behavior is that people who are diligent in not being criminal cannot distinguish themselves from the bad actors.

  7. OT Protests in Ukraine over tax hikes and crushing business regulations (remember, the hetman is a US-installed billionaire. How does Jeff Bezos or the Walton family feel about small business?). Who could have foreseen that Ukraine was self-defeatingly corrupt and politically divided — oh, that’s right, literally everyone actually familiar with the situation. The dumbest thing about this very dumb situation is this happened before. The Russian-installed guy (whom Nuland replaced with the current oligarch) was a replacement for an earlier IMF/globohomo effort, which collapsed because of self-defeating, runaway corruption.
    Source is RT but if you trust American media over RT you probably think Saddam Hussein had nukes. Hugh Hewitt (intelligent on other matters, but a credentialist, and a worshipper of respectability, a man who wants to be invited to the right parties and at a time when the elite are aberrantly inept) reminds you that Putin only wants to invade Ukraine as a stepping stone to Belgium.

    protesters attempt to storm Ukranian parliament.
    Business owners have been protesting for months against changes to the tax system that took effect this year.
    Chaotic scenes unfolded in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev on Tuesday, as representatives of small and medium-sized businesses tried to break into the building of the Ukrainian parliament – Verkhovna Rada.
    Photos and videos that surfaced on social media showed a crowd of people waving Ukrainian national flags and various other banners marching through the center of Kiev.
    Three protesters and 18 police officers were injured in the fracas, the police said in a statement. At least 20 protesters were detained, according to the media.

    25 Jan, 2022
    https://www.rt.com/russia/547344-kiev-protest-business-parliament-storm/

    • Thanks: JMcG
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    This doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy where people still have the right to protest. Looking forward to RT coverage of similar protests in Moscow and Belarus.

    The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (for good reason) , along with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of the press, enshrines the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Is everyone in Russia so damn happy with Czar Putin and his totally not corrupt government that they have no desire to protest over anything or are they afraid of what would happen to them if they did?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @JMcG, @Paperback Writer

    , @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross


    whom Nuland replaced with the current oligarch

     

    If you mean Poroshenko he was displaced by the comedian Zelensky. Elsewhere I link to an archived article from The Nation which explains this.
  8. Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?

    That question is important when pondering the difference between most of the post-1960’s (when leftism became commonplace and conspicuous in the free world, but not dominant or omnipotent) and the last 15 years or so (with the rise of the mass cult of wokeness.) It used to be that racial justice was just one of many issues that the left tried to balance against each other. Now it dominates, for a variety of reasons, some of them very underhanded.

    I understand that racial “equity” will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry, but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children – one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have – take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races? When you take care of your children, others don’t have to, and you can demonstrate your love for your children in a way that they can understand. People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Anon
    @J1234


    but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children – one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have – take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races?
     
    What if one doesn’t have any children (increasingly true of many Whites)? Does your argument crumble?

    Replies: @J1234, @bomag

    , @Alrenous
    @J1234

    It is not at all surprising that politicians will try this sort of propaganda.

    What's mysterious is that they're not consistently jeered out of the room at the first hint of it.

    "Theft is good actually."
    "Okay."

    We expect the thief to try this, sure. What we don't expect is for their victim to buy the line and obediently hand over his wallet.
    Or maybe we do if we've read our Nietzsche? Slave morality.

    , @ben tillman
    @J1234


    Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?
     
    Not in any objective sense, of course. There's no moral principle involved. It's contingent on the fact that the group capable of establishing this issue as the "center of the moral universe" is engaging in a race war in which this definition facilitates the group's victory.
    , @bomag
    @J1234


    Why should racial egalitarianism... be the center of the moral universe?
     
    I think of it as taking up Macolm X's challenge to subsidize Blacks for a generation, after which they will be fully functioning citizens on par with modal America.

    We're multi-generations into the project, and it's arcing more to proving Roger Taney prescient when he opined that B & W are too different to get along on a society-wide basis.

    , @JimDandy
    @J1234

    "I understand that racial “equity” will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry"

    Can't necessarily blame them. They will never achieve equity in a meritocracy. It would be nice if they understood that their people would still be better off living in a meritocracy, but, as you eloquently point out, it ultimately doesn't really matter what they think. The battle for the narrative of "racism" is a white civil war, and I'm not as sure as you are about this:

    "People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals."

    Mass psychosis is a helluva drug.

    , @Rob
    @J1234

    Pretty sure the woke way around this is that blacks should come before other white people, not them and their families. When people at, I dunno, people Harvard talk about how great diversity is at Harvard, the people talking are the ones who got in anyway. When they send out rejection letters none of them say, “you would have gotten in, except an AA admit took your slot.” Also, they expect the cut whites to be cons, as they fancy themselves smart.

    Probably the Americans most upset about affirmative action are high school juniors and seniors applying to college. At good high schools, the (few) black kids get into much better colleges than comparable whites measured on the same scale. But here’s what they don’t know. No one hiring out of good schools thinks black graduates got there and through by being as smart as the white and Asian ones. The thing about AA for a group that really does have a lower average IQ is that every one prices it in. Affirmative action does not have to work that way. From what I have read, the affirmative action that Afrikaaner white got from the Anglo SA institutions worked just fine. For every AA slot that needed 115 IQ, there was an Afrikaaner smart enough to fill it. Ditto for pretty much every tier of ability. That is very much not so. AA ensures high-up blacks are bad at their jobs, so they get shuttled into diversity outreach, far from the core competencies of the business.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  9. Of course systematic racism exists in America–but ONLY systematic racism against white people. That we have UR commenters claiming that systematic racism against BLACK people exists is incredibly, you know, demoralizing. Hey, waiiiiiiiiit a minute… dammit, do you guys ever sleep?

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @al gore rhythms
    @JimDandy

    "That we have UR commenters claiming that systematic racism against BLACK people exists is incredibly, you know, demoralizing"

    Maybe you should look on them as liberals heading towards a more realistic outlook than look on them as hard core alt right types who are starting to sell out.

    If Unz has managed to attract more liberal minded people who are willing to at least question and be challenged, isn't that a good thing?

    Replies: @JimDandy

  10. @nebulafox
    >I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.

    Huh. Negative concrete experiences that can fatally damage the life you are making for your family override gauzy academic treatises. Who'da thunk it, yo?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Bard of Bumperstickers, @The Craw

    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.

    Mr. Sailer seems to be emphasizing the “non-Americanness” as such for anti-blackism, but it has little to do with them being non-American so much as them having more daily contact with the black underclass than your average American. Indeed, as Charles Murray points out in his latest book, most white Americans live in rural, suburban, and exurban parts of America where underclass blacks are not highly present. It’s those who live in non-wealthy areas of urban America (usually downscale immigrants and such) who have the greatest amount of contact with dysfunctional blacks.

    This is precisely why GoodWhites can virtue-signal – because that virtue-signaling costs them nothing in their daily lived experiences, in the way it would cost (often heavily and viciously) for those who have frequent interactions with underclass blacks.

    For that matter, those “racist” Korean shopkeepers and Pakistani cabdrivers aren’t fools these days. There has been an exodus over the last two decades of even immigrant populations from places such as L.A. and NYC to the likes of Texas (esp. north of Dallas) and Northern Virgina super zip codes where they don’t have to deal much with the underclass blacks.

    • Agree: Alrenous, ic1000, Rich
    • Troll: Mike Tre, Clyde
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    PC beliefs in general are a status symbol of sorts. You can afford to believe in them and not have your life ruined. I suppose that makes 35 year old declassed liberals with no social networks, no family, and no prospect of gaining them the equivalent of bankrupted impoverished nobility in the pursuit of keeping up their lifestyle in opera hat era Europe. Mental illnesses abound.

    The dynamic is different with new arrivals from south of the border. They don't leave, there's too many of them and these aren't aspiring tiger parents here in the first place. So they instead beat the blacks at their own terror game and get them to leave. Cartel policy toward them is ruthless and efficient. Especially when it is a reprisal, but also when it isn't.

    (As you've noted in the past, they'll be the real security headache long term, not black rioters.)

    Maybe that's part of why the Biden administration is so desperate to put the new illegals up in random white parts of the country for trips to random red state towns across the country. Even for triple digit hotel rates, and even if they got to put up tarp to hide them shipping the migrants out down in Brownsville. Why the GOP is not blasting the crap out of this 24/7 for political effect, especially to Millennials who the government opted not to bail out for reasons of affordability, can only be attested to a mix of general pussy-tude and battered wife syndrome.

    Thing is, though, don't think it's gonna work for that specific purpose. People will go where the support networks are.

    Replies: @Alan Mercer, @Gamecock

    , @Prester John
    @Twinkie

    When I was in high school and college I used to work as a freight elevator operator in a building on Fifth Avenue, NY, in the garment district. I used to encounter many blacks--both American and West Indian--and I could sense the contempt for American blacks that the ones from the West Indies had. It was palpable even to a naive white kid from upstate NY.

    , @S
    @Twinkie


    This is precisely why GoodWhites can virtue-signal – because that virtue-signaling costs them nothing in their daily lived experiences, in the way it would cost (often heavily and viciously) for those who have frequent interactions with underclass blacks.
     
    Leaving aside entirely the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the Westward push, I'm reminded here a bit of the mentality of people back East in comparison to those actually living in the Western territories in regards to their thinking about the various Indian tribes. Those actually living out West tended to be a lot less sentimental.

    A good example of this might be the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876 where Custer and some two hundred and fifty plus under his command got slaughtered, sometimes quite literally in regards to their (hopefully) after death scalping and mutilations.

    A few weeks after the battle, the account of one of the survivors, Charles DeRudio, was published in the New York Herald thousands of miles back East, where it was quite safe and troubles with Indians were long since only a distant memory, if that. The headline in part read 'A Thrilling Tale - Romance of the Battle of the Little Big Horn..'.

    Somehow, I doubt any of those actually there who managed to survive the battle would have called it a 'romance'. They would have called it many things, I'm sure, but not that.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_DeRudio
  11. This essay from 2014 is pertinent.

    White privilege as Normative Commons
    DECEMBER 22, 2014 / BUTCH LEGHORN
    The Propertarian definition of property is expansive, it far exceeds the Lockean rationalist theory of property, which is limited merely to objects….Conservatives tend to intuit a large range of property, far beyond what Libertarians intuit. One of the most interesting forms of property, at least it should be of obvious interest to conservatives, is Informal Institutional Property:

    INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY: Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
    “Those properties in which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    A social portfolio which makes our social order possible. That sounds very important to me. Things that make our social order possible are profoundly important to me.

    No libertarian can conceive of a set of norms being a form of property, although they are something in which we invest, and something that we defend. This may seem abstract, so let us develop a concrete example of Informal Institutional Property, a normative commons with which we are all familiar: White privilege.

    White privilege is a normative commons. A norm is a standard of behavior. A commons is a property that is maintained by a group, because it brings economic benefits to the group. A normative commons is a set of behaviors that brings benefits to a group.

    [MORE]

    Many know the tragedy of the commons dilemma often quoted in Austrian economic theory. In this situation, the commons is destroyed. How is it destroyed and how is it maintained? For a commons to exist, the group must pay a cost: opportunity cost. In the grazing sheep example of the tragedy of the commons, the herders allow the field to be overgrazed and destroyed for all. Each herder who does not overgraze the field pays an opportunity cost. He has the opportunity to grab all the resources for himself, and deprive them to the next guy. When he only grazes responsibly, he forgoes the opportunity to grab all the resources for himself. Forgoing this opportunity is the opportunity cost. If everyone forgoes the opportunity cost, the commons is maintained, if they do not pay the opportunity cost, the commons is destroyed.

    In a normative commons, each person who forgoes the opportunity of breaking the norm, then pays the cost of maintaining the norms. So, when one lives in a White area, common areas such as shops (markets) will likely be open for browsing, because the norm of behavior is to not steal. Each time a White goes into a store and does not steal, he pays the opportunity cost, equal to the value of the items not stolen. By paying this cost, the norm of keeping shopping areas open to browsing is maintained. Areas with large numbers of Blacks experience increased incidence of crime. In these areas, the risk to shop owners or other providers to allow Blacks free access exceeds the benefits of open browsing (with a main benefit being increased economic velocity). Thus you see convenience stores with no common area, that only sell what can be passed through a bullet-proof teller window. The commons has been destroyed.

    Or perhaps someone will follow Blacks through a store to make sure they do not steal, while allowing Whites to browse freely, in this case the normative commons is extended to White co-ethnics, but not to Black co-ethnics. The Whites are the beneficiaries of this normative commons, because they (as a group) pay the opportunity cost of maintaining it.

    It is common knowledge that Black cab drivers will often drive past Blacks and pick up White passengers instead. This White privilege is accrued to the White ethnic group because the members of the group tend to forgo the opportunity to rob the Black cabbie. Black cabbies understand this and accord the privilege to the White ethnics who will maintain the normative commons. Blacks could earn this privilege by paying for it through maintaining the normative commons. Unfortunately for them, enough of them create the tragedy of the commons for their own co-ethnics by abusing their privilege and not forgoing the opportunity cost.

    Privilege is said to be unearned (though I doubt any form of privilege is really unearned). White privilege is not unearned. It is bought and paid for through the cost of maintaining the normative commons. To insist that the privileges accorded to Whites (who maintain the normative commons), be accorded to ethic groups who do not pay the cost of maintaining the commons is futile: market forces will ensure that the privilege is only accorded to those who pay for it. Call it racist if you want. It is simply the market at work.

    Whites as a group defend this normative commons vigorously, using education, shaming and other tactics. Most middle-class Whites will have definite memories of how they were taught not to steal, and why stealing is wrong. Though certainly none of the lessons included the concept of a normative commons or informal institutional property.

    This example should help you grasp exactly how a set of behaviors (norms) are a property. They are a property because they are defended. They are created through investment, paid for by forgoing opportunity costs. The social portfolio of these normative commons are what allows Western civilization to flourish with a stable social order. They are the tools that have led to the economic dominance of the Western peoples, and now the increasing dominance of the civilized Asian peoples, which defend a rich set of normative commons. The value of this particular property should not be underestimated.

  12. Good example of that here. Warning, it’s loud.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Altai

    I posted this video in the isteve comments a couple weeks ago. Anyone with a modicum of a clue knows that white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet, even though they have the most cause to be.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @J.Ross, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Daniel H
    @Altai

    The model minority, hah. The Cucks place their hopes in these people.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    , @AndrewR
    @Altai

    Based

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Altai


    Liaoning Flying Leopards
     
    We have [ahem] spotted one:


    https://www.hiren.info/funny/pictures/flying-leopard.jpg
  13. “I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America”

    This is such a crock of unmitigated bullshit I’m not sure you’re not just trolling to amuse yourself. for a guy who rejects Christ as the messiah you sure like to hang yourself on a cross.

    Where is this antisemitism you speak of? In show business? Wall Street? Academia? In media? In marketing? Pornography?

    Jews have positioned themselves to be the most influential minority in this country and you have the chutzpah to suggest their is widespread antisemitism? Do you really lack that much self awareness or are you just out of your mind?

    You’re a goddamned liar Jack. I don’t have any clue why any of the other more insightful commenters here give you the time of day. A goddamned liar.

    • Disagree: Bernard
    • Replies: @Bernard
    @Mike Tre


    You’re a goddamned liar Jack. I don’t have any clue why any of the other more insightful commenters here give you the time of day. A goddamned liar.

     

    I can understand disagreeing with the guy, but why go to that extreme? Personally, I enjoy his comments, he’s smart, insightful and funny. I’m glad he comes around here and I’m not even Jewish.

    There’s just no reason for that kind of anger, calm down, life is too short.

    Replies: @Redman

    , @Adept
    @Mike Tre


    Jews have positioned themselves to be the most influential minority in this country and you have the chutzpah to suggest their is widespread antisemitism?
     
    The two things are not mutually exclusive. A minority can be -- and, in fact, they often are -- both influential and despised at the same time. This isn't limited to Jews; the Chinese in S.E. Asia, the Indians in Madagascar (~30k people who purportedly control the majority of the nation's economy), the Japanese in Peru, and others, also exemplify this. These minorities can be politically powerful and economically successful -- but this makes them more, not less, likely to be widely disliked if things are going poorly.
  14. @Altai
    Good example of that here. Warning, it's loud.

    https://twitter.com/Byron_Wan/status/1483666385125654532

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Daniel H, @AndrewR, @Reg Cæsar

    I posted this video in the isteve comments a couple weeks ago. Anyone with a modicum of a clue knows that white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet, even though they have the most cause to be.

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet
     
    1. I guess you are not a white gentile, then, huh?

    2. Stated preferences are not revealed preferences. Have you looked at the residential segregation data by race lately (or the past 60 years or ever)? Don't confuse GoodWhite virtue-signaling with GoodWhite actual-choices.

    But worry not. The yellows, being highly imitative, are on-game and are hard at work to be GoodAsians: "Her House is like Small Africa in Korea"

    https://youtu.be/797FKZ4IeNk

    Replies: @JMcG, @Mike Tre

    , @J.Ross
    @Mike Tre

    Possibly it's about tact? Japanese and Koreans are painstakingly tactful. Chinese have no tact at all.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Mike Tre

    Which is why we're being destroyed.

    Everyone here keeps trying to prove that what Jack wrote was wrong. They're missing the point entirely.

    The point is that they shouldn't care if Jack is right. Whites have no obligation to accept or be nice to any other group in our communities/societies. The same is true with every other race or ethnicity or group of any kind on the planet.

  15. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.

    This is Jack D’s usual Jews-as-perpetual-victims shtick and strawman attacks combined in one.

    Who exactly denies that anti-Semitism has never existed in America? It seems to me that the position of most people categorized as “anti-Semites” by the likes of Jack D (including me) is that:

    1. Historically, Jews were despised in much of the world and, yes, often were targets of violence, not just because of their religious differences and lack of assimilation, but also because they often enriched themselves from “middle-man” roles such as tax-farming in Eastern Europe through which they ingratiated themselves with the ruling aristocracy while oppressing and immiserating the peasantry.

    2. Notwithstanding this history elsewhere, the United States has been exceptionally tolerant and open to Jewish immigrants and their progeny, with the founding president of the country, one George Washington, explicitly stating in his letter to a Jewish community in the country: “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

    3. To the extent that Jews suffered from discrimination in the U.S., it has been generally much milder than that in other countries and, in this country, no worse – and frequently much less egregious – than those suffered by other ethnic groups.

    4. The net result being that Jews were able to achieve and ascend to the heights of power and dominance in this country, with prominent and even overwhelming overrepresentation in media, entertainment, finance, government, law, and academia.

    5. And despite such toleration and acceptance (and even admiration from many quarters), Jews have been at the forefront of various political and ideological movements to criticize and overturn the established (and hitherto very beneficial) social ethos, morality, and traditions of this country all the while and simultaneously proclaiming themselves as the victims and maintaining themselves as ruling elites of this country.

    As I wrote to him recently, whining is generally unattractive, but it becomes repulsive when done by those on top.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Twinkie

    Anti-semitism in America has ebbed and flowed. During colonial times and thru the 1st few decades of the 19th century, Jews in America were a small community and mostly Sephardic and well accepted. Starting in the 1840s, a fair # of German Jews came along with a large German Christian migration that filled the cities of the Midwest. This group was also fairly well accepted although General Grant is well known for his anti-Semitic General Order #11.

    But the arrival of great masses of unwashed Jews from E. Europe in the late 19th/early 20th century triggered a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon. Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc. to an extent that is literally unimaginable to Americans today. When I said that people here denied that, I was referring in particular to that period.

    After WWII, "polite" anti-Semitism fell into disrepute because it became associated with the "impolite" kind that the Nazis practiced, although its last vestiges lingered on for decades more.


    That Jews in America were able to thrive despite the obstacles does not mean that the obstacles did not exist. Jews were able to carve out niches such as Hollywood because film was a brand new industry where there was no existing establishment set up to keep Jews out. I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr.
    @Twinkie

    Jews have been at the forefront of various political and ideological movements to criticize and overturn the established (and hitherto very beneficial) social ethos, morality, and traditions of this country all

    Jews have been at the forefront of many things, both good and bad. One might argue, plausibly, that this is simply a function of thier higher intelligence.

    When they talk about Jews, white gentiles who are hard-core anti-semites sound a lot like Al Sharpton talking about white gentiles, only their arguments at least rise to the level of speciousness.

    I have never really been a true believer in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    , @Hibernian
    @Twinkie


    "...—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
     
    This.

    Problem is with people who don't want to just be free to live their own lives, but want to run other peoples' lives.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Twinkie


    1. Historically, Jews were despised in much of the world and, yes, often were targets of violence, not just because of their religious differences and lack of assimilation, but also because they often enriched themselves from “middle-man” roles such as tax-farming in Eastern Europe through which they ingratiated themselves with the ruling aristocracy while oppressing and immiserating the peasantry.
     
    Thanks Twinkie--for this whole--clear, succinct--comment.

    Jews have a very high level of internal propaganda--a "religious level"?--about themselves. Promotes internal cohesion. Some Jews really seem to believe that Jews--uniquely among all peoples of the world--have not earned their stereotypes and other peoples' attitudes toward them.

    And it's notable that even many intelligent Jews don't seem to have bothered to think very objectively about their middleman minority role--the nature of the interactions with the host population, and the negative impact upon the host society.

    Thomas Sowell pointed out--somewhere in his trilogy--that there are some good reasons why middlemen are often minorities:
    1) ethnic cohesion can create higher trust business networks--providing better information flow and credit; the ethnic link providing/forcing a higher level of trust/reliability
    but also
    2) precisely because the minority is not part of the community, they are unconstrained by family and community relationships dealing with the host population and can be more objective/efficient/harder about pricing and credit. In other words they can be "un-nice" guys--assholes. But then the flip side of that ... you're an asshole!

    I'd argue that middleman minorities--while a successful morph (game theory solution)--are bad for the host society, both its development and its cohesion. But there's no crime in being a middleman minority.

    However, if you are a middleman minority, other people's attitudes toward you are part of the package. right along with the profits. The benefits come with a cost.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox, @Paperback Writer

  16. Anon[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @J1234
    Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?

    That question is important when pondering the difference between most of the post-1960's (when leftism became commonplace and conspicuous in the free world, but not dominant or omnipotent) and the last 15 years or so (with the rise of the mass cult of wokeness.) It used to be that racial justice was just one of many issues that the left tried to balance against each other. Now it dominates, for a variety of reasons, some of them very underhanded.

    I understand that racial "equity" will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry, but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children - one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have - take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races? When you take care of your children, others don't have to, and you can demonstrate your love for your children in a way that they can understand. People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals.

    Replies: @Anon, @Alrenous, @ben tillman, @bomag, @JimDandy, @Rob

    but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children – one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have – take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races?

    What if one doesn’t have any children (increasingly true of many Whites)? Does your argument crumble?

    • Replies: @J1234
    @Anon


    What if one doesn’t have any children
     
    That should be obvious. They're irrelevant. There are millions of liberal white parents who talk like blacks are the most important thing in the world, but they live their lives to the contrary.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @bomag
    @Anon

    I'd presume they have near relatives with children they care about; or distant relatives with children; or friends; or friends of friends; etc.

  17. Counselor Jack D, as he is wont to do, pretends common words and phrases don’t mean what they actually mean (e.g. “founding stock”). In this case, he’s pretending the well-known shibboleth concept “systemic racism” is meant to describe what is actually merely (practiced discretely and discreetly, by his given examples) natural racism or quotidian racism.

    Part of Jack’s confusion/dishonesty is his attempt to uncouple “systemic racism” with its synonym “institutional racism”. Commenter Sam Malone’s rebuttal was correct, and worth highlighting by Steve. Words matter.

  18. “your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males – your life may depend up on it.”

    Not to mention that cab drivers are trying hard to make a living and blacks are notorious for leaving skimpy tips or none at all.

    • Agree: Rich
  19. there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance

    The thing you’re supposed to say to this is “no no no no” but I’ve never found this to be a useful way to react. It gets your dander up and guarantees you’ll continue to be what is being so assertively rejected. I mention it so that you know that I know what you’re supposed to do, and I’m consciously refusing it.

    If you give a child unlimited candy, you’re giving them what they ask for, but nobody says you’re on the child’s side. You’re obviously trying to make them sick.

    Why is this not obvious when Progressives give Bantu all the candy they ask for? Is a single twist of sophistication a step too far for (what we’ll call) a certain class?

    It’s really important to define your terms. Jack D is having trouble because he didn’t define his terms, and as a result equivocates a lot, by accident.

    Because America is anti-intellectual, it is likely he will avidly refuse to define his terms. Now I’ve pointed out the fallacy, he is likely to double down on the specific confusions he accidentally embraced.

    P.S. Fun fact, Progressivism depends heavily on you failing to define your terms, so they can play e.g. play motte/bailey without you immediately noticing they’ve moved the goalposts.

    Sailer and Malone correctly notice the problem with [systemic] but not the problem with [racism].

    As an example, let’s define racism as racial spite. And spite as unjustified violent urges.

    Bantu are not a threat to European Progressives. Why do they keep poisoning them and/or spiking their murder rate? Answer: spite. Conclusion: racist.

    It turns out killing with kindness is far deadlier than killing with guns.

    If you instead define [racism] as facing harsh circumstances as a result of your race, then it turns out physics is racist, which means biology is racist, which means society is racist.

    To be more precise, it is often used like this: [racism] means being treated unfairly worse, where [unfair] means your personal average expectation is lower than the wide-scope average, whether that’s justified or not.
    (Notice this helps low-resolution thinkers. If you prefer to forget that sub-distinctions exist, then you have to work with only one average, usually the widest-scope one.)

    It is very true that Bantu-Americans face a different average expectation than Anglo-Americans. They see a system of racial bias, except of course you need to define [bias], and typically also define [see]…
    It is also true that they are systemically attacked (“discriminated against”) by the system.

    Look guys, it’s really important to define your terms.

    You can only get away with not defining your terms if you talk to folk who are nearly identical to you. In which case, why are you talking to them? You already know what they’re thinking, and they already know what you’re thinking.

    P.P.S. In a sense the “no no no no” thing is fine. You can not tell them, and they won’t know. You can tell them nicely, and they won’t know a fortiori. You can tell them rudely…and they won’t know a fortiori, but this time on purpose, to spite you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Alrenous

    Slavery reparations are going to happen, but it will be in the form of a fund managed by non-blacks that will dispense small amounts of money to individuals on a per-need basis. Progressives know very well that giving the money directly to blacks will be a disaster because it will immediately flow in to the pockets of non-blacks (electrical/automotive/jewellery/etc retailers) and within a few years blacks will be as poor as ever.

  20. @Altai
    Good example of that here. Warning, it's loud.

    https://twitter.com/Byron_Wan/status/1483666385125654532

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Daniel H, @AndrewR, @Reg Cæsar

    The model minority, hah. The Cucks place their hopes in these people.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Daniel H

    Exactly. The China-philia on this website in particular is mind boggling as it's essentially asking to trade one master for another.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

  21. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.

    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Gentilism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of a few vulgar “Christmas” movies. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Gentilic themselves – go figure.

    • Thanks: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Mr. Anon

    Perfectly done. Thank you.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Mr. Anon

    This is a humorous rejoinder to Jack's defense of "systemic racism", but it brings up an important point.

    If "systemic racism" doesn't mean "institutional racism" but rather means something like "casual—and perhaps perfectly rational—choices made by self-interested individuals on an ongoing basis including on matters of very little gravity" (which seems to stretch the definition of "systemic", but never mind), then everyone does this to some extent, including—and perhaps especially—blacks and Jews.

    So if everyone does it, why is it only a concern when it is done to the disadvantage of blacks (and per Jack, Jews)?

    I can think of several possible answers to this of varying levels of charitability, but for the integrity of Jack's argument, the reasons are merely academic. Either "systemic racism" is institutional and objective, in which case it is obviously against whites, or it is diffuse and subjective, in which case everyone does it, so everyone is guilty. In the latter case, one could argue that some are more guilty than others, but if so, it would be very hard to argue that foundational stock whites are the most guilty of all.

    Since none of this is addressed by the promoters of "systemic racism", as it would be if they were arguing in good faith, it is fair to conclude that it is really just another technique of white dispossession.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Jack D

  22. @Altai
    Good example of that here. Warning, it's loud.

    https://twitter.com/Byron_Wan/status/1483666385125654532

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Daniel H, @AndrewR, @Reg Cæsar

    Based

  23. @J1234
    Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?

    That question is important when pondering the difference between most of the post-1960's (when leftism became commonplace and conspicuous in the free world, but not dominant or omnipotent) and the last 15 years or so (with the rise of the mass cult of wokeness.) It used to be that racial justice was just one of many issues that the left tried to balance against each other. Now it dominates, for a variety of reasons, some of them very underhanded.

    I understand that racial "equity" will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry, but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children - one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have - take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races? When you take care of your children, others don't have to, and you can demonstrate your love for your children in a way that they can understand. People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals.

    Replies: @Anon, @Alrenous, @ben tillman, @bomag, @JimDandy, @Rob

    It is not at all surprising that politicians will try this sort of propaganda.

    What’s mysterious is that they’re not consistently jeered out of the room at the first hint of it.

    “Theft is good actually.”
    “Okay.”

    We expect the thief to try this, sure. What we don’t expect is for their victim to buy the line and obediently hand over his wallet.
    Or maybe we do if we’ve read our Nietzsche? Slave morality.

  24. The Establishment has established this antiquarian narrative — 1619 and all that — about how the roots of racism are the evildoing of the ancestors of white Americans

    Didn’t Arabs a 1,000 years ago describe Blacks in terms we would recognize today? And I believe the Chinese explorers who went to east Africa had similar reports.

    Maybe someone can back this up. It would be good to show this was a universal opinion long before America was even known to Europe.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    Didn’t Arabs a 1,000 years ago describe Blacks in terms we would recognize today? And I believe the Chinese explorers who went to east Africa had similar reports.

    Maybe someone can back this up. It would be good to show this was a universal opinion long before America was even known to Europe.
     
    Yes, that would be interesting to see.

    Early European reports of contacts with African blacks are usefully assembled in the notorious collection The Negroes in Negroland (1868). But I know of nothing similar from Arab or Asian sources.
    , @Kratoklastes
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    Didn’t Arabs a 1,000 years ago describe Blacks in terms we would recognize today? And I believe the Chinese explorers who went to east Africa had similar reports.
     
    Around the time that they got their arses kicked at Teutoberger Wald (2013 years ago), the Romans said the same sorts of things about Germans, too - but now Krauts build better cars than Wops, and Kraut engineering makes Wop engineering look Stone Age.

    The Romans said more or less the same sort of shit about the inhabitants of Britannia, Gaul, and Iberia.

    Long-term, betting on the Romans turned out to be a bad thing to do. They're near the bottom of the League Tables nowadays (they're still above Iberia: something something warmer climate, although the Spanish and Portguese Empires were bigger than Rome at the relevant times).

    More recently - as recently as the 1970s - 'researchers' said the same thing about the Irish (claiming that the Irish had an average IQ about equal to US blacks).

    It turns out that there's always someone prepared to produce a 'study' that reinforces the money-men's prejudices. (The subsequent trajectory of Irish IQ estimates shows that environment matters).

    In no way am I asserting that the future lies with the blacks: their cognitive shortcomings - which seem to be split broadly-evenly between genetics and environment - mean that they have almost nobody in the cognitive 'Goldilocks Zone' (IQ between 120 and 140) required for technological innovation.

    Worse still: even if the environment component was eliminated (i.e., the environment was improved to the extent that only positive effects remained) there's little prospect of Africa getting to 'critical mass' in the Goldilocks IQ range.

    Critical mass doesn't seem to be a very big proportion of the population: Europeans gave humanity the Industrial Revolution and everything that sprang therefrom, with a population in which a little under 10% of the population has an IQ above 120 - and most of those weren't working on shit of any relevance whatsoever.

    The key question for Africa - the thing that gets them out of the dependency vortex - is whether or not they can get to a stage where their Smart Fraction is large enough to
     • implement technology that already exists; and
     • maintain what they implement.

    The cognitive cutoff for that is a far more achievable goal - getting to roughly 10% of the population having an IQ above 107 (for Europeans, about a third of people have an IQ above 107).

    If current estimates of African IQ are correct (i.e., that SSA has a mean IQ of 70-75) then the current proportion of people in SSA with IQ > 107 is 1-2% of the population.

    To get to 10% of the population above 107, requires an average IQ of 88 - slightly smarter than the estimates for US blacks and 1970s Irishmen.

    (All of the proportions involve an IQ measure that has a standard deviation of 15 - which is implausibly high when the mean is this low, because of the required lower bound for the ability to wipe one's own arse).

    Replies: @Anonymous

  25. Anonymous[280] • Disclaimer says:

    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.

    No, that is a total misrepresentation. People here do not say there was no anti-Jewish animus and anxiety in American history and life. They say ‘antisemitism’ hardly counts as one of the tragic chapters of America History. It’s not like Jews were wiped out like the American Indians. Or used as slaves as blacks were. Or exploited like Chinese workers building railroads. Or treated like German-Americans during WWI and especially Japanese Americans during WWII. Indeed, it’s telling that one of the recurring themes of Jewish victimization in the US are about country clubs. (Though Jewishness isn’t usually invoked, the hysteria about the Red Scare is also largely about the cult of Jewish victimization.) Other peoples had much bigger things to worry about. Furthermore, certain anti-Jewish sentiments were understandable. Jews cheated so many black entertainers and athletes who could barely read and write. Of course, people like Farrakhan grew up with hostile feelings toward Jews.

    There’s another thing Jews don’t want to talk about. Much of the negative experience Jews often experienced came not from Wasps but from fellow immigrant ethnics. And from blacks who robbed Jews as often as Jews exploited blacks. If a Jewish kid got beaten up in some part of NY, it was more likely a bunch of Poles, Irish Catholics, Italians, or blacks than Wasps. Read some of the accounts of Jewish Life in 20th century New York or Chicago, and it’s often about Jews getting roughed up NOT by wasps but other elements. If anything, an aspiring Jew was likely to get a more sympathetic ear from wasps on top than Italians, Poles, Irish, and blacks on the bottom kicking their butt.

    So, why have Jews focused on Wasps and country clubs? Because Jews aspired to rise above the ethnics and blacks and take over from Wasps. So, Jews had to create the impression of unity among Jews, ethnics, and blacks against Wasps who supposedly had it all. Wasps had what Jews wanted, and Jews needed allies among non-Wasps.
    It’s like Jews try to suppress their tensions with the Arab-American and Muslim community to prop up the illusion of an alliance of Jews and People of Color against ‘white supremacism’. It’s also why Jews don’t make a big fuss about the very tragic Latin American history where entire indigenous populations were wiped out by Spanish Europeans; also many more blacks were shipped to Latin America. Jews need white Hispanics as allies against White America. So, even white Hispanics get to pass as ‘people of color’ and join with Jews and nonwhites against whites. It’s very strategic. Notice how Jews are even allied with certain far-right elements in Ukraine tainted with Nazi history.

    Furthermore, it was Philosemitism that led to America’s great crimes against Russia and the Arab World. Philosemitism blinded America to Zionist crimes in the Near East. Philosemitism keeps US politicians barking at Russia even though so much of Russian foreign policy since 2000 is best understood as reaction to Jewish oligarchic plunder of that country in the 90s. But because of Philosemitism, Jewish Hatred gets a pass and goes on dominating US foreign policy that has done so much damage.

    Nice try, except that your own examples – such as the landlord preferring non-black tenants, or the Sikh cab driver choosing not to pick up young black males – clearly demonstrate that the prejudice which exists in America today against blacks is the opposite of systemic as that term is meant to be understood by most people.

    It’s telling that there’s so much focus on negative feelings toward blacks but total silence about black hostility, hatred, and violence against non-blacks. For sure, there is systemic black violence and thuggery all across America. BLM is systematized violence and intimidation. It’s systemic because so many blacks feel they are above the law due to ‘muh slavery’. And it’s also systematic because it has the backing of Jewish Power that dominates the US. Jerry Nadler lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon a Jewish terrorist radical. That vile wench supervises a wing of BLM.

    In a sane society, no moral defense is necessary for common sense reaction to black behavior. After all, white/Jewish so-called ‘liberals’ took part in White Flight and Gentrification. On some level, they know the reality.
    Then, the problem isn’t ‘systemic racism’, but systemic mendacity, hypocrisy, and venality. It is a fact that blacks are far more violence-prone than any other group. The only sensible explanation is evolution and racial differences. But the culture of systemic deception makes people pretend a total retard thug like Floyd was some kind of saint. But in a country where the likes of Abe Foxman are allowed to serve as moral watchdogs and where the ethno-monopolistic media refer to SPLC for tips on the baddies, what does anyone expect?

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Gordo
    @Anonymous

    There are more country clubs that exclude non-Jews than exclude Jews, although I believe one of them made an exception for recently retired Ronald Reagan.

    , @Rich
    @Anonymous

    American Indians weren't wiped out and there are more Indians alive and living on reservations then were in the continental US at the founding of Jamestown. As well as the many Indians who integrated into White society and disappeared into the great mass. Friendly Indian tribes worked with and often intermarried with the Europeans, unfriendly tribes who violated treaties, or waged war on Whites and lost were simply driven onto reservations after they lost.

  26. @Mike Tre
    @Altai

    I posted this video in the isteve comments a couple weeks ago. Anyone with a modicum of a clue knows that white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet, even though they have the most cause to be.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @J.Ross, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet

    1. I guess you are not a white gentile, then, huh?

    2. Stated preferences are not revealed preferences. Have you looked at the residential segregation data by race lately (or the past 60 years or ever)? Don’t confuse GoodWhite virtue-signaling with GoodWhite actual-choices.

    But worry not. The yellows, being highly imitative, are on-game and are hard at work to be GoodAsians: “Her House is like Small Africa in Korea”

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Twinkie

    Twinkie, I hope for everybody’s sake that those two guys aren’t considered to be the flowers of Korean manhood.

    , @Mike Tre
    @Twinkie

    Instead of skewing the subject why don't you just state who you believe to be less racially bigoted? As if I don't know who you'll say.

    Take a hike. You are cast from the same mold as Jack D.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  27. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up.

    How much of this is “racism”, and how much “sexism”? Most of us white guys have been avoided at times simply due to our sex.

    this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans

    Crowdsourcing. The meatspace Wikipedia.

  28. @Altai
    Good example of that here. Warning, it's loud.

    https://twitter.com/Byron_Wan/status/1483666385125654532

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Daniel H, @AndrewR, @Reg Cæsar

    Liaoning Flying Leopards

    We have [ahem] spotted one:

  29. OT The Sum of All Fears: what would they do if our leading doctors were Bolsheviks, who thought that they were kings legally, in the midst of a preventable plague? Well, they would set out to cure us, of course. From an Australian anon (happy Australia day by the way, remember per the ad campaign that it is a day to celebrate).

    What is Moral Enhancement (ME) and Moral Bioenhancement (MBE)?
    — is the use of biomedical technology to morally improve people
    — is a recent topic in neuroethics, involving the ethics of neuroscience as well as the neuroscience of ethics

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_bioenhancement

    In this lecture[0] from Dr. Parker Crutchfield (February 14th 2019), he argues that universal mandatory covert bioenhancement[1] is justified because:
    — people are bad
    — planet is getting warmer
    — more bad people have better access to more harmful means of destruction
    — we are a trajectory toward ‘ultimate harm’ because of bad people
    — ‘ultimate harm’ is defined as: ‘Widespread death and suffering – so much that death may be preferable. The nearly total eradication of the species.’
    — in his words: ‘the utility of preventing ultimate harm is greater than the risk of not doing anything’
    — if we can prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do that thing. (Singer)

    [0] https://y[DELETETHIS]outu.be/watch?v=hYrutd0tp4I
    [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30989673/

  30. @Change that Matters

    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America
     
    Same for Australia.

    Around 30 years ago I attended a local fair at which some aborigines did a dance. Accompanying my wife and I were another couple who dragged along their visiting Chinese mother/mother-in-law. When she saw the dance, the Chinese woman started to laugh uproariously and shouted out loudly that they looked like monkeys. At one point she even mimicked them.

    You would have been hard pressed to find a white in attendance who would have thought such things about the First Invaders, let alone voiced them.

    Of course, it's Australia (Invasion) Day today, so we have wall-to-wall coverage of smoking ceremonies fabricated in the 70s with terrified whites looking on reverentially.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Clyde, @jay ritchie

    1) I remember well having been called a dancing monkey or an ape myself quite often in 1970 ff.****

    2) As a kid, I was out of my head about a monkey-drummer, my mother gave as an easter present. I lvoved that thing to death (I remember this state of mind and the monkey which had a mechanism in it and did indeed drum! vividly – so I was most likely three or our years old then). – My parents had a dancehall with live music (The Dominos; The Steidel Brothers… always THE). I loved the drums I could hear when I was brought to bed in the neighboring house.

    **** In my case it was’t that far off from what I did, admittedly. – All can say though is, that the girls liked it quite a bit. Utterly beautiful ones too, which was a very interesting – and intense-experience.

  31. @J.Ross
    OT Protests in Ukraine over tax hikes and crushing business regulations (remember, the hetman is a US-installed billionaire. How does Jeff Bezos or the Walton family feel about small business?). Who could have foreseen that Ukraine was self-defeatingly corrupt and politically divided -- oh, that's right, literally everyone actually familiar with the situation. The dumbest thing about this very dumb situation is this happened before. The Russian-installed guy (whom Nuland replaced with the current oligarch) was a replacement for an earlier IMF/globohomo effort, which collapsed because of self-defeating, runaway corruption.
    Source is RT but if you trust American media over RT you probably think Saddam Hussein had nukes. Hugh Hewitt (intelligent on other matters, but a credentialist, and a worshipper of respectability, a man who wants to be invited to the right parties and at a time when the elite are aberrantly inept) reminds you that Putin only wants to invade Ukraine as a stepping stone to Belgium.

    protesters attempt to storm Ukranian parliament.
    Business owners have been protesting for months against changes to the tax system that took effect this year.
    Chaotic scenes unfolded in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev on Tuesday, as representatives of small and medium-sized businesses tried to break into the building of the Ukrainian parliament – Verkhovna Rada.
    Photos and videos that surfaced on social media showed a crowd of people waving Ukrainian national flags and various other banners marching through the center of Kiev.
    Three protesters and 18 police officers were injured in the fracas, the police said in a statement. At least 20 protesters were detained, according to the media.
     
    25 Jan, 2022
    https://www.rt.com/russia/547344-kiev-protest-business-parliament-storm/

    Replies: @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

    This doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy where people still have the right to protest. Looking forward to RT coverage of similar protests in Moscow and Belarus.

    The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (for good reason) , along with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of the press, enshrines the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Is everyone in Russia so damn happy with Czar Putin and his totally not corrupt government that they have no desire to protest over anything or are they afraid of what would happen to them if they did?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    >It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy
    Nope.
    Reminder that as part of the Clankening (the State Department riots) they killed police officers, one by immolation, with firemen kept away. Ukraine has no democratic tradition apart from an aberrant start in ancient history (which was also marked by self-defeating corruption).
    >no such protests in Russia or Belarus
    You omit Kazakhstan, where "farmers" showed up at the capital with weapons and proceeded efficiently to choke points. I certainly hope we don't see State Department riots anywhere.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Paperback Writer

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy where people still have the right to protest.
     
    Can we focus on getting that for our country right now?

    Is everyone in Russia so damn happy with Czar Putin
     
    Why are you so obsessed with this one particular nation and leader? By the way, we’re not living in the past where a few people could push a propaganda story that gets millions of white working class people killed.
    , @JMcG
    @Jack D

    Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose there are clear and unambiguous indications of vote fraud in the midterms or in ‘24. Perhaps Biden wins with 200 million votes next time, just to be sure. Would you dare to show up in DC to protest? They’ll probably still have people awaiting trial for 1/6 by then.
    Now, imagined Trump wins in ‘24. Picture the riots. Do you think there would be a single political conviction?
    I imagine you could have a gigantic pro-Putin rally in Moscow any time you like.
    It’s hard to believe a man of your experience can be so naive, Jack. Equal protection under the law is long gone in the USA, and with it, representational democracy.

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727


    A group of more than 40 human rights activists have filed a petition with the High Court of Justice, demanding the cessation of Israeli arms exports to Ukraine.

    They argue that these weapons serve forces that openly espouse a neo-Nazi ideology and cite evidence that the right-wing Azov militia, whose members are part of Ukraine’s armed forces, and are supported by the country’s ministry of internal affairs, is using these weapons.
     
    But Nazism is OK by Jack D, even Mother Teresa would become a Nazi, so it doesn't matter. It just depends which side the Nazis are on.

    Replies: @Jack D

  32. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6907f69c-abfb-4834-9e54-9cf8894ce3e9

    A one-second video (!). Phrenology had a centuries-long run as a pseudo-science; charts of “good faces” and “bad faces” purporting to show a relation between physical appearance and underlying traits. Now discredited. But maybe many who engage in individual acts of racism do so because, at some level, they are correlating. Maybe they feel they have a “trained eye” from personal experience or media.

  33. @Twinkie

    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.
     
    This is Jack D's usual Jews-as-perpetual-victims shtick and strawman attacks combined in one.

    Who exactly denies that anti-Semitism has never existed in America? It seems to me that the position of most people categorized as "anti-Semites" by the likes of Jack D (including me) is that:

    1. Historically, Jews were despised in much of the world and, yes, often were targets of violence, not just because of their religious differences and lack of assimilation, but also because they often enriched themselves from "middle-man" roles such as tax-farming in Eastern Europe through which they ingratiated themselves with the ruling aristocracy while oppressing and immiserating the peasantry.

    2. Notwithstanding this history elsewhere, the United States has been exceptionally tolerant and open to Jewish immigrants and their progeny, with the founding president of the country, one George Washington, explicitly stating in his letter to a Jewish community in the country: "May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

    3. To the extent that Jews suffered from discrimination in the U.S., it has been generally much milder than that in other countries and, in this country, no worse - and frequently much less egregious - than those suffered by other ethnic groups.

    4. The net result being that Jews were able to achieve and ascend to the heights of power and dominance in this country, with prominent and even overwhelming overrepresentation in media, entertainment, finance, government, law, and academia.

    5. And despite such toleration and acceptance (and even admiration from many quarters), Jews have been at the forefront of various political and ideological movements to criticize and overturn the established (and hitherto very beneficial) social ethos, morality, and traditions of this country all the while and simultaneously proclaiming themselves as the victims and maintaining themselves as ruling elites of this country.

    As I wrote to him recently, whining is generally unattractive, but it becomes repulsive when done by those on top.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr., @Hibernian, @AnotherDad

    Anti-semitism in America has ebbed and flowed. During colonial times and thru the 1st few decades of the 19th century, Jews in America were a small community and mostly Sephardic and well accepted. Starting in the 1840s, a fair # of German Jews came along with a large German Christian migration that filled the cities of the Midwest. This group was also fairly well accepted although General Grant is well known for his anti-Semitic General Order #11.

    But the arrival of great masses of unwashed Jews from E. Europe in the late 19th/early 20th century triggered a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon. Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc. to an extent that is literally unimaginable to Americans today. When I said that people here denied that, I was referring in particular to that period.

    After WWII, “polite” anti-Semitism fell into disrepute because it became associated with the “impolite” kind that the Nazis practiced, although its last vestiges lingered on for decades more.

    That Jews in America were able to thrive despite the obstacles does not mean that the obstacles did not exist. Jews were able to carve out niches such as Hollywood because film was a brand new industry where there was no existing establishment set up to keep Jews out. I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon
     
    Gee, I wonder why that was. I suppose the whole world was just stupidly evil.

    Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc.
     
    They weren't restricted. There were some barriers, but those barriers were hardly insurmountable. If they were, Henry Morgenthau wouldn't have been able to attend Exeter and Cornell and then go on to become the Secretary of Treasury through these supposedly horrifyingly anti-Semitic 30's when he was put in charge of designing the New Deal to remake the entire nation's economy and financing America's entry into World War II.

    I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.
     
    Then why do you keep bringing up this very "mild" discrimination Jews underwent here, tying it to supposed systemic discrimination against blacks? Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of "WASPs" in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions. The Germans were ostracized during World War I (one of my wife's grandmothers spoke German at home with her own grandparents and were told not to do so outside during this time). The Italians were despised as dirty wogs. The Japanese were mass-interned (while some of their children were dying in droves trying to prove their loyalty to America in war). And let's not forget about American Indians who suffered mass-extinction as peoples. It goes on and on.

    So trying to push tales of Jewish suffering America and selling the Jews as the Victim-est People Ever are just bound to invite negative reaction, not just here, but even among "normies" (if in private and muted terms). That's why "anti-Semitism" is "on the rise" today.

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about "anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real," how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic. Sure, it hasn't been all wonderful, but its flaws are small and its munificence large, so let's appreciate it. That's certainly what I say about Asians (or insert any immigrant group here) when I hear complaints about how America has been just terrible, terrible for them.

    I love this country. This country has been great to me and millions of others who have come here from other shores. I am willing to die for the country, so that my children can inherit it as I found it. I revere its founders and those who came after (and before me) who built it. How about you do the same even sitting on that perch as the most dominant, influential, and powerful minority group ever? How about a little noblesse oblige?

    Replies: @Technite78, @Achmed E. Newman, @JimDandy, @anonymous, @anonymous

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    So what?

    I don't owe you or Jews in general anything, neither do white gentiles in general, just as Jews don't owe me or my people anything.

    We never had a moral obligation to accept Jews (or blacks or Asians or anyone else) into our society or institutions or country for that matter, just as Jews don't have to accept us, something Jews make very clear.

    The only question is whether enough gentile whites will re-learn this lesson in time.

  34. @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    This doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy where people still have the right to protest. Looking forward to RT coverage of similar protests in Moscow and Belarus.

    The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (for good reason) , along with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of the press, enshrines the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Is everyone in Russia so damn happy with Czar Putin and his totally not corrupt government that they have no desire to protest over anything or are they afraid of what would happen to them if they did?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @JMcG, @Paperback Writer

    >It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy
    Nope.
    Reminder that as part of the Clankening (the State Department riots) they killed police officers, one by immolation, with firemen kept away. Ukraine has no democratic tradition apart from an aberrant start in ancient history (which was also marked by self-defeating corruption).
    >no such protests in Russia or Belarus
    You omit Kazakhstan, where “farmers” showed up at the capital with weapons and proceeded efficiently to choke points. I certainly hope we don’t see State Department riots anywhere.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @J.Ross

    "You omit Kazakhstan"

    The NED coup that failed.

    "Ukraine"

    It's a gangster state; a foreign aid cash cow for elite American politicians and their shiftless, dullard offspring.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri

    , @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/george-kennan-russia-insights-and-recommendations


    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States. Who can say what the final status of the Ukraine should be unless he knows the character of the Russia to which the adjustment will have to be made? As for the satellite states: they must, and will, recover their full independence; but they will not assure themselves of a stable and promising future if they make the mistake of proceeding from feelings of revenge and hatred toward the Russian people who have shared their tragedy, and if they try to base that future on the exploitation of the initial difficulties of a well-intentioned Russian regime struggling to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism. (Foreign Affairs, 04.01.51)
     

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jack D

  35. @Mike Tre
    @Altai

    I posted this video in the isteve comments a couple weeks ago. Anyone with a modicum of a clue knows that white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet, even though they have the most cause to be.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @J.Ross, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Possibly it’s about tact? Japanese and Koreans are painstakingly tactful. Chinese have no tact at all.

  36. @J.Ross
    Systemic racism is a Marxian bull#&%@ like sexual objectification or the labor theory of value or the collapse of capitalism. It's a con and the correct response is to slap it away as a con. It is a disguise for the command, "recognize that I control you." (Priesthood schtick: "You're dirty, yes? You get clean by doing what I say.") You get no points for dirtying yourself with this mental nettle and no Marxist will ever be moved by your reasoning. Reject forcememes, debunking shills means you are still giving them a (you).

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Systemic racism sounds technical and thus invites people to accept the term, because it lifts things up to a rather impersonal – and a little bit spooky (=catchy!) level: It’s not you, it’s something that’s happening behind our backs.

    Systemic racism logically (or: organically) somehow culminated in the socio-psychological concepts of a) Unconscious Bias and b) Critical Race Theory ((a) founded b)).

    The unconscious part is interesting too, because it helps very well to make everything suspicious that you do. – And since it’s looked upon as (at least in part) happening sub- or unconscious, it can be discussed in a rather relaxed way, because it can be – hm: sold – as something that is not personal. The mode then is: It’s not you, you’re a good person, it’s that we as a society have to move forward (= to make progress) – and we invite you to come along – to a better future (by buying our ideas).

    Thus everyday life is pumped up with lots of secrets and lots of unknown emotionally loaded secrecy. – A re-sacralisation of everyday life (which somehow culminated with George Floyd’s death. Seen from that angle, Derek Chauvins incarceration is a present day proto-religious sacrifice (= a necessity).

    Another one of the big effects of this method/ approach is that it covers/ overpaints / devalues billions of quite real everyday experiences.

    Seen from an (extremely) well-meaning perspective, this dynamic could be understood to keep optimism up in a tendentially unpleasant situation. – In other words: A way to release (or even heal – remember: We’re in extremely blue-eyed territory here) – – to heal tensions on the basis of the old de-escalating insight, the brighter one should give in (in German it’s a well known saying: Der Klügere gibt nach).

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
    @Dieter Kief


    Der Klügere gibt nach
     
    Thinking oneself smarter than the other guy while losing the argument to him sounds like virtue signalling and, worse, a bad way of coping. Then again, enough people conforming to this particular wisdom goes a long way in explaining the state of the world.
  37. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    This doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy where people still have the right to protest. Looking forward to RT coverage of similar protests in Moscow and Belarus.

    The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (for good reason) , along with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of the press, enshrines the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Is everyone in Russia so damn happy with Czar Putin and his totally not corrupt government that they have no desire to protest over anything or are they afraid of what would happen to them if they did?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @JMcG, @Paperback Writer

    It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy where people still have the right to protest.

    Can we focus on getting that for our country right now?

    Is everyone in Russia so damn happy with Czar Putin

    Why are you so obsessed with this one particular nation and leader? By the way, we’re not living in the past where a few people could push a propaganda story that gets millions of white working class people killed.

  38. On the subject of cab drivers ignoring and refusing black fares, one is reminded of one of Aesop’s fables:

    “The fox is only running for his dinner, the rabbit is running for his life”.

    • Thanks: ic1000
    • Replies: @Spud Boy
    @Anonymous

    If the fox fails to secure enough dinners, he will lose his life.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Anonymous


    Aesop’s fables:

    “The fox is only running for his dinner, the rabbit is running for his life”.
     
    Was that really Aesop? I recall originally hearing it as sort of Zen thing. And Wiki's list of Aesop's fables has no rabbits.
  39. The truth is that blacks are a thoroughly unlikeable people.

  40. @Anon
    @J1234


    but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children – one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have – take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races?
     
    What if one doesn’t have any children (increasingly true of many Whites)? Does your argument crumble?

    Replies: @J1234, @bomag

    What if one doesn’t have any children

    That should be obvious. They’re irrelevant. There are millions of liberal white parents who talk like blacks are the most important thing in the world, but they live their lives to the contrary.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @J1234



    What if one doesn’t have any children
     
    That should be obvious. They’re irrelevant. There are millions of liberal white parents who talk like blacks are the most important thing in the world, but they live their lives to the contrary.
     
    So your argument fails in relation to the millions of Whites who do not have children?
  41. @Anonymous

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences – two wrongs do not make a right.
     
    What makes systemic racism “wrong”?

    What makes racism or antisemitism wrong?

    Replies: @TyRade, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Since by ‘systemic’ most mean ‘statistical’, you have a point. For it’s the ‘normal’ distribution – aka Bell Curve – that guides behaviour towards ‘others’. It’s ‘normal’ to be more wary of blacks if (for any dumb reason) you think you’re in risky location. Doing nothing and losing your life is a pretty heavy (Type 2 , I think) error to make. Better to be ‘normal’.

  42. @Jack D
    @Twinkie

    Anti-semitism in America has ebbed and flowed. During colonial times and thru the 1st few decades of the 19th century, Jews in America were a small community and mostly Sephardic and well accepted. Starting in the 1840s, a fair # of German Jews came along with a large German Christian migration that filled the cities of the Midwest. This group was also fairly well accepted although General Grant is well known for his anti-Semitic General Order #11.

    But the arrival of great masses of unwashed Jews from E. Europe in the late 19th/early 20th century triggered a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon. Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc. to an extent that is literally unimaginable to Americans today. When I said that people here denied that, I was referring in particular to that period.

    After WWII, "polite" anti-Semitism fell into disrepute because it became associated with the "impolite" kind that the Nazis practiced, although its last vestiges lingered on for decades more.


    That Jews in America were able to thrive despite the obstacles does not mean that the obstacles did not exist. Jews were able to carve out niches such as Hollywood because film was a brand new industry where there was no existing establishment set up to keep Jews out. I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon

    Gee, I wonder why that was. I suppose the whole world was just stupidly evil.

    Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc.

    They weren’t restricted. There were some barriers, but those barriers were hardly insurmountable. If they were, Henry Morgenthau wouldn’t have been able to attend Exeter and Cornell and then go on to become the Secretary of Treasury through these supposedly horrifyingly anti-Semitic 30’s when he was put in charge of designing the New Deal to remake the entire nation’s economy and financing America’s entry into World War II.

    I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.

    Then why do you keep bringing up this very “mild” discrimination Jews underwent here, tying it to supposed systemic discrimination against blacks? Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of “WASPs” in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions. The Germans were ostracized during World War I (one of my wife’s grandmothers spoke German at home with her own grandparents and were told not to do so outside during this time). The Italians were despised as dirty wogs. The Japanese were mass-interned (while some of their children were dying in droves trying to prove their loyalty to America in war). And let’s not forget about American Indians who suffered mass-extinction as peoples. It goes on and on.

    So trying to push tales of Jewish suffering America and selling the Jews as the Victim-est People Ever are just bound to invite negative reaction, not just here, but even among “normies” (if in private and muted terms). That’s why “anti-Semitism” is “on the rise” today.

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about “anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real,” how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic. Sure, it hasn’t been all wonderful, but its flaws are small and its munificence large, so let’s appreciate it. That’s certainly what I say about Asians (or insert any immigrant group here) when I hear complaints about how America has been just terrible, terrible for them.

    I love this country. This country has been great to me and millions of others who have come here from other shores. I am willing to die for the country, so that my children can inherit it as I found it. I revere its founders and those who came after (and before me) who built it. How about you do the same even sitting on that perch as the most dominant, influential, and powerful minority group ever? How about a little noblesse oblige?

    • Replies: @Technite78
    @Twinkie

    Well stated, thanks.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Twinkie

    Great comment, Twinkie. I doubt you meant it like that, but in your 1st paragraph after the 3rd blockquote - about all the victimization - with all that, America likely beats all other societies in how well it has treated foreigners within over the years. Would you agree with that, Jack?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @JimDandy
    @Twinkie

    When many Jews help their own group to the detriment of other groups--but literally make a federal case out of it when Gentiles try doing the same--is that systematic racism?

    , @anonymous
    @Twinkie


    Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of “WASPs” in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions.
     
    No group has suffered as much as White Southerners. They saw hundreds of thousands of their best and brightest murdered by the brutal Lincoln regime and were then forced through a genocidal occupation of their ancestral lands.
    , @anonymous
    @Twinkie


    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about “anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real,” how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic.
     
    Let’s hear Jack D express some gratitude to “WASPs” who allowed his tribe into their country and who pulled his tribe’s chestnuts out of the fire in WWII.

    Has he ever said “Thank you”? Have they?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  43. The “good white lady” should die in order to justify the Sikh’s prejudice. Either way a black man is going to rob or kill somebody if allowed to.

  44. Systemic racism is a meaningless term, simply memed into existence by copying the popular term “systemic risk” from the 2008 financial crisis.

    The idea of systemic risk was that many individual firms in the financial sector would make a bunch of decisions for themselves that weren’t that risky or at the very least, would primarily affect each firm itself by going insolvent, but taken as a whole would create systemic failures because of the well-known connected nature of the financial system, eg payouts are still being determined and paid out to the creditors of Lehman Brothers 13 years after their bankruptcy, during which time those lenders obviously didn’t have access to that money.

    Systemic risk was used as an excuse to justify further government regulation of finance, as though they weren’t already heavily regulated and their existing regulators already proven fairly incompetent at anything other than paper-pushing, eg the SEC didn’t even understand the complaints against Madoff.

    With the continuing failure of most blacks to scale the rungs of American society very highly and their disproportionate crime rates and associated police run-ins, it was decided by the Democrat politicians and scheming billionaires to now push “systemic racism” analogously as the reason. What was the alternative, explain how decades of affirmative action and racial comity haven’t improved blacks’ lives to the level of middle-class whites because of Sailer’s HBD, the more likely reason?

    If you argue against this nebulous systemic racism, you’re given a few anecdotes and stats of bad outcomes. When you ask for evidence of actual racism causing those outcomes, the best they can come up with are Jack’s anecdotes about some avoidance here and there. If you ask for evidence of anything systemic, you get a lot of hand-waving about unconscious bias: what else could it be, as blacks are just people like us but all these bad things keep happening to them?

    Any attempt by Sailer or Murray to bring up genetics or even culture (I’m listening to their podcast now) is doomed to failure, as the racial grifters will start calling that racism and not “real science,” as if these dimbulbs would know what that is. Nobody in the middle wants to be called “racist” by the grifters like Sharpton, so they slavishly bow and scrape to the obvious BLM conmen.

    The fundamental problem is not the blacks, they’ve been around for centuries. The fundamental problem is the decay in the country itself, where people are too ignorant or cowardly to grapple with such difficult problems, as Sailer and Murray stubbornly do.

    • Agree: slumber_j
    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @Bumpkin


    Systemic racism is a meaningless term, simply memed into existence by copying the popular term “systemic risk” from the 2008 financial crisis.
     
    I'll assume you're right: very interesting, and it hadn't previously occurred to me. I hereby coin the expression "counterparty racism" as systemic ballast.

    Anyway, thanks for the very good analysis.
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Bumpkin

    I agree, especially with the last sentence.


    memed into existence by copying the popular term “systemic risk” from the 2008 financial crisis.
     
    I wasn't sure if I agreed with this since I never thought about it. Looing at Google Trends, which tracks web searches, it shows an enormous spike on George Floyd day and deep lowlands everywhere else. (Apparently, Floyd's overdose really was like the original Easter event for Wokels.) Filtering out the spike shows a buildup from 2014 to a low plateau starting about 2016, but there is Note at this time saying that Google changed its data collection, so who knowns how artifact-y this is? Well, 2014-2016 is after 2008, but kinda late for memtic piggybacking.

    Google's Ngram Viewer, which tracks books, was more revealing. It shows an accelerating growth curve with two clear inflection points: the first in the late 1980s, I guess when "systemic racism" first became an obscure academic subject among the CultMarx professoriat, then a second upward inflection point right after the 2008 financial crisis, so it really does look like a case of the media transferring the perceived legitimacy of "systemic risk" to a more dubious but more favored topic.

    Sorry I can't include direct links to those Google charts because they seem to crash the Unz commenting scripts, but they are simple searches anyone can do.

    The other interesting thing here is this implies how non-organic the "systemic racism" concept is. If the Google Trends curves pre-dated the Ngram curve, then it would be a case of book-authors writing about something that has already occurred. But when the Ngram curve predates the Trends curve (by a lot), it implies that the book-authors are laboring in the background to bring something into existence.

  45. @Mike Tre
    "I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America"

    This is such a crock of unmitigated bullshit I'm not sure you're not just trolling to amuse yourself. for a guy who rejects Christ as the messiah you sure like to hang yourself on a cross.

    Where is this antisemitism you speak of? In show business? Wall Street? Academia? In media? In marketing? Pornography?

    Jews have positioned themselves to be the most influential minority in this country and you have the chutzpah to suggest their is widespread antisemitism? Do you really lack that much self awareness or are you just out of your mind?

    You're a goddamned liar Jack. I don't have any clue why any of the other more insightful commenters here give you the time of day. A goddamned liar.

    Replies: @Bernard, @Adept

    You’re a goddamned liar Jack. I don’t have any clue why any of the other more insightful commenters here give you the time of day. A goddamned liar.

    I can understand disagreeing with the guy, but why go to that extreme? Personally, I enjoy his comments, he’s smart, insightful and funny. I’m glad he comes around here and I’m not even Jewish.

    There’s just no reason for that kind of anger, calm down, life is too short.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Redman
    @Bernard

    Agree. Jack is a very insightful guy about a lot of things.

    Although he does go on about anti-semitism a bit much. It’s hard to completely give up victimhood once you’ve had a taste of it. Everyone can complain about how their “group” has been unfairly treated in some way.

    My problem is that the modern day slander of “anti-semitism” is now a powerful weapon used by TPTB to quash dissent. It’s a tool of the propagandists.

    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”

    Replies: @anon, @Jonathan Mason

  46. Jack D getting bodied in the comment section is like the sun rising in the east, guaranteed. Nice work Mr. Malone.

  47. We’re all so sick and tired of being abused each an every Australia Day for our convict ancestors invaded
    australia at wolf creek with the 1st armnoyred division with panzer and aerial attack

    It’s so stupid that every AUSTRALIA DAY

    • Replies: @pAT HANNAGAN
    @pAT HANNAGAN

    All the stupid repeated regurgitated formulaic

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

    Do a repeat podcast

  48. @pAT HANNAGAN
    We're all so sick and tired of being abused each an every Australia Day for our convict ancestors invaded
    australia at wolf creek with the 1st armnoyred division with panzer and aerial attack

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wynh7omiQlI

    It's so stupid that every AUSTRALIA DAY

    Replies: @pAT HANNAGAN

    All the stupid repeated regurgitated formulaic

    Do a repeat podcast

  49. Thanks to Jack D and Sam Malone for that exchange above, but I fear both comments are missing something important about the quality of the people who wield “systemic racism” in public discourse.

    At least as I’m seeing things, “systemic racism” is pretty much a rhetorical cudgel deployable at will to beat down and delegitimize the statements of anyone who offers up the notion that Black grievances are exaggerated or unjustified or need re-examination or just plain wrong.

    “Systemic racism” to me seems yet another abstract, mischievous term, like “civil rights”, that, as (I think) one commenter above pointed out, had originally an operational definition understood reasonably well by both proponents and opponents of the idea.. Then, like the terms fascist and communist, it morphed into a sludge term meaning: I don’t like you, or, I don’t like what you’re saying.

    We’re looking at the primal: Who? Whom?, when we hear “systemic racism”, and not the ordered language of Oxford Union or Lincoln-Douglas debates.

    • Agree: Redman, Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @JackOH

    You're right on the mark, Jack.

    'Social justice' is another one.

    Legitimate concepts don't need adjectives.

    Replies: @JackOH

  50. @Change that Matters

    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America
     
    Same for Australia.

    Around 30 years ago I attended a local fair at which some aborigines did a dance. Accompanying my wife and I were another couple who dragged along their visiting Chinese mother/mother-in-law. When she saw the dance, the Chinese woman started to laugh uproariously and shouted out loudly that they looked like monkeys. At one point she even mimicked them.

    You would have been hard pressed to find a white in attendance who would have thought such things about the First Invaders, let alone voiced them.

    Of course, it's Australia (Invasion) Day today, so we have wall-to-wall coverage of smoking ceremonies fabricated in the 70s with terrified whites looking on reverentially.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Clyde, @jay ritchie

    Australia should be renamed clown island, where you have the perfect mash of paranoia, megalomania and hypochondria. When you sink beneath the waves like Atlantis, no one will miss you.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Clyde

    Disagree. I love Australians because of 4chan.* One of the near-constants is that foreigners, especially highly educated foreigners, know nothing about our Constitition and philosophy of liberty. Except Australians. They often know more than Americans. When you see a vicious and ignorant attack on our Constitution, it's almost always Perfidious Albion, Fallen Germany, or the &@^$ing leaves. When you see an intelligent defense of our Constitution and it's not from an American redneck, it's from an Australian.

    *Ditto Finland. Finns and Norse are consistently sources of high quality content amid a yearslong raid aimed at flooding the pol board with zero effort content. I wouldn't know anything about Finland without 4chan.

  51. @Change that Matters

    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America
     
    Same for Australia.

    Around 30 years ago I attended a local fair at which some aborigines did a dance. Accompanying my wife and I were another couple who dragged along their visiting Chinese mother/mother-in-law. When she saw the dance, the Chinese woman started to laugh uproariously and shouted out loudly that they looked like monkeys. At one point she even mimicked them.

    You would have been hard pressed to find a white in attendance who would have thought such things about the First Invaders, let alone voiced them.

    Of course, it's Australia (Invasion) Day today, so we have wall-to-wall coverage of smoking ceremonies fabricated in the 70s with terrified whites looking on reverentially.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Clyde, @jay ritchie

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60120997

    I’m sure the events are all the better for having a \$20 million flag.

  52. @Twinkie
    @nebulafox


    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.
     
    Mr. Sailer seems to be emphasizing the "non-Americanness" as such for anti-blackism, but it has little to do with them being non-American so much as them having more daily contact with the black underclass than your average American. Indeed, as Charles Murray points out in his latest book, most white Americans live in rural, suburban, and exurban parts of America where underclass blacks are not highly present. It's those who live in non-wealthy areas of urban America (usually downscale immigrants and such) who have the greatest amount of contact with dysfunctional blacks.

    This is precisely why GoodWhites can virtue-signal - because that virtue-signaling costs them nothing in their daily lived experiences, in the way it would cost (often heavily and viciously) for those who have frequent interactions with underclass blacks.

    For that matter, those "racist" Korean shopkeepers and Pakistani cabdrivers aren't fools these days. There has been an exodus over the last two decades of even immigrant populations from places such as L.A. and NYC to the likes of Texas (esp. north of Dallas) and Northern Virgina super zip codes where they don't have to deal much with the underclass blacks.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Prester John, @S

    PC beliefs in general are a status symbol of sorts. You can afford to believe in them and not have your life ruined. I suppose that makes 35 year old declassed liberals with no social networks, no family, and no prospect of gaining them the equivalent of bankrupted impoverished nobility in the pursuit of keeping up their lifestyle in opera hat era Europe. Mental illnesses abound.

    The dynamic is different with new arrivals from south of the border. They don’t leave, there’s too many of them and these aren’t aspiring tiger parents here in the first place. So they instead beat the blacks at their own terror game and get them to leave. Cartel policy toward them is ruthless and efficient. Especially when it is a reprisal, but also when it isn’t.

    (As you’ve noted in the past, they’ll be the real security headache long term, not black rioters.)

    Maybe that’s part of why the Biden administration is so desperate to put the new illegals up in random white parts of the country for trips to random red state towns across the country. Even for triple digit hotel rates, and even if they got to put up tarp to hide them shipping the migrants out down in Brownsville. Why the GOP is not blasting the crap out of this 24/7 for political effect, especially to Millennials who the government opted not to bail out for reasons of affordability, can only be attested to a mix of general pussy-tude and battered wife syndrome.

    Thing is, though, don’t think it’s gonna work for that specific purpose. People will go where the support networks are.

    • Replies: @Alan Mercer
    @nebulafox


    Cartel policy toward them is ruthless and efficient.
     
    I'd like to read more about this, but google makes it tough to find sources (cartel violence against blacks mostly turns up things about police brutality). Can you suggest any? Thanks for a great post.
    , @Gamecock
    @nebulafox

    "PC beliefs in general are a status symbol of sorts. You can afford to believe in them and not have your life ruined."

    Prosperity breeds decadence. Decadence breeds collapse.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  53. @Anonymous
    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.

    No, that is a total misrepresentation. People here do not say there was no anti-Jewish animus and anxiety in American history and life. They say 'antisemitism' hardly counts as one of the tragic chapters of America History. It's not like Jews were wiped out like the American Indians. Or used as slaves as blacks were. Or exploited like Chinese workers building railroads. Or treated like German-Americans during WWI and especially Japanese Americans during WWII. Indeed, it's telling that one of the recurring themes of Jewish victimization in the US are about country clubs. (Though Jewishness isn't usually invoked, the hysteria about the Red Scare is also largely about the cult of Jewish victimization.) Other peoples had much bigger things to worry about. Furthermore, certain anti-Jewish sentiments were understandable. Jews cheated so many black entertainers and athletes who could barely read and write. Of course, people like Farrakhan grew up with hostile feelings toward Jews.

    There's another thing Jews don't want to talk about. Much of the negative experience Jews often experienced came not from Wasps but from fellow immigrant ethnics. And from blacks who robbed Jews as often as Jews exploited blacks. If a Jewish kid got beaten up in some part of NY, it was more likely a bunch of Poles, Irish Catholics, Italians, or blacks than Wasps. Read some of the accounts of Jewish Life in 20th century New York or Chicago, and it's often about Jews getting roughed up NOT by wasps but other elements. If anything, an aspiring Jew was likely to get a more sympathetic ear from wasps on top than Italians, Poles, Irish, and blacks on the bottom kicking their butt.

    So, why have Jews focused on Wasps and country clubs? Because Jews aspired to rise above the ethnics and blacks and take over from Wasps. So, Jews had to create the impression of unity among Jews, ethnics, and blacks against Wasps who supposedly had it all. Wasps had what Jews wanted, and Jews needed allies among non-Wasps.
    It's like Jews try to suppress their tensions with the Arab-American and Muslim community to prop up the illusion of an alliance of Jews and People of Color against 'white supremacism'. It's also why Jews don't make a big fuss about the very tragic Latin American history where entire indigenous populations were wiped out by Spanish Europeans; also many more blacks were shipped to Latin America. Jews need white Hispanics as allies against White America. So, even white Hispanics get to pass as 'people of color' and join with Jews and nonwhites against whites. It's very strategic. Notice how Jews are even allied with certain far-right elements in Ukraine tainted with Nazi history.

    Furthermore, it was Philosemitism that led to America's great crimes against Russia and the Arab World. Philosemitism blinded America to Zionist crimes in the Near East. Philosemitism keeps US politicians barking at Russia even though so much of Russian foreign policy since 2000 is best understood as reaction to Jewish oligarchic plunder of that country in the 90s. But because of Philosemitism, Jewish Hatred gets a pass and goes on dominating US foreign policy that has done so much damage.

    Nice try, except that your own examples – such as the landlord preferring non-black tenants, or the Sikh cab driver choosing not to pick up young black males – clearly demonstrate that the prejudice which exists in America today against blacks is the opposite of systemic as that term is meant to be understood by most people.

    It's telling that there's so much focus on negative feelings toward blacks but total silence about black hostility, hatred, and violence against non-blacks. For sure, there is systemic black violence and thuggery all across America. BLM is systematized violence and intimidation. It's systemic because so many blacks feel they are above the law due to 'muh slavery'. And it's also systematic because it has the backing of Jewish Power that dominates the US. Jerry Nadler lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon a Jewish terrorist radical. That vile wench supervises a wing of BLM.

    In a sane society, no moral defense is necessary for common sense reaction to black behavior. After all, white/Jewish so-called 'liberals' took part in White Flight and Gentrification. On some level, they know the reality.
    Then, the problem isn't 'systemic racism', but systemic mendacity, hypocrisy, and venality. It is a fact that blacks are far more violence-prone than any other group. The only sensible explanation is evolution and racial differences. But the culture of systemic deception makes people pretend a total retard thug like Floyd was some kind of saint. But in a country where the likes of Abe Foxman are allowed to serve as moral watchdogs and where the ethno-monopolistic media refer to SPLC for tips on the baddies, what does anyone expect?

    Replies: @Gordo, @Rich

    There are more country clubs that exclude non-Jews than exclude Jews, although I believe one of them made an exception for recently retired Ronald Reagan.

  54. @JackOH
    Thanks to Jack D and Sam Malone for that exchange above, but I fear both comments are missing something important about the quality of the people who wield "systemic racism" in public discourse.

    At least as I'm seeing things, "systemic racism" is pretty much a rhetorical cudgel deployable at will to beat down and delegitimize the statements of anyone who offers up the notion that Black grievances are exaggerated or unjustified or need re-examination or just plain wrong.

    "Systemic racism" to me seems yet another abstract, mischievous term, like "civil rights", that, as (I think) one commenter above pointed out, had originally an operational definition understood reasonably well by both proponents and opponents of the idea.. Then, like the terms fascist and communist, it morphed into a sludge term meaning: I don't like you, or, I don't like what you're saying.

    We're looking at the primal: Who? Whom?, when we hear "systemic racism", and not the ordered language of Oxford Union or Lincoln-Douglas debates.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    You’re right on the mark, Jack.

    ‘Social justice’ is another one.

    Legitimate concepts don’t need adjectives.

    • Agree: JackOH
    • Replies: @JackOH
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    TLRC, I'd mentioned to Nicholas Stix a week ago we really need a strong analysis of whether terms such as "civil rights", "voting rights", "systemic racism", "social justice" (thanks), etc., are actually cover rhetoric for some sort of Black Supremacist re-ordering of America. By "re-ordering", I mean essentially Black minority rule over pacified White tax cows using the implicit threat of Black violence to keep Whites in line.

    You don't need to be a cracker or a Klansman to ask of Black leaders, "When is enough enough?"

    Herr Hitler and Comrade Stalin enjoyed good attention from Western democrats, conservatives and liberals respectively, who saw a fair shake for Germans and better treatment for poor workers as a good thing. Then they over-egged the pudding with war, famine, and mass terror.

    Likewise, I think most Americans are very okay with the end of de jure segregation, which is how I think most Americans understood "civil rights". What we have now is some sort of New Racism that's taken its place, in my opinion, and it's a one-way anti-White street, and we ought to examine that as cold-bloodedly as possible without fear or favor.

  55. @Anonymous
    On the subject of cab drivers ignoring and refusing black fares, one is reminded of one of Aesop's fables:

    "The fox is only running for his dinner, the rabbit is running for his life".

    Replies: @Spud Boy, @Almost Missouri

    If the fox fails to secure enough dinners, he will lose his life.

  56. I’ve echoed the ideas in the second post many times here. When faced with limited information about an individual, we rely on group statistics to guide our near term actions. These individual acts of prejudice are normal and necessary for human survival.

    “Systemic racism” is a term cooked-up by those who would overthrow the current system and replace it with some form of communism based on race instead of class.

  57. “Systemic Racism” is a term utilized by the ruling class to simultaneously wage ethnic conflict as the champions of blacks while absolving themselves of culpability for racism – it’s not the decision-makers who are racist – but rather a diffuse emanation from “the system” – which we can root out when some low level employee is found to have forwarded a bawdy email or surreptitiously recorded saying a naughty word.

    “The system” is now thoroughly pro-black, favoring blacks in all things while mounting ever more ridiculous apologies for black behavior.

  58. Jack D. is on the spot here. I like Jack D, and he has 98% good, helpful, and accurate information, but his lawyer side comes out occasionally. When he finally realizes you know more about something and are right, no replies back are issued. I’m used to that.

    In this case, that comment regarding Peter A.’s ridiculous statement that preceded it is an example of that lawyerly conduct, IMO. There were so many good replies under that other post that I didn’t bother, and even, here I haven’t read all the comments yet. Let me put it this way:

    Jack, the problem is that we on here all know what the people that write and talk about “systemic racism” mean by the term. They don’t mean people that use (usually well established) views of black people to discriminate. I’ve been there. When you’re young and idealistic about it, you may decide to rent to this guy or go buy a car from this other guy, cause, well, those people that told you to be careful are just biased. You live and learn, and this is life. It is indeed unfortunate for the decent black guy in NYC that can’t get a cab to stop.

    That’s NOT what the definition is, from the people that use it. Systemic racism’s common use defines it as a whole system, hence the word, that is supposedly rigged against black people (and whoever else wants to join in.) It’s not even thinkable that it could be rigged against the White Man, which it most certainly live. The whole Establishment is set up now against the White Man, as commenters have explained and I’m sure you understand.

    The established and Establishment’s definition of systemic racism makes it something that pretty much cannot be done away with without a take-over of all positions of power by non-White people. That’s the way they have defined it, Jack. There is no such thing actually in place. However by saying there is, with no way anyone can prove otherwise – simply because logic is a White Man’s thing – there is no settling the bogus charge of “systemic racism” without completely giving up the country.

    • Thanks: Mike Tre
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Paragraph 4 S/B: "... which it most certainly is."

  59. @nebulafox
    >I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.

    Huh. Negative concrete experiences that can fatally damage the life you are making for your family override gauzy academic treatises. Who'da thunk it, yo?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Bard of Bumperstickers, @The Craw

  60. @Bumpkin
    Systemic racism is a meaningless term, simply memed into existence by copying the popular term "systemic risk" from the 2008 financial crisis.

    The idea of systemic risk was that many individual firms in the financial sector would make a bunch of decisions for themselves that weren't that risky or at the very least, would primarily affect each firm itself by going insolvent, but taken as a whole would create systemic failures because of the well-known connected nature of the financial system, eg payouts are still being determined and paid out to the creditors of Lehman Brothers 13 years after their bankruptcy, during which time those lenders obviously didn't have access to that money.

    Systemic risk was used as an excuse to justify further government regulation of finance, as though they weren't already heavily regulated and their existing regulators already proven fairly incompetent at anything other than paper-pushing, eg the SEC didn't even understand the complaints against Madoff.

    With the continuing failure of most blacks to scale the rungs of American society very highly and their disproportionate crime rates and associated police run-ins, it was decided by the Democrat politicians and scheming billionaires to now push "systemic racism" analogously as the reason. What was the alternative, explain how decades of affirmative action and racial comity haven't improved blacks' lives to the level of middle-class whites because of Sailer's HBD, the more likely reason?

    If you argue against this nebulous systemic racism, you're given a few anecdotes and stats of bad outcomes. When you ask for evidence of actual racism causing those outcomes, the best they can come up with are Jack's anecdotes about some avoidance here and there. If you ask for evidence of anything systemic, you get a lot of hand-waving about unconscious bias: what else could it be, as blacks are just people like us but all these bad things keep happening to them?

    Any attempt by Sailer or Murray to bring up genetics or even culture (I'm listening to their podcast now) is doomed to failure, as the racial grifters will start calling that racism and not "real science," as if these dimbulbs would know what that is. Nobody in the middle wants to be called "racist" by the grifters like Sharpton, so they slavishly bow and scrape to the obvious BLM conmen.

    The fundamental problem is not the blacks, they've been around for centuries. The fundamental problem is the decay in the country itself, where people are too ignorant or cowardly to grapple with such difficult problems, as Sailer and Murray stubbornly do.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @Almost Missouri

    Systemic racism is a meaningless term, simply memed into existence by copying the popular term “systemic risk” from the 2008 financial crisis.

    I’ll assume you’re right: very interesting, and it hadn’t previously occurred to me. I hereby coin the expression “counterparty racism” as systemic ballast.

    Anyway, thanks for the very good analysis.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • LOL: Bumpkin
  61. @Dieter Kief
    @J.Ross

    Systemic racism sounds technical and thus invites people to accept the term, because it lifts things up to a rather impersonal - and a little bit spooky (=catchy!) level: It's not you, it's something that's happening behind our backs.

    Systemic racism logically (or: organically) somehow culminated in the socio-psychological concepts of a) Unconscious Bias and b) Critical Race Theory ((a) founded b)).

    The unconscious part is interesting too, because it helps very well to make everything suspicious that you do. - And since it's looked upon as (at least in part) happening sub- or unconscious, it can be discussed in a rather relaxed way, because it can be - hm: sold - as something that is not personal. The mode then is: It's not you, you're a good person, it's that we as a society have to move forward (= to make progress) - and we invite you to come along - to a better future (by buying our ideas).

    Thus everyday life is pumped up with lots of secrets and lots of unknown emotionally loaded secrecy. - A re-sacralisation of everyday life (which somehow culminated with George Floyd's death. Seen from that angle, Derek Chauvins incarceration is a present day proto-religious sacrifice (= a necessity).

    Another one of the big effects of this method/ approach is that it covers/ overpaints / devalues billions of quite real everyday experiences.

    Seen from an (extremely) well-meaning perspective, this dynamic could be understood to keep optimism up in a tendentially unpleasant situation. - In other words: A way to release (or even heal - remember: We're in extremely blue-eyed territory here) - - to heal tensions on the basis of the old de-escalating insight, the brighter one should give in (in German it's a well known saying: Der Klügere gibt nach).

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz

    Der Klügere gibt nach

    Thinking oneself smarter than the other guy while losing the argument to him sounds like virtue signalling and, worse, a bad way of coping. Then again, enough people conforming to this particular wisdom goes a long way in explaining the state of the world.

  62. @nebulafox
    >I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.

    Huh. Negative concrete experiences that can fatally damage the life you are making for your family override gauzy academic treatises. Who'da thunk it, yo?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Bard of Bumperstickers, @The Craw

    “… negative CONCRETE experiences…”
    Like when Reginald Denny met Damian Williams.

  63. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    PC beliefs in general are a status symbol of sorts. You can afford to believe in them and not have your life ruined. I suppose that makes 35 year old declassed liberals with no social networks, no family, and no prospect of gaining them the equivalent of bankrupted impoverished nobility in the pursuit of keeping up their lifestyle in opera hat era Europe. Mental illnesses abound.

    The dynamic is different with new arrivals from south of the border. They don't leave, there's too many of them and these aren't aspiring tiger parents here in the first place. So they instead beat the blacks at their own terror game and get them to leave. Cartel policy toward them is ruthless and efficient. Especially when it is a reprisal, but also when it isn't.

    (As you've noted in the past, they'll be the real security headache long term, not black rioters.)

    Maybe that's part of why the Biden administration is so desperate to put the new illegals up in random white parts of the country for trips to random red state towns across the country. Even for triple digit hotel rates, and even if they got to put up tarp to hide them shipping the migrants out down in Brownsville. Why the GOP is not blasting the crap out of this 24/7 for political effect, especially to Millennials who the government opted not to bail out for reasons of affordability, can only be attested to a mix of general pussy-tude and battered wife syndrome.

    Thing is, though, don't think it's gonna work for that specific purpose. People will go where the support networks are.

    Replies: @Alan Mercer, @Gamecock

    Cartel policy toward them is ruthless and efficient.

    I’d like to read more about this, but google makes it tough to find sources (cartel violence against blacks mostly turns up things about police brutality). Can you suggest any? Thanks for a great post.

  64. I think it would be humiliating to be a black person who lives within the lines and has experiences that veer between being treated with suspicion or overpraise depending on the context. However, unlike a lot of whites who take pains to demonstrate their social and economic distance from the white underclass, blacks are encouraged to show solidarity with the worst elements of their demographic group and therefore take on some of the mannerisms and habits that society at large views with suspicion or dislike, even if it’s just for conformity and appearances sake rather than representative of how they actually live.

    In my view, blacks will have a hard time achieving the default treatment they desire until they get to a place where they can openly show their disdain for their underclass that whites show for theirs – and everyone else can too. I’m not holding my breath, though.

  65. @Clyde
    @Change that Matters

    Australia should be renamed clown island, where you have the perfect mash of paranoia, megalomania and hypochondria. When you sink beneath the waves like Atlantis, no one will miss you.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Disagree. I love Australians because of 4chan.* One of the near-constants is that foreigners, especially highly educated foreigners, know nothing about our Constitition and philosophy of liberty. Except Australians. They often know more than Americans. When you see a vicious and ignorant attack on our Constitution, it’s almost always Perfidious Albion, Fallen Germany, or the &@^\$ing leaves. When you see an intelligent defense of our Constitution and it’s not from an American redneck, it’s from an Australian.

    *Ditto Finland. Finns and Norse are consistently sources of high quality content amid a yearslong raid aimed at flooding the pol board with zero effort content. I wouldn’t know anything about Finland without 4chan.

  66. @Mr. Anon

    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.
     
    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Gentilism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of a few vulgar "Christmas" movies. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Gentilic themselves – go figure.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Almost Missouri

    Perfectly done. Thank you.

  67. I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.

    I’d argue that these people occupy the same position on the socio-economic scale that the poor, white Southern peckerwoods of the segregation era did. These are people who are trying to eke out a living while in close proximity to blacks and dealing firsthand with black sociopathological behaviors. The Korean liquor store owner in L.A. worries about blacks in the same way that the white Mississippi storekeeper did when Emmett Till walked in and started hitting on his wife.

    I would venture to say that if the post-Reconstruction South had been populated by Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese and Mexican immigrants engaged in truck farming and sharecropping, they would have instituted the exact same system of segregation that Southern whites did.

  68. @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet
     
    1. I guess you are not a white gentile, then, huh?

    2. Stated preferences are not revealed preferences. Have you looked at the residential segregation data by race lately (or the past 60 years or ever)? Don't confuse GoodWhite virtue-signaling with GoodWhite actual-choices.

    But worry not. The yellows, being highly imitative, are on-game and are hard at work to be GoodAsians: "Her House is like Small Africa in Korea"

    https://youtu.be/797FKZ4IeNk

    Replies: @JMcG, @Mike Tre

    Twinkie, I hope for everybody’s sake that those two guys aren’t considered to be the flowers of Korean manhood.

  69. This is hardly original to me, but the term “systemic racism” is used like “original sin”. Everyone is guilty of it (born guilty).

    Getting a little bit further into the theology, there are two different methods for working against original sin: grace (God forgives you for reasons) and works (you repent and try to make amends). Some sects argue that both can save you, but others only admit grace for this. There are even some sects where there are only a few who are saved (naturally and from birth). You can tell who is saved by their behavior.

    To get back to systemic racism: everyone is guilty of it, except for a small number (call them “elect”) who are naturally not guilty. You can tell who is not guilty because of their behavior or other markers.

  70. @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    This doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy where people still have the right to protest. Looking forward to RT coverage of similar protests in Moscow and Belarus.

    The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (for good reason) , along with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of the press, enshrines the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Is everyone in Russia so damn happy with Czar Putin and his totally not corrupt government that they have no desire to protest over anything or are they afraid of what would happen to them if they did?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anonymous, @JMcG, @Paperback Writer

    Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose there are clear and unambiguous indications of vote fraud in the midterms or in ‘24. Perhaps Biden wins with 200 million votes next time, just to be sure. Would you dare to show up in DC to protest? They’ll probably still have people awaiting trial for 1/6 by then.
    Now, imagined Trump wins in ‘24. Picture the riots. Do you think there would be a single political conviction?
    I imagine you could have a gigantic pro-Putin rally in Moscow any time you like.
    It’s hard to believe a man of your experience can be so naive, Jack. Equal protection under the law is long gone in the USA, and with it, representational democracy.

  71. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon
     
    Gee, I wonder why that was. I suppose the whole world was just stupidly evil.

    Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc.
     
    They weren't restricted. There were some barriers, but those barriers were hardly insurmountable. If they were, Henry Morgenthau wouldn't have been able to attend Exeter and Cornell and then go on to become the Secretary of Treasury through these supposedly horrifyingly anti-Semitic 30's when he was put in charge of designing the New Deal to remake the entire nation's economy and financing America's entry into World War II.

    I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.
     
    Then why do you keep bringing up this very "mild" discrimination Jews underwent here, tying it to supposed systemic discrimination against blacks? Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of "WASPs" in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions. The Germans were ostracized during World War I (one of my wife's grandmothers spoke German at home with her own grandparents and were told not to do so outside during this time). The Italians were despised as dirty wogs. The Japanese were mass-interned (while some of their children were dying in droves trying to prove their loyalty to America in war). And let's not forget about American Indians who suffered mass-extinction as peoples. It goes on and on.

    So trying to push tales of Jewish suffering America and selling the Jews as the Victim-est People Ever are just bound to invite negative reaction, not just here, but even among "normies" (if in private and muted terms). That's why "anti-Semitism" is "on the rise" today.

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about "anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real," how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic. Sure, it hasn't been all wonderful, but its flaws are small and its munificence large, so let's appreciate it. That's certainly what I say about Asians (or insert any immigrant group here) when I hear complaints about how America has been just terrible, terrible for them.

    I love this country. This country has been great to me and millions of others who have come here from other shores. I am willing to die for the country, so that my children can inherit it as I found it. I revere its founders and those who came after (and before me) who built it. How about you do the same even sitting on that perch as the most dominant, influential, and powerful minority group ever? How about a little noblesse oblige?

    Replies: @Technite78, @Achmed E. Newman, @JimDandy, @anonymous, @anonymous

    Well stated, thanks.

  72. America does not have a systemic racism problem. America does not have a systemic anti-Semitism problem. America has a systemic anti-intellectualism problem.

    America is unique among world powers insofar as logic plays absolutely no role in the national dialogue. Everything is sentiment and showmanship—and money. Lots and lots of money.

    This is not the case in Europe. Even in Europe, with its comparative lack of constitutionally guaranteed liberties and its excessive police powers, there is the possibility that dissenting voices will be respected as long as they have a point to make. The dissenters are able to make themselves heard, not just on niche blogs but also sometimes on the state-owned media channels. Furthermore, there is still a lingering tradition of respect for logic among the general populace, and intellectuals have a social status there that they lack in America.

    Europeans believe a lot of stupid nonsense, but they have a mechanism to correct themselves. This I find to be the one hopeful thing about Europe. America has no self-correction; America is only great as long as some preestablished tradition has enough of the truth in it to provide a realistic foundation underneath its otherwise unreflective money-and-status frenzy, and when America goes off the rails it does not stop until everything is destroyed.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Europeans believe a lot of stupid nonsense, but they have a mechanism to correct themselves. This I find to be the one hopeful thing about Europe.

    when America goes off the rails it does not stop until everything is destroyed.
     
    Yes, there is much to admire about "Europe" though it is hardly a single entity.

    So are these European "mechanism(s) to correct themselves" called WWI, WWII? Or various smaller wars like Serbia, Spanish Civil War, Finnish/Russian War, Russian-Polish war, and numerous European terrorist actions (IRA, Basque, Red Army Faction, Greek/Italian Terrorists, etc.)? Oh, and Russian Bolshevik civil war? I'm probably leaving out many others.

    That's only in the 20th century.

    America's only major internal meltdown was the Civil War/War Between The States in the mid 19th century.

    So this "mechanism to correct itself" is what exactly? War? Terror? The EU (now)?

    Sure, this is somewhat Apples vs. Oranges, but really.

    Do you want to claim that having an ancestor immigrate to any American state since 1776 would have been worse than staying in any European nation during the same period? By what standard?

    Until the 21st century Europe's "corrective mechanism" consisted of warfare, civil war, terrorism and in many places dictatorial repression. There are a handful of national exceptions, but not many.

    In America, "everything" was never destroyed. Some Southern states suffered badly in the mid 19th century, but compared to European warfare, just during that century, it was a "mostly peaceful protest."

    Replies: @Flavius Logicus

    , @Alrenous
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Egalitarianism is inherently anti-intellectual.

    At once every American is but a temporarily embarrassed genius, and at the same time every genius is just an idiot like your average Joe except he got lucky or maybe worked a bit harder. Net result is that "genius" is considered to be walking to the store to buy milk, and anyone who does anything more sophisticated is castigated for heresy. There is no deep thought or profound ideas; there is only lying, you see? If you think about it at all you're trying too hard and overthinking it.

  73. I heard AirBNB is trying a pilot program to hide the first names of potential rental customers, so the people renting out their properties can’t see, for example, if the tenant-to-be is named Jack or Jacquavious before agreeing to the deal.

  74. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon
     
    Gee, I wonder why that was. I suppose the whole world was just stupidly evil.

    Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc.
     
    They weren't restricted. There were some barriers, but those barriers were hardly insurmountable. If they were, Henry Morgenthau wouldn't have been able to attend Exeter and Cornell and then go on to become the Secretary of Treasury through these supposedly horrifyingly anti-Semitic 30's when he was put in charge of designing the New Deal to remake the entire nation's economy and financing America's entry into World War II.

    I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.
     
    Then why do you keep bringing up this very "mild" discrimination Jews underwent here, tying it to supposed systemic discrimination against blacks? Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of "WASPs" in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions. The Germans were ostracized during World War I (one of my wife's grandmothers spoke German at home with her own grandparents and were told not to do so outside during this time). The Italians were despised as dirty wogs. The Japanese were mass-interned (while some of their children were dying in droves trying to prove their loyalty to America in war). And let's not forget about American Indians who suffered mass-extinction as peoples. It goes on and on.

    So trying to push tales of Jewish suffering America and selling the Jews as the Victim-est People Ever are just bound to invite negative reaction, not just here, but even among "normies" (if in private and muted terms). That's why "anti-Semitism" is "on the rise" today.

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about "anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real," how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic. Sure, it hasn't been all wonderful, but its flaws are small and its munificence large, so let's appreciate it. That's certainly what I say about Asians (or insert any immigrant group here) when I hear complaints about how America has been just terrible, terrible for them.

    I love this country. This country has been great to me and millions of others who have come here from other shores. I am willing to die for the country, so that my children can inherit it as I found it. I revere its founders and those who came after (and before me) who built it. How about you do the same even sitting on that perch as the most dominant, influential, and powerful minority group ever? How about a little noblesse oblige?

    Replies: @Technite78, @Achmed E. Newman, @JimDandy, @anonymous, @anonymous

    Great comment, Twinkie. I doubt you meant it like that, but in your 1st paragraph after the 3rd blockquote – about all the victimization – with all that, America likely beats all other societies in how well it has treated foreigners within over the years. Would you agree with that, Jack?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

  75. @Achmed E. Newman
    Jack D. is on the spot here. I like Jack D, and he has 98% good, helpful, and accurate information, but his lawyer side comes out occasionally. When he finally realizes you know more about something and are right, no replies back are issued. I'm used to that.

    In this case, that comment regarding Peter A.'s ridiculous statement that preceded it is an example of that lawyerly conduct, IMO. There were so many good replies under that other post that I didn't bother, and even, here I haven't read all the comments yet. Let me put it this way:

    Jack, the problem is that we on here all know what the people that write and talk about "systemic racism" mean by the term. They don't mean people that use (usually well established) views of black people to discriminate. I've been there. When you're young and idealistic about it, you may decide to rent to this guy or go buy a car from this other guy, cause, well, those people that told you to be careful are just biased. You live and learn, and this is life. It is indeed unfortunate for the decent black guy in NYC that can't get a cab to stop.

    That's NOT what the definition is, from the people that use it. Systemic racism's common use defines it as a whole system, hence the word, that is supposedly rigged against black people (and whoever else wants to join in.) It's not even thinkable that it could be rigged against the White Man, which it most certainly live. The whole Establishment is set up now against the White Man, as commenters have explained and I'm sure you understand.

    The established and Establishment's definition of systemic racism makes it something that pretty much cannot be done away with without a take-over of all positions of power by non-White people. That's the way they have defined it, Jack. There is no such thing actually in place. However by saying there is, with no way anyone can prove otherwise - simply because logic is a White Man's thing - there is no settling the bogus charge of "systemic racism" without completely giving up the country.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Paragraph 4 S/B: “… which it most certainly is.”

  76. @Anonymous
    On the subject of cab drivers ignoring and refusing black fares, one is reminded of one of Aesop's fables:

    "The fox is only running for his dinner, the rabbit is running for his life".

    Replies: @Spud Boy, @Almost Missouri

    Aesop’s fables:

    “The fox is only running for his dinner, the rabbit is running for his life”.

    Was that really Aesop? I recall originally hearing it as sort of Zen thing. And Wiki’s list of Aesop’s fables has no rabbits.

  77. The Establishment has established this antiquarian narrative — 1619 and all that — . . .

    This is a glaring and important tell. When you think about it, it really amounts to a wacky conspiracy theory. But for all the elite money and energy behind it, it merits little attention beyond one, or at most two, ‘alternate history’ episodes on the TV.

    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.

    True, though I find this reasoning self-defeating. The last thing the American Project needs is to adopt foreign ideas or sensibilities. It’s the flip side of the same “Systemic Racism” coin.

    I would suggest something akin to the old joke, What’s anti-semitism? Hating Jews more than is reasonable.

    What’s racism? Discriminatory or even avoidance actions based on identity more than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances.

  78. @Bernard
    @Mike Tre


    You’re a goddamned liar Jack. I don’t have any clue why any of the other more insightful commenters here give you the time of day. A goddamned liar.

     

    I can understand disagreeing with the guy, but why go to that extreme? Personally, I enjoy his comments, he’s smart, insightful and funny. I’m glad he comes around here and I’m not even Jewish.

    There’s just no reason for that kind of anger, calm down, life is too short.

    Replies: @Redman

    Agree. Jack is a very insightful guy about a lot of things.

    Although he does go on about anti-semitism a bit much. It’s hard to completely give up victimhood once you’ve had a taste of it. Everyone can complain about how their “group” has been unfairly treated in some way.

    My problem is that the modern day slander of “anti-semitism” is now a powerful weapon used by TPTB to quash dissent. It’s a tool of the propagandists.

    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”

    • Agree: Bernard
    • Replies: @anon
    @Redman


    Everyone can complain about how their “group” has been unfairly treated in some way.
     
    Not everyone can. For example, groups that have been genocided (Canaanites, to name one) are no longer around to complain.

    By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism.
     
    Anne Frank died of typhus, like so many others did.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Redman


    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”
     
    The substance of Kennedy Jr.'s speech was that mandatory Covid-19 vaccine programs in workplaces were creating a world worse than the situation facing Jews in Nazi Germany or occupied countries, because Jews could hide or leave the country, but people who are not vaccinated cannot get on a plane to leave the USA, or whatever other country they live in, unless they are already vaccinated.

    A subtle point that Kennedy seems to have missed is that Jews in Nazi Germany could not easily change their status, unless, perhaps they converted to Christianity, whereas being unvaccinated against Covid-19 is a status more like being uncircumcised, in that it can be changed, albeit by a somewhat uncomfortable procedure that has a small possibility of medical complications.

    The Auschwitz Museum posted the following tweet, which was reported by the mainstream press.

    Exploiting of the tragedy of people who suffered, were humiliated, tortured & murdered by the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany - including children like Anne Frank - in a debate about vaccines & limitations during global pandemic is a sad symptom of moral & intellectual decay.— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) January 23, 2022
     
    So anyway, we are left with the interesting question: Is life in the USA for the unvaccinated now worse than it was for Jews in Nazi Germany? Answers on a postcard please.

    Here in sunny Ecuador, you have to show a vaccination card to go into a supermarket, cinema, or to hop on an intercity bus, but nobody seems terribly bothered. Perhaps all the vaccine nonconformists have already been shipped to concentration camps with Kichwa and Shuar guards to be converted into shrunken heads and sold to tourists as souvenirs, I don't know.

    For those who are facing extermination, I do have one suggestion. See if you can locate a place where you can get a free vaccine. If you are worried about getting blood clots, you might want to consult your physician first to discuss anticoagulant therapy.

    This may help:

    https://www.walgreens.com/pharmacy/schedule-appointment.jsp#/location

    Disclosure: I have a small position in Walgreens Boots Alliance stock options in my IRA.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Mr. Anon

  79. @Anonymous

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences – two wrongs do not make a right.
     
    What makes systemic racism “wrong”?

    What makes racism or antisemitism wrong?

    Replies: @TyRade, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Nothing. These are simply psychological weapons to get whites to shut up and allow their lands invaded and their people subjugated.

    JackD doesn’t care about “systemic racism.” He cares about Jews. And in his mind, keeping the idea of systemic racism alive with whites helps Jews. (Btw, Jack is such a fanatic, he probably makes himself actually believe in systemic racism.) That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.

    Steve and the Sperg Right crowd can’t understand this. They keep thinking that the other side can be convinced with charts, tables and logic. They don’t understand the game being played.

  80. @J.Ross
    Systemic racism is a Marxian bull#&%@ like sexual objectification or the labor theory of value or the collapse of capitalism. It's a con and the correct response is to slap it away as a con. It is a disguise for the command, "recognize that I control you." (Priesthood schtick: "You're dirty, yes? You get clean by doing what I say.") You get no points for dirtying yourself with this mental nettle and no Marxist will ever be moved by your reasoning. Reject forcememes, debunking shills means you are still giving them a (you).

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Exactly. Systemic racism, anti-Semitism (which Jack naturally throws into the mix), etc. These are simply psychological weapons to get whites to shut up and allow their lands invaded and their people subjugated.

    JackD doesn’t care about “systemic racism.” He cares about Jews. And in his mind, keeping the idea of systemic racism alive with whites helps Jews. (Btw, Jack is such a fanatic that he probably makes himself actually believe in systemic racism. Jack will immediately believe deep in his soul anything that he believes will help Jews – an admirable trait, btw.) That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.

    Steve and the Sperg Right crowd can’t understand this. They keep thinking that the other side can be convinced with charts, tables and logic. They don’t understand the game being played.

    Jack is tribal. Steve and the other colorblind CivNats aren’t. That’s why Jack’s side is winning and colorblind civic nationalism has failed miserably for 50 years and will continue to fail going forward. For all his brains, Steve can’t seem to figure out that he’s playing for the Washington Generals.

  81. @Mike Tre
    "I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America"

    This is such a crock of unmitigated bullshit I'm not sure you're not just trolling to amuse yourself. for a guy who rejects Christ as the messiah you sure like to hang yourself on a cross.

    Where is this antisemitism you speak of? In show business? Wall Street? Academia? In media? In marketing? Pornography?

    Jews have positioned themselves to be the most influential minority in this country and you have the chutzpah to suggest their is widespread antisemitism? Do you really lack that much self awareness or are you just out of your mind?

    You're a goddamned liar Jack. I don't have any clue why any of the other more insightful commenters here give you the time of day. A goddamned liar.

    Replies: @Bernard, @Adept

    Jews have positioned themselves to be the most influential minority in this country and you have the chutzpah to suggest their is widespread antisemitism?

    The two things are not mutually exclusive. A minority can be — and, in fact, they often are — both influential and despised at the same time. This isn’t limited to Jews; the Chinese in S.E. Asia, the Indians in Madagascar (~30k people who purportedly control the majority of the nation’s economy), the Japanese in Peru, and others, also exemplify this. These minorities can be politically powerful and economically successful — but this makes them more, not less, likely to be widely disliked if things are going poorly.

  82. Blacks at last got their precious ‘fear and reverance’ in a pyrrhic, Twilight Zone episode type of way.

    I think the expectation for 60+ years now is that they were going to be showered with gifts and offerings like mafiosos, and that just never happens. They get ‘respeckt’ by empty platitudes and people staying the hell away from them. They end up being bribed to go away like fairytale trolls when on paper they were meant to be extolled like gods.

    The monetary offerings they get ended up going sideways, and turned into things like welfare housing or free college. Its either something that they don’t value, or ghettoized (on their part) to where the money feels like crumbs all over again.

  83. @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet
     
    1. I guess you are not a white gentile, then, huh?

    2. Stated preferences are not revealed preferences. Have you looked at the residential segregation data by race lately (or the past 60 years or ever)? Don't confuse GoodWhite virtue-signaling with GoodWhite actual-choices.

    But worry not. The yellows, being highly imitative, are on-game and are hard at work to be GoodAsians: "Her House is like Small Africa in Korea"

    https://youtu.be/797FKZ4IeNk

    Replies: @JMcG, @Mike Tre

    Instead of skewing the subject why don’t you just state who you believe to be less racially bigoted? As if I don’t know who you’ll say.

    Take a hike. You are cast from the same mold as Jack D.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    As if I don’t know who you’ll say.
     
    You don't. Like a lot of unwise people, you think you can read the minds of other people.

    why don’t you just state who you believe to be less racially bigoted?
     
    I am not a simpleton, so I don't think people of any race are inherently less or more racist. With bigotry, what I have observed (both firsthand and through the study of history) is that there is much contingency.

    Simply, this is what I think: racism tends to be strong with a certain group of people when that group believes it has been subject to much harm from others. As an example, I have found blacks in America to be much more racist than most other groups, largely because - I suspect - they believe (wrongly) they have suffered at the hands of others.

    As another example, the Germans prior to World War I were not particularly anti-Semitic. The Jewish population in Germany was small and it was well-assimilated, so, unsurprisingly, anti-Semitism was in significant decline. But anti-Semitism rose dramatically in the aftermath of World War I when the German populace suffered enormously at the hands of the victors even though the former thought - inaccurately - their armies were never defeated in the field.

    Take a hike.
     
    I'd like to see to you try to make me.

    You are cast from the same mold as Jack D.
     
    Simpletons are people who can't make distinctions.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  84. @Daniel H
    @Altai

    The model minority, hah. The Cucks place their hopes in these people.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    Exactly. The China-philia on this website in particular is mind boggling as it’s essentially asking to trade one master for another.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Mike Tre

    It's because they're sexually attracted to Asian women.

    Simple as that.

  85. “Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one’s thoughts.”

    In short, discrimination is a part of our inherent survival instincts.

    Mircro discrimination: crossing the street when approaching a negro on the sidewalk.

    Macro discrimination: Full stop on immigration.

    The former contributes to the survival of the individual, the latter to survival of the race.

    Discrimination is a good thing.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    Discrimination is a good thing.
     
    Is discrimination also good when high IQ, affluent GoodWhites look down on you and your progeny as "white trash" and marginalize you?

    The former contributes to the survival of the individual, the latter to survival of the race.
     
    And the GoodWhites would justify their discrimination against you and yours as being eugenically good (not unlike the way the commenter Thomm goes on about how "20% of whites are waste matter").

    Full stop on immigration.
     
    I agree with this... though for different reasons. I think it's good for most Americans, period.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    , @ben tillman
    @Mike Tre


    Discrimination is a good thing.
     
    Absolutely.

    Discrimination is what the immune system does. It discriminates between self and non-self to prevent the latter from harming the former. Discrimination is fundamental to life.
  86. It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices. I can’t be the spokesman for the black people of America.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Obviously, nowadays it also gains you many advantages. But whatever the advantages and disadvantages are, being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it. Whether “systemic racism” is really the correct term for this or not, if you tell black people, “Everything is fine now. That’s all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites”, they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    As I said in my original comment, the fact that this je nais se quoi (I hesitate to call it “systemic racism” because so many people object to that term) exists does not justify turning our society literally upside down (“the last shall be first”) or justify the “remedies” that SJW’s prescribe for “systemic racism”. But I don’t think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it’s all in their heads or that it’s all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up. The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it’s not going to work on blacks.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D

    Ho ho, Jackie. Whatever you, a Jew in Philadelphia, claim to be the concerns of Black! Americans, it will do you and us no good.

    When Blacks! are "treated in certain situations" differently,

    it is no different from how I was treated in similar, but converse situations.

    Has this ever happened to y0u, dear, Jewish landlord in Philadelphia?

    , @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices.
     
    It occurs to me that there aren't many thoughtful black voices in America today, period. And, even if there were, why would they comment on a dissident blog? They aren't dissidents. They are the privileged.

    One very thoughtful black voice I admire (though I do not agree 100%) is Glenn Loury. Not only is he superbly intelligent and credentialed, he is also realistic about HBD. I should add that he gives the same recommendation to his fellow blacks that I give to Asians (and to Jews): be grateful for this country and be patriotic.

    If you are truly serious about a thoughtful black voice, find his writings online and watch his YouTube podcasts with the likes of John McWhorter, Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Amy Wax.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations... That’s all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites”, they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.
     
    Hmmm, so what you are telling me is that blacks are petulantly childish and refuse to believe the reality of their existence in America - of having a giant thumb placed on their side of the scale. Are you now further suggesting that, since they do not comprehend this reality, I and my fellow non-black Americans should continue to indulge their dysfunction and should even reward it?

    The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it’s not going to work on blacks.
     
    "The Men of Unz"? What you, Alden now?

    Guess what? It's not just "The Men of Unz" (or whatever sly ad hominem you want to tar some of the commenters here) who are sick of the dysfunction and tired of indulging blacks. It's many "normie" Americans. It's whites, Hispanics, and Asians. It's about everybody except GoodWhites who like to virtue-signal in public all the while all their revealed preferences show that they like to keep away from the non-Talented Twentieth blacks as much as possible in their real, private lives.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    I'm going to disagree with you there.

    It's not that 'everything is fine'. It's that there is no end to the ways in which daily life can be abrasive, and there's not much you can do about it. What Glenn Loury said a generation ago is apt in this discussion: the vicissitudes of life are experienced by blacks and whites alike. Blacks suffer under the anxiety that people have it in for them a priori, so they process this experience differently. Sometimes it's true and sometimes its just the human condition in an affluent society. There is no policy or program to address this.

    The other problem is that there are always in-groups and out-groups in any social circumstance. Blacks cannot be at home in as many venues as can others. You would have to comprehensively erase the cultural distinction between blacks and others for that to go away. No one is motivated to do that except aspirant social engineers. Its not merely blacks in American society who suffer this problem; the entire mundane life of homosexual men is built around their failure to bond with ordinary men and their reactive tendency to agglutinate with each other and to eroticize friendships. Also suffering are people with particular temperaments. There is no way to address this problem either.

    There is one way in which blacks do suffer in a peculiar way that you can correct with public policy. What's notable about black politicians is that they sit on a spectrum which runs from indifferent to hostile to any measures to address this problem. The problem, of course, is exposure to street crime.

    Which brings you to another source of dissatisfaction that institutional managers strive to address but cannot be addressed without deadweight loss to the society as a whole. This is a cultural phenomenon which began to emerge in the black population around 1955 and which is metastasized since then. That is the tendency to value R-E-S-P-E-C-T over actual accomplishment. There is nothing the rest of society can do to repair this, but one can avoid encouraging it. Alas, institutional policy is almost always to throw rubbing alcohol onto an open flame.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices.
     
    Nigerian Nationalist and even Truth have said some witty things, though admittedly their main interest seems to be trolling. (Funny though that like other institutions, the comments rely on an Igbo import to get thoughtful black input.)

    I can’t be the spokesman for the black people of America.
     
    Why would you? Blacks don't even want Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson as spokesmen, and those guys are black.

    being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations.
     
    Being white in American means being treated negatively in certain situations, and not just situations of when people choose to click their car doors, but situation of having your career sidelined in favor of an obviously less qualified person, or of not having crimes against you investigated with equal vigor, or of being accused—and instantly convicted in the court of public opinion—of non-existent crimes, in general of being a second-class citizen legally, institutionally and culturally. These are "lived realities" too. When you ignore these in favor of car-lock microaggressions, aren't you "gaslighting" whites?

    being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it.
     
    So what? Being my brother means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than I experience it. But so what? Where is it written that everyone must have identical experiences? Besides being vaguely creepy and incipiently totalitarian, this unspoken assumption is the root of a lot of contemporary social pathology.

    if you tell black people, “Everything is fine now. That’s all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites”, they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.
     
    Does anyone here do that? This sounds more like something bluestocking white ladies say. "Men of Unz" are more likely to agree with Muhammed Ali: "Thank God your granddaddy got on that boat! (even if we don't necessarily)"

    But I don’t think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it’s all in their heads or that it’s all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up.
     
    As averred in prior comments, racism is never going away until races go away. Whether or not deracializing the world is a good thing depends on your view of biodiversity. But saying that there is a "systemic" racism against blacks is obviously false when there is massive institutional racism in favor of blacks. Or if you are downgrading "systemic" racism to be "je ne sais quoi" racism, then it is universal, and blacks are at least as strong practitioners as anyone else. And we all seem to agree that whatever "je ne sais quoi" racism is, it is not so terrible as to warrant the massive interventions undertaken in its name.
    , @anon
    @Jack D

    Being a man in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Females or cops may treat you with suspicion, as a threat. Many more males than females are arrested, jailed and shot.
    Therefore, I suffer from "systemic misandry", for the same reasons blacks suffer from "systemic racism". We both need to stop being a threat, black males doubly so, and the systemic whatever will go away.

    As for "systemic antisemitism" in America, this reminds me of the old European adage: "The Jew cries out as he strikes you".

    Replies: @silviosilver

  87. “it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants”

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

  88. @Mr. Anon

    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.
     
    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Gentilism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of a few vulgar "Christmas" movies. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Gentilic themselves – go figure.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Almost Missouri

    This is a humorous rejoinder to Jack’s defense of “systemic racism”, but it brings up an important point.

    If “systemic racism” doesn’t mean “institutional racism” but rather means something like “casual—and perhaps perfectly rational—choices made by self-interested individuals on an ongoing basis including on matters of very little gravity” (which seems to stretch the definition of “systemic”, but never mind), then everyone does this to some extent, including—and perhaps especially—blacks and Jews.

    So if everyone does it, why is it only a concern when it is done to the disadvantage of blacks (and per Jack, Jews)?

    I can think of several possible answers to this of varying levels of charitability, but for the integrity of Jack’s argument, the reasons are merely academic. Either “systemic racism” is institutional and objective, in which case it is obviously against whites, or it is diffuse and subjective, in which case everyone does it, so everyone is guilty. In the latter case, one could argue that some are more guilty than others, but if so, it would be very hard to argue that foundational stock whites are the most guilty of all.

    Since none of this is addressed by the promoters of “systemic racism”, as it would be if they were arguing in good faith, it is fair to conclude that it is really just another technique of white dispossession.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Almost Missouri

    Jack is loyal to his people; indeed, Jack is fanatically loyal to his people. Anyone who has read Jack's comments will know that he's a Jekyll and Hyde character.

    If the subject has nothing to do with Jews, Jack is thoughtful, balanced and insightful. If a subject has even the most tangential connection to Jews, he's laughably biased. (I mean that literally. I've more than once spit out my coffee in laughter at what Jack has written.)

    I believe that Jack truly believes in systemic racism because keeping systemic racism alive with gentile whites as a concept, in his mind, helps Jews. It's why he brought up Jews in his original comment. (Jack would have been O'Brien's star pupil. He really sees that extra finger if he believes it will help Jews.)

    Everyone arguing about whether systemic racism exists are missing the point. Medieval scribes understood that there were the facts of an event and there was a greater truth - the promotion of Christianity. The scribes would write about an event (or not) with the greater truth in mind. Changing facts or leaving certain facts out of their story was perfectly fine if it promoted the greater truth. They saw nothing wrong with misrepresenting the event.

    Steve and the Sperg Right want to argue about the facts and logic, but what they don't understand is that Jack and the Left (Jack isn't a Leftist, btw, just a Zionist) don't care about the facts. They care about their greater truth, which is their people or their cause. This is why Steve's Citizenism is such a failure and why Jack's people - and the Left - have been so successful.

    Replies: @Anon, @Mike Tre

    , @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    The people who say that "racism" can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts. Racism between the majority and the minority is not completely symmetrical. If you say, for example, that no whites can get loans at black owned banks so what's the issue if blacks can't get loans at white owned banks (and whites own 99% of the banks) then the problem becomes obvious.


    "Everyone does it" is not a complete excuse in majority-minority interactions.

    OTOH, it's easy for minorities to convince themselves that "we're a powerless minority so whatever racist stuff we do is OK, we're just trying to hang onto a few breadcrumbs of dignity", long past the point where they are in fact a powerless minority.

    However, I repeat what I said above. The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it's not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Almost Missouri, @William Badwhite

  89. @Anonymous
    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.

    No, that is a total misrepresentation. People here do not say there was no anti-Jewish animus and anxiety in American history and life. They say 'antisemitism' hardly counts as one of the tragic chapters of America History. It's not like Jews were wiped out like the American Indians. Or used as slaves as blacks were. Or exploited like Chinese workers building railroads. Or treated like German-Americans during WWI and especially Japanese Americans during WWII. Indeed, it's telling that one of the recurring themes of Jewish victimization in the US are about country clubs. (Though Jewishness isn't usually invoked, the hysteria about the Red Scare is also largely about the cult of Jewish victimization.) Other peoples had much bigger things to worry about. Furthermore, certain anti-Jewish sentiments were understandable. Jews cheated so many black entertainers and athletes who could barely read and write. Of course, people like Farrakhan grew up with hostile feelings toward Jews.

    There's another thing Jews don't want to talk about. Much of the negative experience Jews often experienced came not from Wasps but from fellow immigrant ethnics. And from blacks who robbed Jews as often as Jews exploited blacks. If a Jewish kid got beaten up in some part of NY, it was more likely a bunch of Poles, Irish Catholics, Italians, or blacks than Wasps. Read some of the accounts of Jewish Life in 20th century New York or Chicago, and it's often about Jews getting roughed up NOT by wasps but other elements. If anything, an aspiring Jew was likely to get a more sympathetic ear from wasps on top than Italians, Poles, Irish, and blacks on the bottom kicking their butt.

    So, why have Jews focused on Wasps and country clubs? Because Jews aspired to rise above the ethnics and blacks and take over from Wasps. So, Jews had to create the impression of unity among Jews, ethnics, and blacks against Wasps who supposedly had it all. Wasps had what Jews wanted, and Jews needed allies among non-Wasps.
    It's like Jews try to suppress their tensions with the Arab-American and Muslim community to prop up the illusion of an alliance of Jews and People of Color against 'white supremacism'. It's also why Jews don't make a big fuss about the very tragic Latin American history where entire indigenous populations were wiped out by Spanish Europeans; also many more blacks were shipped to Latin America. Jews need white Hispanics as allies against White America. So, even white Hispanics get to pass as 'people of color' and join with Jews and nonwhites against whites. It's very strategic. Notice how Jews are even allied with certain far-right elements in Ukraine tainted with Nazi history.

    Furthermore, it was Philosemitism that led to America's great crimes against Russia and the Arab World. Philosemitism blinded America to Zionist crimes in the Near East. Philosemitism keeps US politicians barking at Russia even though so much of Russian foreign policy since 2000 is best understood as reaction to Jewish oligarchic plunder of that country in the 90s. But because of Philosemitism, Jewish Hatred gets a pass and goes on dominating US foreign policy that has done so much damage.

    Nice try, except that your own examples – such as the landlord preferring non-black tenants, or the Sikh cab driver choosing not to pick up young black males – clearly demonstrate that the prejudice which exists in America today against blacks is the opposite of systemic as that term is meant to be understood by most people.

    It's telling that there's so much focus on negative feelings toward blacks but total silence about black hostility, hatred, and violence against non-blacks. For sure, there is systemic black violence and thuggery all across America. BLM is systematized violence and intimidation. It's systemic because so many blacks feel they are above the law due to 'muh slavery'. And it's also systematic because it has the backing of Jewish Power that dominates the US. Jerry Nadler lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon a Jewish terrorist radical. That vile wench supervises a wing of BLM.

    In a sane society, no moral defense is necessary for common sense reaction to black behavior. After all, white/Jewish so-called 'liberals' took part in White Flight and Gentrification. On some level, they know the reality.
    Then, the problem isn't 'systemic racism', but systemic mendacity, hypocrisy, and venality. It is a fact that blacks are far more violence-prone than any other group. The only sensible explanation is evolution and racial differences. But the culture of systemic deception makes people pretend a total retard thug like Floyd was some kind of saint. But in a country where the likes of Abe Foxman are allowed to serve as moral watchdogs and where the ethno-monopolistic media refer to SPLC for tips on the baddies, what does anyone expect?

    Replies: @Gordo, @Rich

    American Indians weren’t wiped out and there are more Indians alive and living on reservations then were in the continental US at the founding of Jamestown. As well as the many Indians who integrated into White society and disappeared into the great mass. Friendly Indian tribes worked with and often intermarried with the Europeans, unfriendly tribes who violated treaties, or waged war on Whites and lost were simply driven onto reservations after they lost.

  90. The biggest crime thinkers about blacks are non white immigrants, period.
    Their kids usually become wokies thanks to the effective indoctrination of the pub(l)ic school system.

  91. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    PC beliefs in general are a status symbol of sorts. You can afford to believe in them and not have your life ruined. I suppose that makes 35 year old declassed liberals with no social networks, no family, and no prospect of gaining them the equivalent of bankrupted impoverished nobility in the pursuit of keeping up their lifestyle in opera hat era Europe. Mental illnesses abound.

    The dynamic is different with new arrivals from south of the border. They don't leave, there's too many of them and these aren't aspiring tiger parents here in the first place. So they instead beat the blacks at their own terror game and get them to leave. Cartel policy toward them is ruthless and efficient. Especially when it is a reprisal, but also when it isn't.

    (As you've noted in the past, they'll be the real security headache long term, not black rioters.)

    Maybe that's part of why the Biden administration is so desperate to put the new illegals up in random white parts of the country for trips to random red state towns across the country. Even for triple digit hotel rates, and even if they got to put up tarp to hide them shipping the migrants out down in Brownsville. Why the GOP is not blasting the crap out of this 24/7 for political effect, especially to Millennials who the government opted not to bail out for reasons of affordability, can only be attested to a mix of general pussy-tude and battered wife syndrome.

    Thing is, though, don't think it's gonna work for that specific purpose. People will go where the support networks are.

    Replies: @Alan Mercer, @Gamecock

    “PC beliefs in general are a status symbol of sorts. You can afford to believe in them and not have your life ruined.”

    Prosperity breeds decadence. Decadence breeds collapse.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Gamecock

    Or as the Chinese would put it, 富不过三代. America in 1992 had levels of wealth, power, and stability that no other nation had before. Because of that, we could afford to have Baby Boomer frivolity in our political system, the stuff that you best see in the reaction to 1/6 with the simultaneous ignoring of the 2020 riots and what they did in the midst of their own lockdown policies, in the 1990s. That's why a lot of this started., when you think about it. The absolute pettiness and gauzy idealism covering up venality. The Soviet Union didn't exist anymore, so there was no real check on the stupidity, ideological beliefs, and corruption of a new generation of political elites.

    (If the PRC didn't have the level of influence they do domestically in the US-at a level that the USSR could only have dreamt about, even at their post-FDR spy peak in the US-I'd say that getting a rival that can challenge us might not be the worst thing in the world, because it would forcibly reintroduce seriousness and the desire to actually *lead*, to take responsibility among our elites. Or I used to think that, anyway. Events in Ukraine right now are proving that wrong.)

    Continue another couple decades, though, and... well, the piper demands to be paid.

    This wheel will turn with enough effort, time, and luck. This is a damned special country. But I'm under no delusions about how in the hole we've gotten.

  92. @Almost Missouri
    @Mr. Anon

    This is a humorous rejoinder to Jack's defense of "systemic racism", but it brings up an important point.

    If "systemic racism" doesn't mean "institutional racism" but rather means something like "casual—and perhaps perfectly rational—choices made by self-interested individuals on an ongoing basis including on matters of very little gravity" (which seems to stretch the definition of "systemic", but never mind), then everyone does this to some extent, including—and perhaps especially—blacks and Jews.

    So if everyone does it, why is it only a concern when it is done to the disadvantage of blacks (and per Jack, Jews)?

    I can think of several possible answers to this of varying levels of charitability, but for the integrity of Jack's argument, the reasons are merely academic. Either "systemic racism" is institutional and objective, in which case it is obviously against whites, or it is diffuse and subjective, in which case everyone does it, so everyone is guilty. In the latter case, one could argue that some are more guilty than others, but if so, it would be very hard to argue that foundational stock whites are the most guilty of all.

    Since none of this is addressed by the promoters of "systemic racism", as it would be if they were arguing in good faith, it is fair to conclude that it is really just another technique of white dispossession.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Jack D

    Jack is loyal to his people; indeed, Jack is fanatically loyal to his people. Anyone who has read Jack’s comments will know that he’s a Jekyll and Hyde character.

    If the subject has nothing to do with Jews, Jack is thoughtful, balanced and insightful. If a subject has even the most tangential connection to Jews, he’s laughably biased. (I mean that literally. I’ve more than once spit out my coffee in laughter at what Jack has written.)

    I believe that Jack truly believes in systemic racism because keeping systemic racism alive with gentile whites as a concept, in his mind, helps Jews. It’s why he brought up Jews in his original comment. (Jack would have been O’Brien’s star pupil. He really sees that extra finger if he believes it will help Jews.)

    Everyone arguing about whether systemic racism exists are missing the point. Medieval scribes understood that there were the facts of an event and there was a greater truth – the promotion of Christianity. The scribes would write about an event (or not) with the greater truth in mind. Changing facts or leaving certain facts out of their story was perfectly fine if it promoted the greater truth. They saw nothing wrong with misrepresenting the event.

    Steve and the Sperg Right want to argue about the facts and logic, but what they don’t understand is that Jack and the Left (Jack isn’t a Leftist, btw, just a Zionist) don’t care about the facts. They care about their greater truth, which is their people or their cause. This is why Steve’s Citizenism is such a failure and why Jack’s people – and the Left – have been so successful.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Medieval scribes understood that there were the facts of an event and there was a greater truth
     
    Do you have a citation?

    Steve and the Sperg Right want to argue about the facts and logic, but what they don’t understand is that Jack and the Left (Jack isn’t a Leftist, btw, just a Zionist) don’t care about the facts. They care about their greater truth, which is their people or their cause. This is why Steve’s Citizenism is such a failure and why Jack’s people – and the Left – have been so successful.
     
    Nope. Jack cloaks his arguments in principles, not in the naked advancement of his tribe. Jews have been successful precisely because they avoid making public appeals to their naked self interest.

    Whether Steve intends it or not, citizenism is a good principle with which to advance White interests and shut down immigration.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Mike Tre
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Twinkles is exactly the same in regards to Asians, and Rosie/Queen Alden in regards to wymynsez.

  93. @Bumpkin
    Systemic racism is a meaningless term, simply memed into existence by copying the popular term "systemic risk" from the 2008 financial crisis.

    The idea of systemic risk was that many individual firms in the financial sector would make a bunch of decisions for themselves that weren't that risky or at the very least, would primarily affect each firm itself by going insolvent, but taken as a whole would create systemic failures because of the well-known connected nature of the financial system, eg payouts are still being determined and paid out to the creditors of Lehman Brothers 13 years after their bankruptcy, during which time those lenders obviously didn't have access to that money.

    Systemic risk was used as an excuse to justify further government regulation of finance, as though they weren't already heavily regulated and their existing regulators already proven fairly incompetent at anything other than paper-pushing, eg the SEC didn't even understand the complaints against Madoff.

    With the continuing failure of most blacks to scale the rungs of American society very highly and their disproportionate crime rates and associated police run-ins, it was decided by the Democrat politicians and scheming billionaires to now push "systemic racism" analogously as the reason. What was the alternative, explain how decades of affirmative action and racial comity haven't improved blacks' lives to the level of middle-class whites because of Sailer's HBD, the more likely reason?

    If you argue against this nebulous systemic racism, you're given a few anecdotes and stats of bad outcomes. When you ask for evidence of actual racism causing those outcomes, the best they can come up with are Jack's anecdotes about some avoidance here and there. If you ask for evidence of anything systemic, you get a lot of hand-waving about unconscious bias: what else could it be, as blacks are just people like us but all these bad things keep happening to them?

    Any attempt by Sailer or Murray to bring up genetics or even culture (I'm listening to their podcast now) is doomed to failure, as the racial grifters will start calling that racism and not "real science," as if these dimbulbs would know what that is. Nobody in the middle wants to be called "racist" by the grifters like Sharpton, so they slavishly bow and scrape to the obvious BLM conmen.

    The fundamental problem is not the blacks, they've been around for centuries. The fundamental problem is the decay in the country itself, where people are too ignorant or cowardly to grapple with such difficult problems, as Sailer and Murray stubbornly do.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @Almost Missouri

    I agree, especially with the last sentence.

    memed into existence by copying the popular term “systemic risk” from the 2008 financial crisis.

    I wasn’t sure if I agreed with this since I never thought about it. Looing at Google Trends, which tracks web searches, it shows an enormous spike on George Floyd day and deep lowlands everywhere else. (Apparently, Floyd’s overdose really was like the original Easter event for Wokels.) Filtering out the spike shows a buildup from 2014 to a low plateau starting about 2016, but there is Note at this time saying that Google changed its data collection, so who knowns how artifact-y this is? Well, 2014-2016 is after 2008, but kinda late for memtic piggybacking.

    Google’s Ngram Viewer, which tracks books, was more revealing. It shows an accelerating growth curve with two clear inflection points: the first in the late 1980s, I guess when “systemic racism” first became an obscure academic subject among the CultMarx professoriat, then a second upward inflection point right after the 2008 financial crisis, so it really does look like a case of the media transferring the perceived legitimacy of “systemic risk” to a more dubious but more favored topic.

    Sorry I can’t include direct links to those Google charts because they seem to crash the Unz commenting scripts, but they are simple searches anyone can do.

    The other interesting thing here is this implies how non-organic the “systemic racism” concept is. If the Google Trends curves pre-dated the Ngram curve, then it would be a case of book-authors writing about something that has already occurred. But when the Ngram curve predates the Trends curve (by a lot), it implies that the book-authors are laboring in the background to bring something into existence.

  94. @Almost Missouri
    @Mr. Anon

    This is a humorous rejoinder to Jack's defense of "systemic racism", but it brings up an important point.

    If "systemic racism" doesn't mean "institutional racism" but rather means something like "casual—and perhaps perfectly rational—choices made by self-interested individuals on an ongoing basis including on matters of very little gravity" (which seems to stretch the definition of "systemic", but never mind), then everyone does this to some extent, including—and perhaps especially—blacks and Jews.

    So if everyone does it, why is it only a concern when it is done to the disadvantage of blacks (and per Jack, Jews)?

    I can think of several possible answers to this of varying levels of charitability, but for the integrity of Jack's argument, the reasons are merely academic. Either "systemic racism" is institutional and objective, in which case it is obviously against whites, or it is diffuse and subjective, in which case everyone does it, so everyone is guilty. In the latter case, one could argue that some are more guilty than others, but if so, it would be very hard to argue that foundational stock whites are the most guilty of all.

    Since none of this is addressed by the promoters of "systemic racism", as it would be if they were arguing in good faith, it is fair to conclude that it is really just another technique of white dispossession.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Jack D

    The people who say that “racism” can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts. Racism between the majority and the minority is not completely symmetrical. If you say, for example, that no whites can get loans at black owned banks so what’s the issue if blacks can’t get loans at white owned banks (and whites own 99% of the banks) then the problem becomes obvious.

    “Everyone does it” is not a complete excuse in majority-minority interactions.

    OTOH, it’s easy for minorities to convince themselves that “we’re a powerless minority so whatever racist stuff we do is OK, we’re just trying to hang onto a few breadcrumbs of dignity”, long past the point where they are in fact a powerless minority.

    However, I repeat what I said above. The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it’s not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @Jack D

    I propose a discipline, Racism Studies, to help sort out this confusing issue.

    , @ic1000
    @Jack D

    > The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it’s not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Jack D, I don't think this is a particularly accurate synopsis.

    Reading this thread, many commenters point out ways that "it sucks to be black in 2022 America." This tracks with my own view.

    The example that will do is "a black guy can't hail a cab at night." This comes up regularly in Rust Belt City, surprise. Years back, the progressive free paper of the day did an(other) in-depth look for a searing indictment of WASP Racism. To the reporter's credit, he recounted his interviews with cabbies -- black, other, white -- who saw things differently. Fox and rabbit running. I doubt the elite press of today would touch that side of the story.

    Sailer also hasn't been shy about opining on this general topic.

    Related: outside the confines of this website, it is far too impolite to remark that anti-racist [sic] initiatives (Affirmative Action, BLM, etc.) provide tremendous benefits to moderate/high g blacks (ADOS's and immigrants) who can maintain a working-class or middle-class lifestyle. They are no help to low-g ADOS's, especially those living a chaotic grey-economy/welfare life.

    I acknowledge that black people won't see this the way that I do. I have no desire to gaslight them, but neither will I privilege their generally self-centered and lowbrow explanations over what I see with my own lying eyes.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    The people who say that “racism” can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts.
     
    So when whites lose majority status in a few years, will the charge that only Whites' Racisms Matter go away? No, of course not. On the contrary, the charge will certainly increase. Because majority status was never the real reason for the charge.

    I hate to "go there" but do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel? That's not the impression I have gotten from your prior comments on the subject.

    The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it’s not going to convince one black person
     
    This is not the question. I don't think anyone cares about convincing black people, and I doubt even black people care particularly about being convinced.

    nor is it going to make the issue go away.
     
    As long as there is easy money and power in it, it certainly won't. But that is what keeps it alive, not veracity.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @William Badwhite
    @Jack D


    it’s not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.
     
    The issue is like when it rains on Saturdays - it is unfortunate but nothing can be done about it.

    I'd ask you the same question I ask the few leftist friends I have left: "What SPECIFICALLY do you suggest be done about it"? Nobody ever has an answer, its just slogans and pie-in-the-sky generalities like "stop hate".
  95. Systemic racism is a some kind of mysterious and all powerful force. Dark brown (dot) Indians are out scoring everyone on standardized tests while light brown (feather) Indians and Mestizos are underperforming. Racism makes Asians bad at basketball and good at math, but racism makes Blacks good at basketball and bad at math. Racism makes Blacks die younger, but Mestizos live longer (relative to Whites).

    It’s one thing to recognize prejudice in everyday interactions (not necessarily racism – which I define as racial animosity). But how do you then connect it to outcomes with zero or even contradictory evidence? It’s hard to argue with the left on the details of this theory when a small step back to common sense reveals it as nothing but quasi-religious nonsense.

    Do poverty and living conditions have the potential to lower test scores? Yes, but adoption studies show only moderately and only at levels below working class living conditions. Then what about Blacks from educated and wealthy families underperforming lower income Whites? And what about those dark brown Indians and Fancy Asians? This isn’t about ‘science’ anymore. It’s about everyone to the political right of hardcore leftists lacking the backbone to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Systemic racism as an explanation of Black underperformance is absurd on the face of it. You can’t debate Clown World.

    • LOL: Twinkie
  96. @Jack D
    @Twinkie

    Anti-semitism in America has ebbed and flowed. During colonial times and thru the 1st few decades of the 19th century, Jews in America were a small community and mostly Sephardic and well accepted. Starting in the 1840s, a fair # of German Jews came along with a large German Christian migration that filled the cities of the Midwest. This group was also fairly well accepted although General Grant is well known for his anti-Semitic General Order #11.

    But the arrival of great masses of unwashed Jews from E. Europe in the late 19th/early 20th century triggered a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon. Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc. to an extent that is literally unimaginable to Americans today. When I said that people here denied that, I was referring in particular to that period.

    After WWII, "polite" anti-Semitism fell into disrepute because it became associated with the "impolite" kind that the Nazis practiced, although its last vestiges lingered on for decades more.


    That Jews in America were able to thrive despite the obstacles does not mean that the obstacles did not exist. Jews were able to carve out niches such as Hollywood because film was a brand new industry where there was no existing establishment set up to keep Jews out. I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    So what?

    I don’t owe you or Jews in general anything, neither do white gentiles in general, just as Jews don’t owe me or my people anything.

    We never had a moral obligation to accept Jews (or blacks or Asians or anyone else) into our society or institutions or country for that matter, just as Jews don’t have to accept us, something Jews make very clear.

    The only question is whether enough gentile whites will re-learn this lesson in time.

  97. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    The people who say that "racism" can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts. Racism between the majority and the minority is not completely symmetrical. If you say, for example, that no whites can get loans at black owned banks so what's the issue if blacks can't get loans at white owned banks (and whites own 99% of the banks) then the problem becomes obvious.


    "Everyone does it" is not a complete excuse in majority-minority interactions.

    OTOH, it's easy for minorities to convince themselves that "we're a powerless minority so whatever racist stuff we do is OK, we're just trying to hang onto a few breadcrumbs of dignity", long past the point where they are in fact a powerless minority.

    However, I repeat what I said above. The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it's not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Almost Missouri, @William Badwhite

    I propose a discipline, Racism Studies, to help sort out this confusing issue.

  98. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon
     
    Gee, I wonder why that was. I suppose the whole world was just stupidly evil.

    Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc.
     
    They weren't restricted. There were some barriers, but those barriers were hardly insurmountable. If they were, Henry Morgenthau wouldn't have been able to attend Exeter and Cornell and then go on to become the Secretary of Treasury through these supposedly horrifyingly anti-Semitic 30's when he was put in charge of designing the New Deal to remake the entire nation's economy and financing America's entry into World War II.

    I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.
     
    Then why do you keep bringing up this very "mild" discrimination Jews underwent here, tying it to supposed systemic discrimination against blacks? Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of "WASPs" in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions. The Germans were ostracized during World War I (one of my wife's grandmothers spoke German at home with her own grandparents and were told not to do so outside during this time). The Italians were despised as dirty wogs. The Japanese were mass-interned (while some of their children were dying in droves trying to prove their loyalty to America in war). And let's not forget about American Indians who suffered mass-extinction as peoples. It goes on and on.

    So trying to push tales of Jewish suffering America and selling the Jews as the Victim-est People Ever are just bound to invite negative reaction, not just here, but even among "normies" (if in private and muted terms). That's why "anti-Semitism" is "on the rise" today.

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about "anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real," how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic. Sure, it hasn't been all wonderful, but its flaws are small and its munificence large, so let's appreciate it. That's certainly what I say about Asians (or insert any immigrant group here) when I hear complaints about how America has been just terrible, terrible for them.

    I love this country. This country has been great to me and millions of others who have come here from other shores. I am willing to die for the country, so that my children can inherit it as I found it. I revere its founders and those who came after (and before me) who built it. How about you do the same even sitting on that perch as the most dominant, influential, and powerful minority group ever? How about a little noblesse oblige?

    Replies: @Technite78, @Achmed E. Newman, @JimDandy, @anonymous, @anonymous

    When many Jews help their own group to the detriment of other groups–but literally make a federal case out of it when Gentiles try doing the same–is that systematic racism?

  99. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Twinkie

    Great comment, Twinkie. I doubt you meant it like that, but in your 1st paragraph after the 3rd blockquote - about all the victimization - with all that, America likely beats all other societies in how well it has treated foreigners within over the years. Would you agree with that, Jack?

    Replies: @Jack D

    I really don’t know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis – it’s right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It’s like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn’t great. But America is America, it’s not WASPland.

    As for “how well it has treated foreigners” it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I’d say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can’t begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I’m not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination – if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn’t always live up to its rule book.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination – if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South.
     
    This is yet another lie. It's just so much minoritarian "these evil gentile whites would have kept us down if we didn't hustle ourselves into equality and power" trope.

    Back when I used to farm for my in-laws in the rural Midwest, I used to go to the local libraries to read the historical documents from the towns in the area. Some of these documents I read were deeply moving letters written by the local boys and men who volunteered to fight for the Union in the Civil War. That's right. While there were draft riots going on among immigrants and "ethnics" in the Northeast, "WASP" boys and men were fired by Christian abolitionist zeal and volunteered to die in droves to free black slaves. The same spirit guided their descendants when they fought for and supported equality for non-whites later on.

    Not all gentile whites or "WASPs" were fair-minded and just, but many (likely most) were. If they weren't, none of the equality that exists today would have happened no matter how much you think Jewish or black agitation led to it. Jews and blacks simply were not numerous enough (even Jewish money and influence wouldn't have been enough without the basic sense of decency of ordinary Americans to which they could appeal). So, when you write such a clearly ahistorical lie, you are not only failing to pay tribute to the nobility of spirit of those ordinary white Americans who made all this possible, but you are maligning them unfairly. It wreaks of self-righteous minoritarian supremacism ("WE made this happen, not you, so you can just shut up about how you are a second-class citizen now!").
    , @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1.
     
    No. It was a settler society from Day 1. A society of settlers that were all mostly from the same country, and often even the same (or at least fairly similar) religion, shire and town. Early US settlements were more homogeneous than 99% of the towns and cities in America today, and they remained so for decades or even centuries. Even by the time of the first US Census, in 1790, over 80% of the non-slave population was of British ancestry. Virtually all of the rest were Northwest European, of some sort or another. Demographically at least, the United States, over 180 years after its settlement began, looked a whole lot like the world its settlers had left behind.

    Somaliland is the land of the Somalis – it’s right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It’s like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn’t great. But America is America, it’s not WASPland.
     

    That's ridiculously self-referential. What is Somaliland? A land full of Somalis. What is Germany? A land full of Germans. What is Britain? A land full of Britons.


    If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.
     

    The Chinese Exclusion Act didn't involve "treating" them at all. It basically just involved not letting them come here.

    In 1880, the population of California, Oregon, and Washington was 1.1 million. The population of Australia was about 2.2 million. China's population in 1880 was well over 400 million.

    If Australia and the United States had not banned Chinese immigration, Australia and the Western US would have quickly become extensions of Chinese, not European, civilization. Not could have or might have, but would have.

    They would have been overrun - just as we actually are being overrun today. The demographic consequences of open borders is no longer just doomsaying. It is here. It is now. It is fact.

    Should we be sorry that we didn't allow China to conquer Australia and the Western US? I'm not.

    There are fundamental differences between settling and immigrating. Immigration only requires one person to pick up and move to some established community. That might be psychologically intimidating, but in physical terms in just isn't all that difficult. The person doesn't have to know anyone in that community, doesn't have to speak their language, and doesn't even have to share any common interests. In many cases he or she will be nothing more than a parasite, living off the success of the community. There is very little risk to life or limb.

    Settling a new place is completely different. It almost always requires leaving an established community to build one that does not yet exist. It means abandoning convenience for risk. Centuries ago it often entailed high mortality rates. To do it successfully almost always requires organization on some scale. Probably all of the successful settlements in US history involved religious groups (Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Utah), companies, or large extended families.

    Settlers generally like it when new people arrive, even if those people don't share many of the same backgrounds or beliefs, because more people increases the likelihood that the settlement will succeed. But if the new arrivals can't be trusted, or arrive only to feed off the host population, behave in ways that undermine the survival of the settlement, or even actively organize themselves against the host population, then for good reason the settlers won't be very welcoming to the outsiders. Their success and survival depends on them being able to distinguish someone who is a threat from someone who is not.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

     

    America's immigrants have thrived not just because they have been allowed to thrive, but because we have admitted the kinds of immigrants who can thrive and who want to thrive. That doesn't mean immigrants will always be like that.

    Immigrant is really a useless word, in most of the senses it is used - especially today. It distinguishes not at all between how someone arrived (legally or illegally), their native intelligence, their skillset, their willingness to obey the law or work hard or assimilate to the culture already here. It tells you absolutely nothing about someone except that they weren't born a citizen of they country in which they now reside.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D

    Wilkey, DITTO.

    I was going to write a shorter version of much of the same, Jack. I'm glad he beat me to it, as there are only so many hours in the day.

    How about this? Could you say you were wrong very clearly just this one time, because I think Twinkie's "you should stop digging" is true this time, regarding just your initial comment? You sort of said this but how about a big AGREE to only this part:

    Jack D. was wrong to say that that America has any systemic racism, as understood by the people that claim it, against White people in present-day America.

    You don't have to have that notarized. If anyone sues, you come to Peak Stupidity for free advice or subscribe to my UPL (Un-Paid Legal) service. No success guaranteed, implied, or expected.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @William Badwhite
    @Jack D


    If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.
     
    The Chinese Exclusion Act simply kept a lid on Chinese moving here. It had no effect on the ones already living here. Not being able to be joined by hordes of your co-ethnics in someone else's country is not poor treatment.

    Americans (sensibly) didn't want their vast, partly empty continent to be filled with endless streams of Chinese.

    Also, America was not an "immigration society" from day one. This has been explained to you many times. Some people settled a largely empty continent, dealt with the natives, then over time expelled three European powers and largely finished building the place. Then other people began showing up and now their ancestors like to take credit for immigrants "building" America.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Technite78
    @Jack D


    America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1.
     
    That is zeroth Amendment BS.

    As others have said, there is a difference between settling a largely uninhabited and undeveloped land, and leveraging the benefits of an existing society and infrastructure that others have already built (immigration). America was settled, and those settlers waged a war for independence before there was significant "immigration".

    , @jsm
    @Jack D


    if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South.
     
    Could somebody please explain to an uncultured simpleton like me why this was a **bad** thing? Was there something wrong with the water in those Colored fountains? Was it poisoned? Or is the problem simply, that it hurt the poor darkies' feelings? Is that it? Is that the whole reason? Hurt feelings? All this sturm and drang over hurt feelings for saying, "You go over there and use that one"?

    Gee, you'd think people would appreciate, double the number of fountains = shorter lines.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Jack this comment yours is almost a textbook illustration of why letting Jews come to America has been a disaster.

    ~

    BTW, i'm curious why since America was never "WASPland" but a "nation of immigrants" "from day 1", why it was that immigrants had to "push back against discrimination"? why Jews had to fight for entry to country clubs? .... why Jews even wanted to join Waspy Acres CC?

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @anonymous

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    ... If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.
     
    Just for the record: anyone who thinks there was anything the least bit wrong with the Chinese Exclusion Act is unfit to live in a civilized society.

    Even the Chinese understand that. The Chinese government--of course--protested at the time. (They are Chinese working in the interest of Chinese, not Americans.) But the Chinese understood--and clearly understand today--that excluding various foreigners from settling is a very wise policy.


    The failure of the Act, was that it turned out the Chinese weren't the critical set of foreigners needing exclusion.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anon

    , @anonymous
    @Jack D


    then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.
     
    The Chinese exclude non-Chinese from China.
  100. @Jack D
    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices. I can't be the spokesman for the black people of America.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Obviously, nowadays it also gains you many advantages. But whatever the advantages and disadvantages are, being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it. Whether "systemic racism" is really the correct term for this or not, if you tell black people, "Everything is fine now. That's all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites", they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    As I said in my original comment, the fact that this je nais se quoi (I hesitate to call it "systemic racism" because so many people object to that term) exists does not justify turning our society literally upside down ("the last shall be first") or justify the "remedies" that SJW's prescribe for "systemic racism". But I don't think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it's all in their heads or that it's all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up. The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it's not going to work on blacks.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    Ho ho, Jackie. Whatever you, a Jew in Philadelphia, claim to be the concerns of Black! Americans, it will do you and us no good.

    When Blacks! are “treated in certain situations” differently,

    it is no different from how I was treated in similar, but converse situations.

    Has this ever happened to y0u, dear, Jewish landlord in Philadelphia?

  101. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    The people who say that "racism" can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts. Racism between the majority and the minority is not completely symmetrical. If you say, for example, that no whites can get loans at black owned banks so what's the issue if blacks can't get loans at white owned banks (and whites own 99% of the banks) then the problem becomes obvious.


    "Everyone does it" is not a complete excuse in majority-minority interactions.

    OTOH, it's easy for minorities to convince themselves that "we're a powerless minority so whatever racist stuff we do is OK, we're just trying to hang onto a few breadcrumbs of dignity", long past the point where they are in fact a powerless minority.

    However, I repeat what I said above. The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it's not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Almost Missouri, @William Badwhite

    > The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it’s not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Jack D, I don’t think this is a particularly accurate synopsis.

    Reading this thread, many commenters point out ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.” This tracks with my own view.

    The example that will do is “a black guy can’t hail a cab at night.” This comes up regularly in Rust Belt City, surprise. Years back, the progressive free paper of the day did an(other) in-depth look for a searing indictment of WASP Racism. To the reporter’s credit, he recounted his interviews with cabbies — black, other, white — who saw things differently. Fox and rabbit running. I doubt the elite press of today would touch that side of the story.

    Sailer also hasn’t been shy about opining on this general topic.

    Related: outside the confines of this website, it is far too impolite to remark that anti-racist [sic] initiatives (Affirmative Action, BLM, etc.) provide tremendous benefits to moderate/high g blacks (ADOS’s and immigrants) who can maintain a working-class or middle-class lifestyle. They are no help to low-g ADOS’s, especially those living a chaotic grey-economy/welfare life.

    I acknowledge that black people won’t see this the way that I do. I have no desire to gaslight them, but neither will I privilege their generally self-centered and lowbrow explanations over what I see with my own lying eyes.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ic1000


    Reading this threads, many commenters point out ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.”
     
    Really? Other than the cab example, which I gave in my initial comment, can you point to comments that said that? Because all I saw was a lot of denial or statements to the effect that it's mostly/entirely the blacks own fault.

    As I have often pointed out, blacks in America have their own blame shifting issue. There is a lot of denial of agency and the automatic assumption that things are done TO black people and never BY black people. Even when the black man pulls the trigger, it's "society" that made him do it. This is obviously the wrong way of looking at the issues.

    But OTOH, I don't see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Not only are blacks not disfavored, they are positively favored (which is not to say that this is not true in certain spheres). Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight - since then everything has been a bed of roses. They, like blacks, dindu nuthin. If anyone is racist, it's those immigrant cab drivers, not real Americans.

    This kind of denial is not a good look on anyone. It's not surprising that in the face of such denial that blacks and their political allies would decide that they only way that they are going to get white people to stopped behaving racisly is to force them and impose quotas because they are never going to get voluntary compliance from people who are in complete denial that an issue even exists.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @ic1000, @Brutusale

  102. Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one’s thoughts.

    In other words what would have been referred to, prior to 1964, as an exercise of one’s Constitutional rights – your freedom of conscience, freedom of association, your right to your property and its disposition.

    In fact, such choices were still commonly thought of as your rights long after 1964, until people slowly – and then all at once – realized that the 1964 Civil Rights Act actually was a new Constitution displacing much of the old one (though we were never told that at the time).

    Individual discrimination against blacks does exist. It is fairly widespread, but overall I doubt it accounts for more than 10% of the differences in income, life expectancy, educational attainment, and employment rates between whites and blacks. And it certainly doesn’t account for more than 20%. The rest is fully and entirely on them.

    I have a lot of sympathy for well-behaved blacks who are hurt, in one way or another, by such discrimination. But everyone seems to think that the burden for resolving this problem rests entirely on whites. Whites must stop misbehaving. Whites must bend over backwards to accommodate blacks. Whites must set aside our own financial interests, even at great personal risk.

    Blacks, who commit all the misbehavior that leads to this discrimination? They don’t have to do anything. They don’t have to turn in criminals in their neighborhood. They don’t have to respect the police. They don’t have to marry the mothers of their children. They don’t have to help their children with their homework. They don’t have to take good care of the homes and apartments they rent. They don’t have to obey traffic laws. They don’t have to show up to class. They don’t have to hit the books instead of playing basketball or video games all day. They don’t have to choose useful majors instead of “African Studies.”

    The burden is all supposed to be on white people, despite the fact that America has shown than non-white minorities can actually do just fine – better than whites, even – when they actually try.

    The vast majority of the differences between whites and blacks can be explained by black behavior. Of that which can be resolved at all (i.e., that isn’t the result of genetic differences) 80-90% of it can only be fixed by blacks themselves. The remaining 10-20% will mostly be resolved when blacks fix the share that they can only fix on their own.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Wilkey

    I'm in agreement with all, Wilkey, but regarding your 1st 2 paragraphs: I'm guessing you have either read or heard about Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement*. He makes that case, that the 1960s Civil Rights legislation was nothing but an overturning of the US Constitution. I will say that Mr. Caldwell cucked out COMPLETELY on both race reality and feminism though. His book doesn't get 5 stars from me, maybe 3 1/2.

    .

    * Fair warning - that link goes to a Peak Stupidity review.

    Replies: @Wilkey

  103. Systolic racism would raise anyone’s blood pressure.

    • LOL: Twinkie
  104. @ic1000
    @Jack D

    > The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it’s not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Jack D, I don't think this is a particularly accurate synopsis.

    Reading this thread, many commenters point out ways that "it sucks to be black in 2022 America." This tracks with my own view.

    The example that will do is "a black guy can't hail a cab at night." This comes up regularly in Rust Belt City, surprise. Years back, the progressive free paper of the day did an(other) in-depth look for a searing indictment of WASP Racism. To the reporter's credit, he recounted his interviews with cabbies -- black, other, white -- who saw things differently. Fox and rabbit running. I doubt the elite press of today would touch that side of the story.

    Sailer also hasn't been shy about opining on this general topic.

    Related: outside the confines of this website, it is far too impolite to remark that anti-racist [sic] initiatives (Affirmative Action, BLM, etc.) provide tremendous benefits to moderate/high g blacks (ADOS's and immigrants) who can maintain a working-class or middle-class lifestyle. They are no help to low-g ADOS's, especially those living a chaotic grey-economy/welfare life.

    I acknowledge that black people won't see this the way that I do. I have no desire to gaslight them, but neither will I privilege their generally self-centered and lowbrow explanations over what I see with my own lying eyes.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Reading this threads, many commenters point out ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.”

    Really? Other than the cab example, which I gave in my initial comment, can you point to comments that said that? Because all I saw was a lot of denial or statements to the effect that it’s mostly/entirely the blacks own fault.

    As I have often pointed out, blacks in America have their own blame shifting issue. There is a lot of denial of agency and the automatic assumption that things are done TO black people and never BY black people. Even when the black man pulls the trigger, it’s “society” that made him do it. This is obviously the wrong way of looking at the issues.

    But OTOH, I don’t see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Not only are blacks not disfavored, they are positively favored (which is not to say that this is not true in certain spheres). Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight – since then everything has been a bed of roses. They, like blacks, dindu nuthin. If anyone is racist, it’s those immigrant cab drivers, not real Americans.

    This kind of denial is not a good look on anyone. It’s not surprising that in the face of such denial that blacks and their political allies would decide that they only way that they are going to get white people to stopped behaving racisly is to force them and impose quotas because they are never going to get voluntary compliance from people who are in complete denial that an issue even exists.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    I don’t see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight
     
    This is just another example of your continued and transparently deceptive ad hominem and strawman.

    You are in a hole. You should stop digging.

    Non-blacks (that is, until recently, almost entirely whites) have transferred a massive amount of resources to blacks for decades and continue to do so. Even recent immigrants (if they are legal and working) are transferring resources to blacks now. Blacks are highly favored by all institutions in America from academia to government. Meanwhile, black dysfunction doesn't just stay among blacks - it spills onto non-blacks and profoundly and highly negatively affects those not wealthy and influential enough to insulate themselves from the same.

    What "responsibility" are "the Men of Unz" supposed to accept for this sorry state of affairs now? That some tiny fraction of their ancestors was made of slave-owners? That they didn't transfer enough resources to blacks? That they don't grovel enough and sacrifice the future of their children for the sake of blacks? Why don't you specify just exactly what the commenters on Unz are responsible for, huh?

    Look, I have made clear in numerous past comments that I care about what happens to blacks, because they are my fellow citizens, as a matter of principle - that it's also a matter of practicality, because black dysfunction inevitably and eventually affects non-black citizens too. But at the end of the day, it's not the non-blacks or "systemic racism" or any such thing that is putting blacks where they are today. They are not being "held back" by anybody. We are all, in one way or another, lending a helping hand to push the blacks forward, but they are unable or unwilling to go forward despite all this wind at their backs.

    But the fact that you continue to hector the rest of us about how we are "responsible" for the state of black dysfunction in America speaks very, very badly of you - either you are being disingenuous or, if earnest, completely delusional. I have my guess, considering you frequently shoehorn "anti-Semitism" into these discussions.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @ic1000
    @Jack D

    > Other than the cab example, which I gave in my initial comment, can you point to comments that said that? Because all I saw was a lot of denial or statements to the effect that it’s mostly/entirely the blacks own fault.

    Fair enough. I scanned the comments and compiled this list of commenters who, I'd say, stated or alluded to the belief that there are ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.” I take this to mean race-related negative stuff experienced by law-abiding, civic-minded, Citizenist African-Americans, through no fault of their own.

    Numbers are likely to change, obviously.

    #6 Larry, San Francisco
    #19 Alrenous
    #52 Achmed E. Newman
    #54 Arclight
    #58 Jack D (for completeness)
    #66 Wilkey
    #72 Art Deco

    , @Brutusale
    @Jack D

    Tikkun your own olam, Jack. It amuses me that the concept is pulled out and dusted off when Jews want others to do the work.

    Replies: @Jack D

  105. @Twinkie

    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.
     
    This is Jack D's usual Jews-as-perpetual-victims shtick and strawman attacks combined in one.

    Who exactly denies that anti-Semitism has never existed in America? It seems to me that the position of most people categorized as "anti-Semites" by the likes of Jack D (including me) is that:

    1. Historically, Jews were despised in much of the world and, yes, often were targets of violence, not just because of their religious differences and lack of assimilation, but also because they often enriched themselves from "middle-man" roles such as tax-farming in Eastern Europe through which they ingratiated themselves with the ruling aristocracy while oppressing and immiserating the peasantry.

    2. Notwithstanding this history elsewhere, the United States has been exceptionally tolerant and open to Jewish immigrants and their progeny, with the founding president of the country, one George Washington, explicitly stating in his letter to a Jewish community in the country: "May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

    3. To the extent that Jews suffered from discrimination in the U.S., it has been generally much milder than that in other countries and, in this country, no worse - and frequently much less egregious - than those suffered by other ethnic groups.

    4. The net result being that Jews were able to achieve and ascend to the heights of power and dominance in this country, with prominent and even overwhelming overrepresentation in media, entertainment, finance, government, law, and academia.

    5. And despite such toleration and acceptance (and even admiration from many quarters), Jews have been at the forefront of various political and ideological movements to criticize and overturn the established (and hitherto very beneficial) social ethos, morality, and traditions of this country all the while and simultaneously proclaiming themselves as the victims and maintaining themselves as ruling elites of this country.

    As I wrote to him recently, whining is generally unattractive, but it becomes repulsive when done by those on top.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr., @Hibernian, @AnotherDad

    Jews have been at the forefront of various political and ideological movements to criticize and overturn the established (and hitherto very beneficial) social ethos, morality, and traditions of this country all

    Jews have been at the forefront of many things, both good and bad. One might argue, plausibly, that this is simply a function of thier higher intelligence.

    When they talk about Jews, white gentiles who are hard-core anti-semites sound a lot like Al Sharpton talking about white gentiles, only their arguments at least rise to the level of speciousness.

    I have never really been a true believer in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr.

    Those canards were stupid the first million times they were trotted out.

    Replies: @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr.

  106. @Jack D
    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices. I can't be the spokesman for the black people of America.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Obviously, nowadays it also gains you many advantages. But whatever the advantages and disadvantages are, being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it. Whether "systemic racism" is really the correct term for this or not, if you tell black people, "Everything is fine now. That's all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites", they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    As I said in my original comment, the fact that this je nais se quoi (I hesitate to call it "systemic racism" because so many people object to that term) exists does not justify turning our society literally upside down ("the last shall be first") or justify the "remedies" that SJW's prescribe for "systemic racism". But I don't think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it's all in their heads or that it's all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up. The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it's not going to work on blacks.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices.

    It occurs to me that there aren’t many thoughtful black voices in America today, period. And, even if there were, why would they comment on a dissident blog? They aren’t dissidents. They are the privileged.

    One very thoughtful black voice I admire (though I do not agree 100%) is Glenn Loury. Not only is he superbly intelligent and credentialed, he is also realistic about HBD. I should add that he gives the same recommendation to his fellow blacks that I give to Asians (and to Jews): be grateful for this country and be patriotic.

    If you are truly serious about a thoughtful black voice, find his writings online and watch his YouTube podcasts with the likes of John McWhorter, Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Amy Wax.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations… That’s all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites”, they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    Hmmm, so what you are telling me is that blacks are petulantly childish and refuse to believe the reality of their existence in America – of having a giant thumb placed on their side of the scale. Are you now further suggesting that, since they do not comprehend this reality, I and my fellow non-black Americans should continue to indulge their dysfunction and should even reward it?

    The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it’s not going to work on blacks.

    “The Men of Unz”? What you, Alden now?

    Guess what? It’s not just “The Men of Unz” (or whatever sly ad hominem you want to tar some of the commenters here) who are sick of the dysfunction and tired of indulging blacks. It’s many “normie” Americans. It’s whites, Hispanics, and Asians. It’s about everybody except GoodWhites who like to virtue-signal in public all the while all their revealed preferences show that they like to keep away from the non-Talented Twentieth blacks as much as possible in their real, private lives.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    Have you noticed how the phrase, "The Men of Unz" has suddenly appeared as an identifier here? I think it is great. For me, it comes only from "Men of Unz" who willingly steal from writers and use their inventions in their own work here.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri

  107. @Twinkie
    @nebulafox


    I’d add that non-systemic anti-blackism is most pervasive among non-Americans resident in America: e.g., Korean shopkeepers, black African cabdrivers and the like.
     
    Mr. Sailer seems to be emphasizing the "non-Americanness" as such for anti-blackism, but it has little to do with them being non-American so much as them having more daily contact with the black underclass than your average American. Indeed, as Charles Murray points out in his latest book, most white Americans live in rural, suburban, and exurban parts of America where underclass blacks are not highly present. It's those who live in non-wealthy areas of urban America (usually downscale immigrants and such) who have the greatest amount of contact with dysfunctional blacks.

    This is precisely why GoodWhites can virtue-signal - because that virtue-signaling costs them nothing in their daily lived experiences, in the way it would cost (often heavily and viciously) for those who have frequent interactions with underclass blacks.

    For that matter, those "racist" Korean shopkeepers and Pakistani cabdrivers aren't fools these days. There has been an exodus over the last two decades of even immigrant populations from places such as L.A. and NYC to the likes of Texas (esp. north of Dallas) and Northern Virgina super zip codes where they don't have to deal much with the underclass blacks.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Prester John, @S

    When I was in high school and college I used to work as a freight elevator operator in a building on Fifth Avenue, NY, in the garment district. I used to encounter many blacks–both American and West Indian–and I could sense the contempt for American blacks that the ones from the West Indies had. It was palpable even to a naive white kid from upstate NY.

  108. @Jack D
    @ic1000


    Reading this threads, many commenters point out ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.”
     
    Really? Other than the cab example, which I gave in my initial comment, can you point to comments that said that? Because all I saw was a lot of denial or statements to the effect that it's mostly/entirely the blacks own fault.

    As I have often pointed out, blacks in America have their own blame shifting issue. There is a lot of denial of agency and the automatic assumption that things are done TO black people and never BY black people. Even when the black man pulls the trigger, it's "society" that made him do it. This is obviously the wrong way of looking at the issues.

    But OTOH, I don't see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Not only are blacks not disfavored, they are positively favored (which is not to say that this is not true in certain spheres). Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight - since then everything has been a bed of roses. They, like blacks, dindu nuthin. If anyone is racist, it's those immigrant cab drivers, not real Americans.

    This kind of denial is not a good look on anyone. It's not surprising that in the face of such denial that blacks and their political allies would decide that they only way that they are going to get white people to stopped behaving racisly is to force them and impose quotas because they are never going to get voluntary compliance from people who are in complete denial that an issue even exists.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @ic1000, @Brutusale

    I don’t see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight

    This is just another example of your continued and transparently deceptive ad hominem and strawman.

    You are in a hole. You should stop digging.

    Non-blacks (that is, until recently, almost entirely whites) have transferred a massive amount of resources to blacks for decades and continue to do so. Even recent immigrants (if they are legal and working) are transferring resources to blacks now. Blacks are highly favored by all institutions in America from academia to government. Meanwhile, black dysfunction doesn’t just stay among blacks – it spills onto non-blacks and profoundly and highly negatively affects those not wealthy and influential enough to insulate themselves from the same.

    What “responsibility” are “the Men of Unz” supposed to accept for this sorry state of affairs now? That some tiny fraction of their ancestors was made of slave-owners? That they didn’t transfer enough resources to blacks? That they don’t grovel enough and sacrifice the future of their children for the sake of blacks? Why don’t you specify just exactly what the commenters on Unz are responsible for, huh?

    Look, I have made clear in numerous past comments that I care about what happens to blacks, because they are my fellow citizens, as a matter of principle – that it’s also a matter of practicality, because black dysfunction inevitably and eventually affects non-black citizens too. But at the end of the day, it’s not the non-blacks or “systemic racism” or any such thing that is putting blacks where they are today. They are not being “held back” by anybody. We are all, in one way or another, lending a helping hand to push the blacks forward, but they are unable or unwilling to go forward despite all this wind at their backs.

    But the fact that you continue to hector the rest of us about how we are “responsible” for the state of black dysfunction in America speaks very, very badly of you – either you are being disingenuous or, if earnest, completely delusional. I have my guess, considering you frequently shoehorn “anti-Semitism” into these discussions.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk, ben tillman
    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Twinkie

    Non-blacks (that is, until recently, almost entirely whites) have transferred a massive amount of resources to blacks for decades and continue to do so.

    They haven't. The transfer programs with the disproportionately black clientele are the smaller ones.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  109. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices.
     
    It occurs to me that there aren't many thoughtful black voices in America today, period. And, even if there were, why would they comment on a dissident blog? They aren't dissidents. They are the privileged.

    One very thoughtful black voice I admire (though I do not agree 100%) is Glenn Loury. Not only is he superbly intelligent and credentialed, he is also realistic about HBD. I should add that he gives the same recommendation to his fellow blacks that I give to Asians (and to Jews): be grateful for this country and be patriotic.

    If you are truly serious about a thoughtful black voice, find his writings online and watch his YouTube podcasts with the likes of John McWhorter, Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Amy Wax.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations... That’s all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites”, they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.
     
    Hmmm, so what you are telling me is that blacks are petulantly childish and refuse to believe the reality of their existence in America - of having a giant thumb placed on their side of the scale. Are you now further suggesting that, since they do not comprehend this reality, I and my fellow non-black Americans should continue to indulge their dysfunction and should even reward it?

    The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it’s not going to work on blacks.
     
    "The Men of Unz"? What you, Alden now?

    Guess what? It's not just "The Men of Unz" (or whatever sly ad hominem you want to tar some of the commenters here) who are sick of the dysfunction and tired of indulging blacks. It's many "normie" Americans. It's whites, Hispanics, and Asians. It's about everybody except GoodWhites who like to virtue-signal in public all the while all their revealed preferences show that they like to keep away from the non-Talented Twentieth blacks as much as possible in their real, private lives.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Have you noticed how the phrase, “The Men of Unz” has suddenly appeared as an identifier here? I think it is great. For me, it comes only from “Men of Unz” who willingly steal from writers and use their inventions in their own work here.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Buzz Mohawk

    What writers? Mrs. Alden? OK, well, she's a good writer when she sticks to her experience with matters of California, court, prisons, welfare, old beautiful neighborhoods, lots of great history, etc. However, every time that "MEN of UNZ" bit comes up, it's when she is on some illogical rant, usually involving Tessa Majors or the equivalent.

    What I can't get through her head, and I've tried, one time with about 300 words!, was that she doesn't get this: The MEN of UNZ* thing is about the commenters who write that Tessa Majors walked through a bad, black neighborhood and maybe was friendly with black people, so she deserved to die. Except, they never have written that she and her equivalent deserved to die. They wrote that going through a bad black neighborhood or the equivalent was a contributing factor to her death. Nobody wanted her to die except the evil black thug who did it.

    People were, and are, giving advice, not blame, yet Alden cannot see the difference.

    Anyway, I also think it's great that the commenters can rag on each other in a friendly way. Stealing her meme is part of that. I might too. Alden, don't sue me. I! OWN! NOTHING!

    .

    * and, if you're going to steal this, DO it RIGHT! The CAPS-LOCK key is your friend.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Have you noticed how the phrase, “The Men of Unz” has suddenly appeared as an identifier here? I think it is great.
     
    Agree. For a long time it was Alden's ALL CAPS pejorative when she wanted to beat a commenter up over some sex thing, but now it has gotten jiu-jistued into an ironic badge of honor, like "Yankee Doodle" two and half centuries ago.
  110. @Jack D
    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices. I can't be the spokesman for the black people of America.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Obviously, nowadays it also gains you many advantages. But whatever the advantages and disadvantages are, being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it. Whether "systemic racism" is really the correct term for this or not, if you tell black people, "Everything is fine now. That's all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites", they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    As I said in my original comment, the fact that this je nais se quoi (I hesitate to call it "systemic racism" because so many people object to that term) exists does not justify turning our society literally upside down ("the last shall be first") or justify the "remedies" that SJW's prescribe for "systemic racism". But I don't think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it's all in their heads or that it's all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up. The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it's not going to work on blacks.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    I’m going to disagree with you there.

    It’s not that ‘everything is fine’. It’s that there is no end to the ways in which daily life can be abrasive, and there’s not much you can do about it. What Glenn Loury said a generation ago is apt in this discussion: the vicissitudes of life are experienced by blacks and whites alike. Blacks suffer under the anxiety that people have it in for them a priori, so they process this experience differently. Sometimes it’s true and sometimes its just the human condition in an affluent society. There is no policy or program to address this.

    The other problem is that there are always in-groups and out-groups in any social circumstance. Blacks cannot be at home in as many venues as can others. You would have to comprehensively erase the cultural distinction between blacks and others for that to go away. No one is motivated to do that except aspirant social engineers. Its not merely blacks in American society who suffer this problem; the entire mundane life of homosexual men is built around their failure to bond with ordinary men and their reactive tendency to agglutinate with each other and to eroticize friendships. Also suffering are people with particular temperaments. There is no way to address this problem either.

    There is one way in which blacks do suffer in a peculiar way that you can correct with public policy. What’s notable about black politicians is that they sit on a spectrum which runs from indifferent to hostile to any measures to address this problem. The problem, of course, is exposure to street crime.

    Which brings you to another source of dissatisfaction that institutional managers strive to address but cannot be addressed without deadweight loss to the society as a whole. This is a cultural phenomenon which began to emerge in the black population around 1955 and which is metastasized since then. That is the tendency to value R-E-S-P-E-C-T over actual accomplishment. There is nothing the rest of society can do to repair this, but one can avoid encouraging it. Alas, institutional policy is almost always to throw rubbing alcohol onto an open flame.

    • Agree: Sam Malone
  111. @Jack D
    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices. I can't be the spokesman for the black people of America.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Obviously, nowadays it also gains you many advantages. But whatever the advantages and disadvantages are, being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it. Whether "systemic racism" is really the correct term for this or not, if you tell black people, "Everything is fine now. That's all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites", they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    As I said in my original comment, the fact that this je nais se quoi (I hesitate to call it "systemic racism" because so many people object to that term) exists does not justify turning our society literally upside down ("the last shall be first") or justify the "remedies" that SJW's prescribe for "systemic racism". But I don't think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it's all in their heads or that it's all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up. The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it's not going to work on blacks.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices.

    Nigerian Nationalist and even Truth have said some witty things, though admittedly their main interest seems to be trolling. (Funny though that like other institutions, the comments rely on an Igbo import to get thoughtful black input.)

    I can’t be the spokesman for the black people of America.

    Why would you? Blacks don’t even want Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson as spokesmen, and those guys are black.

    being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations.

    Being white in American means being treated negatively in certain situations, and not just situations of when people choose to click their car doors, but situation of having your career sidelined in favor of an obviously less qualified person, or of not having crimes against you investigated with equal vigor, or of being accused—and instantly convicted in the court of public opinion—of non-existent crimes, in general of being a second-class citizen legally, institutionally and culturally. These are “lived realities” too. When you ignore these in favor of car-lock microaggressions, aren’t you “gaslighting” whites?

    being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it.

    So what? Being my brother means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than I experience it. But so what? Where is it written that everyone must have identical experiences? Besides being vaguely creepy and incipiently totalitarian, this unspoken assumption is the root of a lot of contemporary social pathology.

    if you tell black people, “Everything is fine now. That’s all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites”, they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    Does anyone here do that? This sounds more like something bluestocking white ladies say. “Men of Unz” are more likely to agree with Muhammed Ali: “Thank God your granddaddy got on that boat! (even if we don’t necessarily)”

    But I don’t think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it’s all in their heads or that it’s all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up.

    As averred in prior comments, racism is never going away until races go away. Whether or not deracializing the world is a good thing depends on your view of biodiversity. But saying that there is a “systemic” racism against blacks is obviously false when there is massive institutional racism in favor of blacks. Or if you are downgrading “systemic” racism to be “je ne sais quoi” racism, then it is universal, and blacks are at least as strong practitioners as anyone else. And we all seem to agree that whatever “je ne sais quoi” racism is, it is not so terrible as to warrant the massive interventions undertaken in its name.

    • Agree: Twinkie, ben tillman
    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  112. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    I don’t see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight
     
    This is just another example of your continued and transparently deceptive ad hominem and strawman.

    You are in a hole. You should stop digging.

    Non-blacks (that is, until recently, almost entirely whites) have transferred a massive amount of resources to blacks for decades and continue to do so. Even recent immigrants (if they are legal and working) are transferring resources to blacks now. Blacks are highly favored by all institutions in America from academia to government. Meanwhile, black dysfunction doesn't just stay among blacks - it spills onto non-blacks and profoundly and highly negatively affects those not wealthy and influential enough to insulate themselves from the same.

    What "responsibility" are "the Men of Unz" supposed to accept for this sorry state of affairs now? That some tiny fraction of their ancestors was made of slave-owners? That they didn't transfer enough resources to blacks? That they don't grovel enough and sacrifice the future of their children for the sake of blacks? Why don't you specify just exactly what the commenters on Unz are responsible for, huh?

    Look, I have made clear in numerous past comments that I care about what happens to blacks, because they are my fellow citizens, as a matter of principle - that it's also a matter of practicality, because black dysfunction inevitably and eventually affects non-black citizens too. But at the end of the day, it's not the non-blacks or "systemic racism" or any such thing that is putting blacks where they are today. They are not being "held back" by anybody. We are all, in one way or another, lending a helping hand to push the blacks forward, but they are unable or unwilling to go forward despite all this wind at their backs.

    But the fact that you continue to hector the rest of us about how we are "responsible" for the state of black dysfunction in America speaks very, very badly of you - either you are being disingenuous or, if earnest, completely delusional. I have my guess, considering you frequently shoehorn "anti-Semitism" into these discussions.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Non-blacks (that is, until recently, almost entirely whites) have transferred a massive amount of resources to blacks for decades and continue to do so.

    They haven’t. The transfer programs with the disproportionately black clientele are the smaller ones.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Art Deco


    They haven’t. The transfer programs with the disproportionately black clientele are the smaller ones.
     
    It's not just the "transfer programs with the disproportionately black clientele". What about education spending? Do the taxpayers get their money's worth? How many black parents and children would rather take a cash handout equal to per capita education spending in their district instead of having the school district spend that money on their or their children's education?
  113. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination – if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South.

    This is yet another lie. It’s just so much minoritarian “these evil gentile whites would have kept us down if we didn’t hustle ourselves into equality and power” trope.

    Back when I used to farm for my in-laws in the rural Midwest, I used to go to the local libraries to read the historical documents from the towns in the area. Some of these documents I read were deeply moving letters written by the local boys and men who volunteered to fight for the Union in the Civil War. That’s right. While there were draft riots going on among immigrants and “ethnics” in the Northeast, “WASP” boys and men were fired by Christian abolitionist zeal and volunteered to die in droves to free black slaves. The same spirit guided their descendants when they fought for and supported equality for non-whites later on.

    Not all gentile whites or “WASPs” were fair-minded and just, but many (likely most) were. If they weren’t, none of the equality that exists today would have happened no matter how much you think Jewish or black agitation led to it. Jews and blacks simply were not numerous enough (even Jewish money and influence wouldn’t have been enough without the basic sense of decency of ordinary Americans to which they could appeal). So, when you write such a clearly ahistorical lie, you are not only failing to pay tribute to the nobility of spirit of those ordinary white Americans who made all this possible, but you are maligning them unfairly. It wreaks of self-righteous minoritarian supremacism (“WE made this happen, not you, so you can just shut up about how you are a second-class citizen now!”).

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  114. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1.

    No. It was a settler society from Day 1. A society of settlers that were all mostly from the same country, and often even the same (or at least fairly similar) religion, shire and town. Early US settlements were more homogeneous than 99% of the towns and cities in America today, and they remained so for decades or even centuries. Even by the time of the first US Census, in 1790, over 80% of the non-slave population was of British ancestry. Virtually all of the rest were Northwest European, of some sort or another. Demographically at least, the United States, over 180 years after its settlement began, looked a whole lot like the world its settlers had left behind.

    Somaliland is the land of the Somalis – it’s right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It’s like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn’t great. But America is America, it’s not WASPland.

    That’s ridiculously self-referential. What is Somaliland? A land full of Somalis. What is Germany? A land full of Germans. What is Britain? A land full of Britons.

    If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.

    The Chinese Exclusion Act didn’t involve “treating” them at all. It basically just involved not letting them come here.

    In 1880, the population of California, Oregon, and Washington was 1.1 million. The population of Australia was about 2.2 million. China’s population in 1880 was well over 400 million.

    If Australia and the United States had not banned Chinese immigration, Australia and the Western US would have quickly become extensions of Chinese, not European, civilization. Not could have or might have, but would have.

    They would have been overrun – just as we actually are being overrun today. The demographic consequences of open borders is no longer just doomsaying. It is here. It is now. It is fact.

    Should we be sorry that we didn’t allow China to conquer Australia and the Western US? I’m not.

    There are fundamental differences between settling and immigrating. Immigration only requires one person to pick up and move to some established community. That might be psychologically intimidating, but in physical terms in just isn’t all that difficult. The person doesn’t have to know anyone in that community, doesn’t have to speak their language, and doesn’t even have to share any common interests. In many cases he or she will be nothing more than a parasite, living off the success of the community. There is very little risk to life or limb.

    Settling a new place is completely different. It almost always requires leaving an established community to build one that does not yet exist. It means abandoning convenience for risk. Centuries ago it often entailed high mortality rates. To do it successfully almost always requires organization on some scale. Probably all of the successful settlements in US history involved religious groups (Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Utah), companies, or large extended families.

    Settlers generally like it when new people arrive, even if those people don’t share many of the same backgrounds or beliefs, because more people increases the likelihood that the settlement will succeed. But if the new arrivals can’t be trusted, or arrive only to feed off the host population, behave in ways that undermine the survival of the settlement, or even actively organize themselves against the host population, then for good reason the settlers won’t be very welcoming to the outsiders. Their success and survival depends on them being able to distinguish someone who is a threat from someone who is not.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    The Chinese Exclusion Act didn’t involve “treating” them at all. It basically just involved not letting them come here.
     
    The Chinese Exclusion Act went much further than that. It required Chinese people to carry special documentation at all times, and refused Chinese people who were already here the ability to become naturalized citizens. Chinese were also (separately from the Act) prohibited from testifying in court.

    Replies: @Wilkey

  115. @Jack D
    @ic1000


    Reading this threads, many commenters point out ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.”
     
    Really? Other than the cab example, which I gave in my initial comment, can you point to comments that said that? Because all I saw was a lot of denial or statements to the effect that it's mostly/entirely the blacks own fault.

    As I have often pointed out, blacks in America have their own blame shifting issue. There is a lot of denial of agency and the automatic assumption that things are done TO black people and never BY black people. Even when the black man pulls the trigger, it's "society" that made him do it. This is obviously the wrong way of looking at the issues.

    But OTOH, I don't see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Not only are blacks not disfavored, they are positively favored (which is not to say that this is not true in certain spheres). Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight - since then everything has been a bed of roses. They, like blacks, dindu nuthin. If anyone is racist, it's those immigrant cab drivers, not real Americans.

    This kind of denial is not a good look on anyone. It's not surprising that in the face of such denial that blacks and their political allies would decide that they only way that they are going to get white people to stopped behaving racisly is to force them and impose quotas because they are never going to get voluntary compliance from people who are in complete denial that an issue even exists.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @ic1000, @Brutusale

    > Other than the cab example, which I gave in my initial comment, can you point to comments that said that? Because all I saw was a lot of denial or statements to the effect that it’s mostly/entirely the blacks own fault.

    Fair enough. I scanned the comments and compiled this list of commenters who, I’d say, stated or alluded to the belief that there are ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.” I take this to mean race-related negative stuff experienced by law-abiding, civic-minded, Citizenist African-Americans, through no fault of their own.

    Numbers are likely to change, obviously.

    #6 Larry, San Francisco
    #19 Alrenous
    #52 Achmed E. Newman
    #54 Arclight
    #58 Jack D (for completeness)
    #66 Wilkey
    #72 Art Deco

  116. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    The people who say that "racism" can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts. Racism between the majority and the minority is not completely symmetrical. If you say, for example, that no whites can get loans at black owned banks so what's the issue if blacks can't get loans at white owned banks (and whites own 99% of the banks) then the problem becomes obvious.


    "Everyone does it" is not a complete excuse in majority-minority interactions.

    OTOH, it's easy for minorities to convince themselves that "we're a powerless minority so whatever racist stuff we do is OK, we're just trying to hang onto a few breadcrumbs of dignity", long past the point where they are in fact a powerless minority.

    However, I repeat what I said above. The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it's not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Almost Missouri, @William Badwhite

    The people who say that “racism” can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts.

    So when whites lose majority status in a few years, will the charge that only Whites’ Racisms Matter go away? No, of course not. On the contrary, the charge will certainly increase. Because majority status was never the real reason for the charge.

    I hate to “go there” but do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel? That’s not the impression I have gotten from your prior comments on the subject.

    The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it’s not going to convince one black person

    This is not the question. I don’t think anyone cares about convincing black people, and I doubt even black people care particularly about being convinced.

    nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    As long as there is easy money and power in it, it certainly won’t. But that is what keeps it alive, not veracity.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri


    do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel?
     
    This is a universal principle although its application must be tailored to specific situations. The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account - for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis). For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service - how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/meet-the-bedouin-unit-protecting-israels-border-advancing-the-community-655477

    Likewise, Israel conducts "affirmative action" in university admissions. The program is focused on the "underprivileged" without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where "socioeconomic diversity" is more important than skin color. Who is more "diverse" or "underprivileged" - the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Art Deco, @Flavius Logicus, @Almost Missouri, @Donald A Thomson

  117. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    America’s immigrants have thrived not just because they have been allowed to thrive, but because we have admitted the kinds of immigrants who can thrive and who want to thrive. That doesn’t mean immigrants will always be like that.

    Immigrant is really a useless word, in most of the senses it is used – especially today. It distinguishes not at all between how someone arrived (legally or illegally), their native intelligence, their skillset, their willingness to obey the law or work hard or assimilate to the culture already here. It tells you absolutely nothing about someone except that they weren’t born a citizen of they country in which they now reside.

  118. @Wilkey

    Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one’s thoughts.
     
    In other words what would have been referred to, prior to 1964, as an exercise of one's Constitutional rights - your freedom of conscience, freedom of association, your right to your property and its disposition.

    In fact, such choices were still commonly thought of as your rights long after 1964, until people slowly - and then all at once - realized that the 1964 Civil Rights Act actually was a new Constitution displacing much of the old one (though we were never told that at the time).

    Individual discrimination against blacks does exist. It is fairly widespread, but overall I doubt it accounts for more than 10% of the differences in income, life expectancy, educational attainment, and employment rates between whites and blacks. And it certainly doesn't account for more than 20%. The rest is fully and entirely on them.

    I have a lot of sympathy for well-behaved blacks who are hurt, in one way or another, by such discrimination. But everyone seems to think that the burden for resolving this problem rests entirely on whites. Whites must stop misbehaving. Whites must bend over backwards to accommodate blacks. Whites must set aside our own financial interests, even at great personal risk.

    Blacks, who commit all the misbehavior that leads to this discrimination? They don't have to do anything. They don't have to turn in criminals in their neighborhood. They don't have to respect the police. They don't have to marry the mothers of their children. They don't have to help their children with their homework. They don't have to take good care of the homes and apartments they rent. They don't have to obey traffic laws. They don't have to show up to class. They don't have to hit the books instead of playing basketball or video games all day. They don't have to choose useful majors instead of "African Studies."

    The burden is all supposed to be on white people, despite the fact that America has shown than non-white minorities can actually do just fine - better than whites, even - when they actually try.

    The vast majority of the differences between whites and blacks can be explained by black behavior. Of that which can be resolved at all (i.e., that isn't the result of genetic differences) 80-90% of it can only be fixed by blacks themselves. The remaining 10-20% will mostly be resolved when blacks fix the share that they can only fix on their own.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I’m in agreement with all, Wilkey, but regarding your 1st 2 paragraphs: I’m guessing you have either read or heard about Christopher Caldwell’s The Age of Entitlement*. He makes that case, that the 1960s Civil Rights legislation was nothing but an overturning of the US Constitution. I will say that Mr. Caldwell cucked out COMPLETELY on both race reality and feminism though. His book doesn’t get 5 stars from me, maybe 3 1/2.

    .

    * Fair warning – that link goes to a Peak Stupidity review.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, I have read it. Great book, quick read, and I think I had about 500 highlights in it. It was recommended to me by someone here - perhaps it was you.

    IIRC, Caldwell alluded to enough of the issues of race realism to get a pass from me. He couldn't have gone any further. He kept the book respectable enough that readers (of which there won't be nearly enough) won't feel nervous recommending it to less conservative friends.

    OT, but Justice Stephen Breyer has announced his retirement. This #6 on my list of predictions on the Groundhog Day Thread (back on January 2), and is the first to come true.

    I'll extend that prediction by stating that since A) Biden has promised to nominate a black women; B) 4 of the last 5 Dem SCOTUS nominees have been Jewish; and C) Biden's Cabinet is > 25% Jewish, and his adminsitration is clearly being run almost entirely by Jews

    Based on all that, I predict that Biden's nominee will be California State Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, who is half black and half - you guessed it - Jewish.

    Replies: @vinteuil

  119. Due to “systemic racism” and “white privilege”…..white kids claim to be non-white on college applications.

  120. Anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @J1234
    @Anon


    What if one doesn’t have any children
     
    That should be obvious. They're irrelevant. There are millions of liberal white parents who talk like blacks are the most important thing in the world, but they live their lives to the contrary.

    Replies: @Anon

    What if one doesn’t have any children

    That should be obvious. They’re irrelevant. There are millions of liberal white parents who talk like blacks are the most important thing in the world, but they live their lives to the contrary.

    So your argument fails in relation to the millions of Whites who do not have children?

  121. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    Have you noticed how the phrase, "The Men of Unz" has suddenly appeared as an identifier here? I think it is great. For me, it comes only from "Men of Unz" who willingly steal from writers and use their inventions in their own work here.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri

    What writers? Mrs. Alden? OK, well, she’s a good writer when she sticks to her experience with matters of California, court, prisons, welfare, old beautiful neighborhoods, lots of great history, etc. However, every time that “MEN of UNZ” bit comes up, it’s when she is on some illogical rant, usually involving Tessa Majors or the equivalent.

    What I can’t get through her head, and I’ve tried, one time with about 300 words!, was that she doesn’t get this: The MEN of UNZ* thing is about the commenters who write that Tessa Majors walked through a bad, black neighborhood and maybe was friendly with black people, so she deserved to die. Except, they never have written that she and her equivalent deserved to die. They wrote that going through a bad black neighborhood or the equivalent was a contributing factor to her death. Nobody wanted her to die except the evil black thug who did it.

    People were, and are, giving advice, not blame, yet Alden cannot see the difference.

    Anyway, I also think it’s great that the commenters can rag on each other in a friendly way. Stealing her meme is part of that. I might too. Alden, don’t sue me. I! OWN! NOTHING!

    .

    * and, if you’re going to steal this, DO it RIGHT! The CAPS-LOCK key is your friend.

  122. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    Have you noticed how the phrase, "The Men of Unz" has suddenly appeared as an identifier here? I think it is great. For me, it comes only from "Men of Unz" who willingly steal from writers and use their inventions in their own work here.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri

    Have you noticed how the phrase, “The Men of Unz” has suddenly appeared as an identifier here? I think it is great.

    Agree. For a long time it was Alden’s ALL CAPS pejorative when she wanted to beat a commenter up over some sex thing, but now it has gotten jiu-jistued into an ironic badge of honor, like “Yankee Doodle” two and half centuries ago.

  123. I wonder, is “systemic racism” more likely to be found in areas that are afflicted with “endemic violence?”

  124. anonymous[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon
     
    Gee, I wonder why that was. I suppose the whole world was just stupidly evil.

    Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc.
     
    They weren't restricted. There were some barriers, but those barriers were hardly insurmountable. If they were, Henry Morgenthau wouldn't have been able to attend Exeter and Cornell and then go on to become the Secretary of Treasury through these supposedly horrifyingly anti-Semitic 30's when he was put in charge of designing the New Deal to remake the entire nation's economy and financing America's entry into World War II.

    I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.
     
    Then why do you keep bringing up this very "mild" discrimination Jews underwent here, tying it to supposed systemic discrimination against blacks? Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of "WASPs" in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions. The Germans were ostracized during World War I (one of my wife's grandmothers spoke German at home with her own grandparents and were told not to do so outside during this time). The Italians were despised as dirty wogs. The Japanese were mass-interned (while some of their children were dying in droves trying to prove their loyalty to America in war). And let's not forget about American Indians who suffered mass-extinction as peoples. It goes on and on.

    So trying to push tales of Jewish suffering America and selling the Jews as the Victim-est People Ever are just bound to invite negative reaction, not just here, but even among "normies" (if in private and muted terms). That's why "anti-Semitism" is "on the rise" today.

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about "anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real," how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic. Sure, it hasn't been all wonderful, but its flaws are small and its munificence large, so let's appreciate it. That's certainly what I say about Asians (or insert any immigrant group here) when I hear complaints about how America has been just terrible, terrible for them.

    I love this country. This country has been great to me and millions of others who have come here from other shores. I am willing to die for the country, so that my children can inherit it as I found it. I revere its founders and those who came after (and before me) who built it. How about you do the same even sitting on that perch as the most dominant, influential, and powerful minority group ever? How about a little noblesse oblige?

    Replies: @Technite78, @Achmed E. Newman, @JimDandy, @anonymous, @anonymous

    Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of “WASPs” in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions.

    No group has suffered as much as White Southerners. They saw hundreds of thousands of their best and brightest murdered by the brutal Lincoln regime and were then forced through a genocidal occupation of their ancestral lands.

  125. anonymous[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    a serious wave of anti-Semitism that perhaps reached its crescendo in the 1930s when anti-Semitism was a worldwide phenomenon
     
    Gee, I wonder why that was. I suppose the whole world was just stupidly evil.

    Jews were restricted from entry into univeristies, medical schools, law firms, hotels, corporate employment, etc.
     
    They weren't restricted. There were some barriers, but those barriers were hardly insurmountable. If they were, Henry Morgenthau wouldn't have been able to attend Exeter and Cornell and then go on to become the Secretary of Treasury through these supposedly horrifyingly anti-Semitic 30's when he was put in charge of designing the New Deal to remake the entire nation's economy and financing America's entry into World War II.

    I do not deny that American anti-Semitism was comparatively mild compared to the European kind nor to the level of descrimination that blacks and Asias suffered. This does not make it any less real.
     
    Then why do you keep bringing up this very "mild" discrimination Jews underwent here, tying it to supposed systemic discrimination against blacks? Everyone suffered in this country, including the so-called WASPs. A sizable population of "WASPs" in early America was made up of indentured servants who were slave-like, if not quite actual slaves. They suffered. Even the gentry-cavalier class suffered when the independence was won and Tories were persecuted and expropriated of property. Blacks suffered as slaves. The Southerners suffered as a defeated and conquered people. The Irish suffered as the white underclass and suspicious Papists. The Chinese suffered as railroad workers working in slave-like conditions. The Germans were ostracized during World War I (one of my wife's grandmothers spoke German at home with her own grandparents and were told not to do so outside during this time). The Italians were despised as dirty wogs. The Japanese were mass-interned (while some of their children were dying in droves trying to prove their loyalty to America in war). And let's not forget about American Indians who suffered mass-extinction as peoples. It goes on and on.

    So trying to push tales of Jewish suffering America and selling the Jews as the Victim-est People Ever are just bound to invite negative reaction, not just here, but even among "normies" (if in private and muted terms). That's why "anti-Semitism" is "on the rise" today.

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about "anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real," how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic. Sure, it hasn't been all wonderful, but its flaws are small and its munificence large, so let's appreciate it. That's certainly what I say about Asians (or insert any immigrant group here) when I hear complaints about how America has been just terrible, terrible for them.

    I love this country. This country has been great to me and millions of others who have come here from other shores. I am willing to die for the country, so that my children can inherit it as I found it. I revere its founders and those who came after (and before me) who built it. How about you do the same even sitting on that perch as the most dominant, influential, and powerful minority group ever? How about a little noblesse oblige?

    Replies: @Technite78, @Achmed E. Newman, @JimDandy, @anonymous, @anonymous

    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about “anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real,” how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic.

    Let’s hear Jack D express some gratitude to “WASPs” who allowed his tribe into their country and who pulled his tribe’s chestnuts out of the fire in WWII.

    Has he ever said “Thank you”? Have they?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @anonymous


    and who pulled his tribe’s chestnuts out of the fire in WWII.

    Has he ever said “Thank you”? Have they?
     
    When he lived, I used to listen to Milt Rosenberg's radio show, because he had the most interesting collection of interview guests ("the Poets, the Pundits, the Prime Ministers", as his tagline used to put it) and Rosenberg was an unusually well prepared host, by dint of native intelligence, good education, and by often having pre-read (or perhaps having an assistant pre-read) works that the guest had written.

    On one occasion, he had several old veterans of the WWII Euro theater on as guests. These were guys who had seen combat, lost friends, etc. Rosenberg was born in America and so was in no direct danger from the war (he appears not to have served in the WWII military himself, despite being the right age), but at the end of the interview, in his slightly awkward professorial way, he did take it upon himself to thank the vets for saving him and his relations from a potentially dismal future. There followed a moment of nonplussed silence from the guests, then Rosenberg quickly wrapped up the show. I think it had never occurred to the vets that saving Rosenberg's relations was what they had fought, killed and died for. I'm not sure they were elated by the revelation.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  126. @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    The people who say that “racism” can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts.
     
    So when whites lose majority status in a few years, will the charge that only Whites' Racisms Matter go away? No, of course not. On the contrary, the charge will certainly increase. Because majority status was never the real reason for the charge.

    I hate to "go there" but do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel? That's not the impression I have gotten from your prior comments on the subject.

    The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it’s not going to convince one black person
     
    This is not the question. I don't think anyone cares about convincing black people, and I doubt even black people care particularly about being convinced.

    nor is it going to make the issue go away.
     
    As long as there is easy money and power in it, it certainly won't. But that is what keeps it alive, not veracity.

    Replies: @Jack D

    do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel?

    This is a universal principle although its application must be tailored to specific situations. The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account – for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis). For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service – how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/meet-the-bedouin-unit-protecting-israels-border-advancing-the-community-655477

    Likewise, Israel conducts “affirmative action” in university admissions. The program is focused on the “underprivileged” without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where “socioeconomic diversity” is more important than skin color. Who is more “diverse” or “underprivileged” – the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D


    The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.
     
    Damn you, Jack. You did it again. I just spit out a sip of water that I just took because you made me laugh so hard. Seriously, this has got to stop.
    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account – for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis).

    That isn't an example of minority rights. That's a prudent courtesy.


    For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service – how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    Learning more Hebrew may help some Arab recruits. The other measures may be of assistance to the Bedouin (who are a small minority among the Arabs). It's exceedingly doubtful that town Arabs in Israel, who have real income levels similar to those of Americans ca. 1965, need instruction in any systematic way about how to open a bank account of sit for a job interview. It's a commonplace about life in Israel that Arabs are particular about manners and find day-to-day encounters with Jews rather jarring.


    Likewise, Israel conducts “affirmative action” in university admissions. The program is focused on the “underprivileged” without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where “socioeconomic diversity” is more important than skin color. Who is more “diverse” or “underprivileged” – the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    We wouldn't do well to follow this model. It just puts a different segment on patronage. The point of admissions screens is to assemble a body of students who can absorb at a similar pace. If you're not there, you're not there.

    , @Flavius Logicus
    @Jack D

    Jack D. you are such a hypocrite it hurts.

    Israeli don't take Arabs into their military for the same reason Germans didn't enlist Jews into Wehrmacht.

    USA actually has an affirmative action in college admissions and is in your own words systemically racist. While Israel has preferential treatment for poorer people in university admissions and does in your own words thus take minority rights into account.


    Israel also builds settlements on Palestinian territory. Then they set up fences and check-points. So when a Palestinian wants to visit his neighbours and relatives he is exanimated and kept waiting, often for hours. Does this count as systemic racism?

    Gaza is modern equivalent of Indian reserve. But there are differences: they don't have the casinos. And Gaza is the third most densely populated political unit in the world. The population density makes it more similar to Japanese internment camps than to Indian reserves.

    But still in your own words Israel respects the minorities and U.S.A. is systemically racist. Chutzpah.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D

    That Israel refrains from training a potentially hostile minority in warfare strikes me as (reasonable) prudence rather than majority beneficence toward the minority. Likewise with ensuring that the few who are so trained become as content and assimilated as possible afterwards.

    Whatever affirmative action Israeli universities practice, I'm confident that the institutionalized discrimination against the majority nowhere approaches that in the US.

    But in any case, none of this answers the question of whether you more readily excuse Palestinian offenses against Israelis and more readily condemn Israeli offenses against Palestinians on the basis of their minority/majority relationship.

    , @Donald A Thomson
    @Jack D

    Palestine/Israel is an Apartheid country under Jewish White Supremacist rule. Half of the Palestinians have been driven out of their own country and only one third of the remnant even have voting rights. If there weren't as many Palestinians still in their own country as Jews, that may have changed to a greater extent but Palestine/Israel is currently under more vicious and racist rule than South Africa was under their Apartheid. Jews, particularly Jewish Communists, have done good work against non-Jewish supremacists but that doesn't change their preference for Apartheid if Jews are the master race. Everything that Jews lie that white Yanks do in the USA is what Jews do and love doing in the only country they completely control.

    Hitler made a mistake in refusing the Nazi/Zionist alliance but the Arabs, even under colonial rule, were certainly more powerful at the time. He'd have done better for Germany if he'd accepted the alliance with the Zionists to create Israel on the basis of their shared values. That would have been nothing like his later plan to move Jews to Madagascar if Germany won. The Jews in Madagascar would have been under SS rule and been Palestinians rather than Israelis. A Jew would have been crazy to want that level of evil. Victimhood is so much easier to bear if it's imaginary. donthoms[email protected]

  127. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    Wilkey, DITTO.

    I was going to write a shorter version of much of the same, Jack. I’m glad he beat me to it, as there are only so many hours in the day.

    How about this? Could you say you were wrong very clearly just this one time, because I think Twinkie’s “you should stop digging” is true this time, regarding just your initial comment? You sort of said this but how about a big AGREE to only this part:

    Jack D. was wrong to say that that America has any systemic racism, as understood by the people that claim it, against White people in present-day America.

    You don’t have to have that notarized. If anyone sues, you come to Peak Stupidity for free advice or subscribe to my UPL (Un-Paid Legal) service. No success guaranteed, implied, or expected.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know how "systemic racism" is understood by the people that claim it. It seems to be a (perhaps intentionally) vague terms.

    I already said that it is certainly not synonymous with "institutional racism" which is pretty much extinct and illegal. If institutional racism exists, at this point it is against whites, not blacks.

    However, if "systemic racism" means that, from the moment of birth, the dice are loaded against a black child from the ghetto succeeding in life, no one can doubt that the outcomes are different and inferior for blacks on average. By this definition, "systemic racism" is like "dark matter" in space - no one knows what it consists of or what causes it, but it is the difference term in the equation.

    The problem is that at least some of the people who propound systemic racism claim that they KNOW what it consists of - systemic racism is 100% the evil juju that whites exert on blacks, which constitutes a complete explanation for unequal outcomes. I cannot agree with that formulation. But I can't state with confidence either that the "evil juju" component is 0%.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  128. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    The people who say that "racism" can only be practiced by the majority are not completely nuts. Racism between the majority and the minority is not completely symmetrical. If you say, for example, that no whites can get loans at black owned banks so what's the issue if blacks can't get loans at white owned banks (and whites own 99% of the banks) then the problem becomes obvious.


    "Everyone does it" is not a complete excuse in majority-minority interactions.

    OTOH, it's easy for minorities to convince themselves that "we're a powerless minority so whatever racist stuff we do is OK, we're just trying to hang onto a few breadcrumbs of dignity", long past the point where they are in fact a powerless minority.

    However, I repeat what I said above. The Men of Unz can all agree among themselves that racism is a dead letter in America and it's not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    Replies: @James Speaks, @ic1000, @Almost Missouri, @William Badwhite

    it’s not going to convince one black person nor is it going to make the issue go away.

    The issue is like when it rains on Saturdays – it is unfortunate but nothing can be done about it.

    I’d ask you the same question I ask the few leftist friends I have left: “What SPECIFICALLY do you suggest be done about it”? Nobody ever has an answer, its just slogans and pie-in-the-sky generalities like “stop hate”.

  129. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1.
     
    No. It was a settler society from Day 1. A society of settlers that were all mostly from the same country, and often even the same (or at least fairly similar) religion, shire and town. Early US settlements were more homogeneous than 99% of the towns and cities in America today, and they remained so for decades or even centuries. Even by the time of the first US Census, in 1790, over 80% of the non-slave population was of British ancestry. Virtually all of the rest were Northwest European, of some sort or another. Demographically at least, the United States, over 180 years after its settlement began, looked a whole lot like the world its settlers had left behind.

    Somaliland is the land of the Somalis – it’s right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It’s like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn’t great. But America is America, it’s not WASPland.
     

    That's ridiculously self-referential. What is Somaliland? A land full of Somalis. What is Germany? A land full of Germans. What is Britain? A land full of Britons.


    If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.
     

    The Chinese Exclusion Act didn't involve "treating" them at all. It basically just involved not letting them come here.

    In 1880, the population of California, Oregon, and Washington was 1.1 million. The population of Australia was about 2.2 million. China's population in 1880 was well over 400 million.

    If Australia and the United States had not banned Chinese immigration, Australia and the Western US would have quickly become extensions of Chinese, not European, civilization. Not could have or might have, but would have.

    They would have been overrun - just as we actually are being overrun today. The demographic consequences of open borders is no longer just doomsaying. It is here. It is now. It is fact.

    Should we be sorry that we didn't allow China to conquer Australia and the Western US? I'm not.

    There are fundamental differences between settling and immigrating. Immigration only requires one person to pick up and move to some established community. That might be psychologically intimidating, but in physical terms in just isn't all that difficult. The person doesn't have to know anyone in that community, doesn't have to speak their language, and doesn't even have to share any common interests. In many cases he or she will be nothing more than a parasite, living off the success of the community. There is very little risk to life or limb.

    Settling a new place is completely different. It almost always requires leaving an established community to build one that does not yet exist. It means abandoning convenience for risk. Centuries ago it often entailed high mortality rates. To do it successfully almost always requires organization on some scale. Probably all of the successful settlements in US history involved religious groups (Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Utah), companies, or large extended families.

    Settlers generally like it when new people arrive, even if those people don't share many of the same backgrounds or beliefs, because more people increases the likelihood that the settlement will succeed. But if the new arrivals can't be trusted, or arrive only to feed off the host population, behave in ways that undermine the survival of the settlement, or even actively organize themselves against the host population, then for good reason the settlers won't be very welcoming to the outsiders. Their success and survival depends on them being able to distinguish someone who is a threat from someone who is not.

    Replies: @Jack D

    The Chinese Exclusion Act didn’t involve “treating” them at all. It basically just involved not letting them come here.

    The Chinese Exclusion Act went much further than that. It required Chinese people to carry special documentation at all times, and refused Chinese people who were already here the ability to become naturalized citizens. Chinese were also (separately from the Act) prohibited from testifying in court.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    The Chinese Exclusion Act went much further than that. It required Chinese people to carry special documentation at all times, and refused Chinese people who were already here the ability to become naturalized citizens. Chinese were also (separately from the Act) prohibited from testifying in court.
     
    True, which is why I said "basically."

    Most of the remaining elements of the law involved keeping more of them from arriving illegally, and from putting down roots. It was a method of immigration enforcement. You know, like the kind we desperately need today.

    It's worth noting that the Exclusion Act was passed just 17 years after America fought a brutal and costly war to free its slaves. To paint simply as racists so many men who had risked their lives to free black slaves is a bit simplistic.

    It's also worth noting that support for the Act was overwhelming, with over a 5-to-1 margin in the House (202-37, with 52 not voting) and by a 2-to-1 margin in the Senate (with 29 not voting).

    It's not that they were racists. It's that they appreciated the dangers of a multiracial society in a way that people today do not.

  130. @J1234
    Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?

    That question is important when pondering the difference between most of the post-1960's (when leftism became commonplace and conspicuous in the free world, but not dominant or omnipotent) and the last 15 years or so (with the rise of the mass cult of wokeness.) It used to be that racial justice was just one of many issues that the left tried to balance against each other. Now it dominates, for a variety of reasons, some of them very underhanded.

    I understand that racial "equity" will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry, but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children - one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have - take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races? When you take care of your children, others don't have to, and you can demonstrate your love for your children in a way that they can understand. People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals.

    Replies: @Anon, @Alrenous, @ben tillman, @bomag, @JimDandy, @Rob

    Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?

    Not in any objective sense, of course. There’s no moral principle involved. It’s contingent on the fact that the group capable of establishing this issue as the “center of the moral universe” is engaging in a race war in which this definition facilitates the group’s victory.

  131. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    The Establishment has established this antiquarian narrative — 1619 and all that — about how the roots of racism are the evildoing of the ancestors of white Americans
     
    Didn't Arabs a 1,000 years ago describe Blacks in terms we would recognize today? And I believe the Chinese explorers who went to east Africa had similar reports.

    Maybe someone can back this up. It would be good to show this was a universal opinion long before America was even known to Europe.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Kratoklastes

    Didn’t Arabs a 1,000 years ago describe Blacks in terms we would recognize today? And I believe the Chinese explorers who went to east Africa had similar reports.

    Maybe someone can back this up. It would be good to show this was a universal opinion long before America was even known to Europe.

    Yes, that would be interesting to see.

    Early European reports of contacts with African blacks are usefully assembled in the notorious collection The Negroes in Negroland (1868). But I know of nothing similar from Arab or Asian sources.

  132. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Wilkey

    I'm in agreement with all, Wilkey, but regarding your 1st 2 paragraphs: I'm guessing you have either read or heard about Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement*. He makes that case, that the 1960s Civil Rights legislation was nothing but an overturning of the US Constitution. I will say that Mr. Caldwell cucked out COMPLETELY on both race reality and feminism though. His book doesn't get 5 stars from me, maybe 3 1/2.

    .

    * Fair warning - that link goes to a Peak Stupidity review.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    Yes, I have read it. Great book, quick read, and I think I had about 500 highlights in it. It was recommended to me by someone here – perhaps it was you.

    IIRC, Caldwell alluded to enough of the issues of race realism to get a pass from me. He couldn’t have gone any further. He kept the book respectable enough that readers (of which there won’t be nearly enough) won’t feel nervous recommending it to less conservative friends.

    OT, but Justice Stephen Breyer has announced his retirement. This #6 on my list of predictions on the Groundhog Day Thread (back on January 2), and is the first to come true.

    I’ll extend that prediction by stating that since A) Biden has promised to nominate a black women; B) 4 of the last 5 Dem SCOTUS nominees have been Jewish; and C) Biden’s Cabinet is > 25% Jewish, and his adminsitration is clearly being run almost entirely by Jews

    Based on all that, I predict that Biden’s nominee will be California State Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, who is half black and half – you guessed it – Jewish.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @Wilkey


    I predict that Biden’s nominee will be California State Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, who is half black and half – you guessed it – Jewish.

     

    Wikipedia's article on Kruger includes this faintly hilarious sentence:

    "If she replaces Justice Stephen Breyer, she would also continue the tradition of the court's 'Jewish seat.' While Justice Elena Kagan is also Jewish, Breyer sits in a seat that has historically been assigned to a Jew for a large part of the past 100 years."

    In other words: what's ours is ours, by right, forever. What's yours is up for grabs.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Jack D

  133. @Mike Tre
    @Twinkie

    Instead of skewing the subject why don't you just state who you believe to be less racially bigoted? As if I don't know who you'll say.

    Take a hike. You are cast from the same mold as Jack D.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    As if I don’t know who you’ll say.

    You don’t. Like a lot of unwise people, you think you can read the minds of other people.

    why don’t you just state who you believe to be less racially bigoted?

    I am not a simpleton, so I don’t think people of any race are inherently less or more racist. With bigotry, what I have observed (both firsthand and through the study of history) is that there is much contingency.

    Simply, this is what I think: racism tends to be strong with a certain group of people when that group believes it has been subject to much harm from others. As an example, I have found blacks in America to be much more racist than most other groups, largely because – I suspect – they believe (wrongly) they have suffered at the hands of others.

    As another example, the Germans prior to World War I were not particularly anti-Semitic. The Jewish population in Germany was small and it was well-assimilated, so, unsurprisingly, anti-Semitism was in significant decline. But anti-Semitism rose dramatically in the aftermath of World War I when the German populace suffered enormously at the hands of the victors even though the former thought – inaccurately – their armies were never defeated in the field.

    Take a hike.

    I’d like to see to you try to make me.

    You are cast from the same mold as Jack D.

    Simpletons are people who can’t make distinctions.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Twinkie

    "I’d like to see to you try to make me."

    No, you wouldn't. But the fact that you would actually make that elementary school yard statement is revealing. If a simpleton like me can trigger you so easily into making absurd references to physical confrontation, what does it say about you?

    You and Jack D both defend and excuse and justify the pattern of poor behavior found within both of your extended racial families. You are both fair weather Americans. You are normie Americans when it's to your benefit, but then the two of you like make sure to exclude yourselves racially when less noble topics in reference to US History come up. Jack likes to remind his "fellow whites" that we "should have picked our own cotton," as if jews had nothing to do with black slavery, or as if more then .0001% of the commenters here are descended from anyone who actually owned African slaves in the pre/early American south.

    So I'll tell you what: follow me around the comment section if you like. I'm flattered that such a high IQ, high class, ultimate human weapon such as yourself chooses to spend his time following around a simpleton like me. LOL It's like a microcosm of all the east Asian immigrant invaders that desire to live in European countries.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  134. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.

    The Chinese Exclusion Act simply kept a lid on Chinese moving here. It had no effect on the ones already living here. Not being able to be joined by hordes of your co-ethnics in someone else’s country is not poor treatment.

    Americans (sensibly) didn’t want their vast, partly empty continent to be filled with endless streams of Chinese.

    Also, America was not an “immigration society” from day one. This has been explained to you many times. Some people settled a largely empty continent, dealt with the natives, then over time expelled three European powers and largely finished building the place. Then other people began showing up and now their ancestors like to take credit for immigrants “building” America.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @William Badwhite


    dealt with the natives
     
    LOL.

    Exterminated is more like it. We are all adults here. Let's not minimize or be euphemistic. Otherwise, critiquing Jack D for deception becomes hypocritical.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @William Badwhite, @Wilkey

  135. @Mike Tre
    "Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one’s thoughts."

    In short, discrimination is a part of our inherent survival instincts.

    Mircro discrimination: crossing the street when approaching a negro on the sidewalk.

    Macro discrimination: Full stop on immigration.

    The former contributes to the survival of the individual, the latter to survival of the race.

    Discrimination is a good thing.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @ben tillman

    Discrimination is a good thing.

    Is discrimination also good when high IQ, affluent GoodWhites look down on you and your progeny as “white trash” and marginalize you?

    The former contributes to the survival of the individual, the latter to survival of the race.

    And the GoodWhites would justify their discrimination against you and yours as being eugenically good (not unlike the way the commenter Thomm goes on about how “20% of whites are waste matter”).

    Full stop on immigration.

    I agree with this… though for different reasons. I think it’s good for most Americans, period.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Twinkie

    "Is discrimination also good when high IQ, affluent GoodWhites look down on you and your progeny as “white trash” and marginalize you?"

    Is water a good thing when it drowns you? Jesus Christ, you waste so much time with patronizing whataboutism. To me, you are the same as a good white, sitting up in your cloud tsk tsking middleclass whites who dare to prefer to be among their own kind.

    I don't give a fuck how much smarter Asians think they are than Europeans. We get to have countries of our own. If Asia is so great they wouldn't be coming here. You all need to go back.

  136. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D

    Wilkey, DITTO.

    I was going to write a shorter version of much of the same, Jack. I'm glad he beat me to it, as there are only so many hours in the day.

    How about this? Could you say you were wrong very clearly just this one time, because I think Twinkie's "you should stop digging" is true this time, regarding just your initial comment? You sort of said this but how about a big AGREE to only this part:

    Jack D. was wrong to say that that America has any systemic racism, as understood by the people that claim it, against White people in present-day America.

    You don't have to have that notarized. If anyone sues, you come to Peak Stupidity for free advice or subscribe to my UPL (Un-Paid Legal) service. No success guaranteed, implied, or expected.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I really don’t know how “systemic racism” is understood by the people that claim it. It seems to be a (perhaps intentionally) vague terms.

    I already said that it is certainly not synonymous with “institutional racism” which is pretty much extinct and illegal. If institutional racism exists, at this point it is against whites, not blacks.

    However, if “systemic racism” means that, from the moment of birth, the dice are loaded against a black child from the ghetto succeeding in life, no one can doubt that the outcomes are different and inferior for blacks on average. By this definition, “systemic racism” is like “dark matter” in space – no one knows what it consists of or what causes it, but it is the difference term in the equation.

    The problem is that at least some of the people who propound systemic racism claim that they KNOW what it consists of – systemic racism is 100% the evil juju that whites exert on blacks, which constitutes a complete explanation for unequal outcomes. I cannot agree with that formulation. But I can’t state with confidence either that the “evil juju” component is 0%.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    However, if “systemic racism” means that, from the moment of birth, the dice are loaded against a black child from the ghetto succeeding in life, no one can doubt that the outcomes are different and inferior for blacks on average.

    What Edward Banfield said 50 years ago. That's just not a potent vector influencing the trajectory of people's lives. More of one then than now. You're not going to have similar outcomes because every population carries the weight of the past. You can socialize the cost of education and training, you can ameliorate market outcomes with various sorts of collective consumption and income transfer, but you can't pee for someone. If people are satisfied with their lives in a given state, they're not motivated to seek something different. That's not a social problem. An actual problem is that (in re black youths and others) their time and patience is wasted with half-assed schooling (especially the practice of making academic subjects the default during high school) when they could be learning skills which might enhance their earning power. They might not take much of an interest in that, but the option should be open to them. Right now a grand total of 2% of our teacher corps are deployed to voTech.

  137. @William Badwhite
    @Jack D


    If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.
     
    The Chinese Exclusion Act simply kept a lid on Chinese moving here. It had no effect on the ones already living here. Not being able to be joined by hordes of your co-ethnics in someone else's country is not poor treatment.

    Americans (sensibly) didn't want their vast, partly empty continent to be filled with endless streams of Chinese.

    Also, America was not an "immigration society" from day one. This has been explained to you many times. Some people settled a largely empty continent, dealt with the natives, then over time expelled three European powers and largely finished building the place. Then other people began showing up and now their ancestors like to take credit for immigrants "building" America.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    dealt with the natives

    LOL.

    Exterminated is more like it. We are all adults here. Let’s not minimize or be euphemistic. Otherwise, critiquing Jack D for deception becomes hypocritical.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Twinkie


    Exterminated is more like it.

     

    Damn straight they did, just as every group worth their salt has done from the beginning of time. God bless my ancestors for fighting to create the world that they did - a world that so many whites (and others) just assume magically appeared.

    It's time for whites to put away childish things.

    , @William Badwhite
    @Twinkie


    Exterminated is more like it.
     
    Certainly some were (e.g. Comanche), others were moved against their will but not exterminated (e.g. Cherokee), while others were left where they were and they eventually interbred enough to be barely distinguishable (e.g. Seminole).

    As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread there are more of them today than there were when the English landed at Jamestown in 1607.

    But were they dispossessed? Yes. Often brutally? Yes. That's been the way of the world forever.

    Once North America was discovered by Europeans, it was game over for the natives and their lifestyle. If it wasn't the English it would have been the Spanish or the French or the Chinese or whoever, but there was no way illiterate stone age people were going to hold onto an entire continent and keep out much more advanced civilizations.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    , @Wilkey
    @Twinkie

    Hunter gatherers seldom survived anywhere when they came into contact with more advanced populations. They were either exterminated or, more often, mixed in with the more advanced, invading populations at greatly reduced percentages. At any rate, the options were to adapt to the new technology (if you could), be outbred, or die off.

    That's the ugly reality of evolution. It's one way beneficial genes become fixed in the population.

    The only difference between what happened in America and Australia and what happened in Ancient China or Europe or India or anywhere else is that it's recent enough that we know how it all went down. In the Americas it was often as simple as the natives not having the immune systems to survive pathogens the invaders brought with them. Many of the rest simply refused or were confounded by the prospect of living as whites did.

    Needless to say, this habit of trying to guilt people over the conquest of America is nothing more than obnoxious psychological warfare. If you look at it as:

    Immigrants > Settlers > Natives*

    ...it is nothing more than the immigrants kicking around the settlers, whom they have just displaced. "We're sorry these bad settlers we have now conquered conquered you natives who were here before them."

    Nevermind that it is only thanks to the settlers that the immigrants came to begin with. They would never have risked settling the new land themselves, or taking on the risks of dealing with the natives they blame the settlers for destroying.

    In many cases it may just be a lack of self-awareness, but in many other cases there is no doubt that they know full well what they are doing.

    * Note that here I'm using "settler" and "immigrant" in the sense of which population group a person identifies with, not whether they themselves actually "settled" or "immigrated" anywhere.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Twinkie

  138. anon[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @Redman
    @Bernard

    Agree. Jack is a very insightful guy about a lot of things.

    Although he does go on about anti-semitism a bit much. It’s hard to completely give up victimhood once you’ve had a taste of it. Everyone can complain about how their “group” has been unfairly treated in some way.

    My problem is that the modern day slander of “anti-semitism” is now a powerful weapon used by TPTB to quash dissent. It’s a tool of the propagandists.

    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”

    Replies: @anon, @Jonathan Mason

    Everyone can complain about how their “group” has been unfairly treated in some way.

    Not everyone can. For example, groups that have been genocided (Canaanites, to name one) are no longer around to complain.

    By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism.

    Anne Frank died of typhus, like so many others did.

  139. To lighten up the comments:
    I worked with a young Jewish man who had red hair and blue eyes. He had a negative interaction with an older woman from Boston. She called him “paddy”. He said he knew he had been insulted but he didn’t know what paddy meant. I told him it was an Irish immigrant and paddy wagons are for Irish immigrants who have been arrested.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Marie H

    Yeah, but where does "paddy" wagon come from? I'd guess from the name Patrick, as they routinely rounded up bunches of drunk violent Irishmen, many named Pattie (Patty?), hence Patty Wagon.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  140. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri


    do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel?
     
    This is a universal principle although its application must be tailored to specific situations. The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account - for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis). For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service - how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/meet-the-bedouin-unit-protecting-israels-border-advancing-the-community-655477

    Likewise, Israel conducts "affirmative action" in university admissions. The program is focused on the "underprivileged" without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where "socioeconomic diversity" is more important than skin color. Who is more "diverse" or "underprivileged" - the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Art Deco, @Flavius Logicus, @Almost Missouri, @Donald A Thomson

    The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Damn you, Jack. You did it again. I just spit out a sip of water that I just took because you made me laugh so hard. Seriously, this has got to stop.

  141. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri


    do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel?
     
    This is a universal principle although its application must be tailored to specific situations. The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account - for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis). For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service - how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/meet-the-bedouin-unit-protecting-israels-border-advancing-the-community-655477

    Likewise, Israel conducts "affirmative action" in university admissions. The program is focused on the "underprivileged" without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where "socioeconomic diversity" is more important than skin color. Who is more "diverse" or "underprivileged" - the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Art Deco, @Flavius Logicus, @Almost Missouri, @Donald A Thomson

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account – for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis).

    That isn’t an example of minority rights. That’s a prudent courtesy.

    For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service – how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    Learning more Hebrew may help some Arab recruits. The other measures may be of assistance to the Bedouin (who are a small minority among the Arabs). It’s exceedingly doubtful that town Arabs in Israel, who have real income levels similar to those of Americans ca. 1965, need instruction in any systematic way about how to open a bank account of sit for a job interview. It’s a commonplace about life in Israel that Arabs are particular about manners and find day-to-day encounters with Jews rather jarring.

    Likewise, Israel conducts “affirmative action” in university admissions. The program is focused on the “underprivileged” without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where “socioeconomic diversity” is more important than skin color. Who is more “diverse” or “underprivileged” – the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    We wouldn’t do well to follow this model. It just puts a different segment on patronage. The point of admissions screens is to assemble a body of students who can absorb at a similar pace. If you’re not there, you’re not there.

  142. @Mike Tre
    @Altai

    I posted this video in the isteve comments a couple weeks ago. Anyone with a modicum of a clue knows that white gentiles are the least racially bigoted people on the planet, even though they have the most cause to be.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @J.Ross, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Which is why we’re being destroyed.

    Everyone here keeps trying to prove that what Jack wrote was wrong. They’re missing the point entirely.

    The point is that they shouldn’t care if Jack is right. Whites have no obligation to accept or be nice to any other group in our communities/societies. The same is true with every other race or ethnicity or group of any kind on the planet.

    • Agree: Mike Tre
  143. @Twinkie
    @William Badwhite


    dealt with the natives
     
    LOL.

    Exterminated is more like it. We are all adults here. Let's not minimize or be euphemistic. Otherwise, critiquing Jack D for deception becomes hypocritical.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @William Badwhite, @Wilkey

    Exterminated is more like it.

    Damn straight they did, just as every group worth their salt has done from the beginning of time. God bless my ancestors for fighting to create the world that they did – a world that so many whites (and others) just assume magically appeared.

    It’s time for whites to put away childish things.

  144. @Jack D
    @Wilkey


    The Chinese Exclusion Act didn’t involve “treating” them at all. It basically just involved not letting them come here.
     
    The Chinese Exclusion Act went much further than that. It required Chinese people to carry special documentation at all times, and refused Chinese people who were already here the ability to become naturalized citizens. Chinese were also (separately from the Act) prohibited from testifying in court.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    The Chinese Exclusion Act went much further than that. It required Chinese people to carry special documentation at all times, and refused Chinese people who were already here the ability to become naturalized citizens. Chinese were also (separately from the Act) prohibited from testifying in court.

    True, which is why I said “basically.”

    Most of the remaining elements of the law involved keeping more of them from arriving illegally, and from putting down roots. It was a method of immigration enforcement. You know, like the kind we desperately need today.

    It’s worth noting that the Exclusion Act was passed just 17 years after America fought a brutal and costly war to free its slaves. To paint simply as racists so many men who had risked their lives to free black slaves is a bit simplistic.

    It’s also worth noting that support for the Act was overwhelming, with over a 5-to-1 margin in the House (202-37, with 52 not voting) and by a 2-to-1 margin in the Senate (with 29 not voting).

    It’s not that they were racists. It’s that they appreciated the dangers of a multiracial society in a way that people today do not.

  145. @Wilkey
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, I have read it. Great book, quick read, and I think I had about 500 highlights in it. It was recommended to me by someone here - perhaps it was you.

    IIRC, Caldwell alluded to enough of the issues of race realism to get a pass from me. He couldn't have gone any further. He kept the book respectable enough that readers (of which there won't be nearly enough) won't feel nervous recommending it to less conservative friends.

    OT, but Justice Stephen Breyer has announced his retirement. This #6 on my list of predictions on the Groundhog Day Thread (back on January 2), and is the first to come true.

    I'll extend that prediction by stating that since A) Biden has promised to nominate a black women; B) 4 of the last 5 Dem SCOTUS nominees have been Jewish; and C) Biden's Cabinet is > 25% Jewish, and his adminsitration is clearly being run almost entirely by Jews

    Based on all that, I predict that Biden's nominee will be California State Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, who is half black and half - you guessed it - Jewish.

    Replies: @vinteuil

    I predict that Biden’s nominee will be California State Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, who is half black and half – you guessed it – Jewish.

    Wikipedia’s article on Kruger includes this faintly hilarious sentence:

    “If she replaces Justice Stephen Breyer, she would also continue the tradition of the court’s ‘Jewish seat.’ While Justice Elena Kagan is also Jewish, Breyer sits in a seat that has historically been assigned to a Jew for a large part of the past 100 years.”

    In other words: what’s ours is ours, by right, forever. What’s yours is up for grabs.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @vinteuil

    LOL. So can white Protestants claim the other eight seats in perpetuity, by right of historical precedent?

    FWIW, the best version of your quote I've read is: "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."

    , @Jack D
    @vinteuil

    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do. I would guess that Kruger has no more than a 1 in 7 chance of being the nominee just based on the number of names on the shortlist.

    Frankly, Kruger would not be a bad choice among the short list. As a 50% Jamaican/ 50% Jewish woman with 0% ADOS blood, she is much smarter than most ADOS blacks, even Talented 10th types.

    This is her husband , BTW, a fine Aryan type man:

    https://jenner.com/system/assets/people/804/profile/Hauck_Brian_COLOR.jpg?1433399258

    I'm sure she has lovely 1/4 black "wheatish" (as the subcons say) colored children.

    Although Kruger's father was Jewish, I have seen nothing that indicates that she is a practicing Jew herself or that she was raised in the Jewish religion.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Wilkey

  146. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know how "systemic racism" is understood by the people that claim it. It seems to be a (perhaps intentionally) vague terms.

    I already said that it is certainly not synonymous with "institutional racism" which is pretty much extinct and illegal. If institutional racism exists, at this point it is against whites, not blacks.

    However, if "systemic racism" means that, from the moment of birth, the dice are loaded against a black child from the ghetto succeeding in life, no one can doubt that the outcomes are different and inferior for blacks on average. By this definition, "systemic racism" is like "dark matter" in space - no one knows what it consists of or what causes it, but it is the difference term in the equation.

    The problem is that at least some of the people who propound systemic racism claim that they KNOW what it consists of - systemic racism is 100% the evil juju that whites exert on blacks, which constitutes a complete explanation for unequal outcomes. I cannot agree with that formulation. But I can't state with confidence either that the "evil juju" component is 0%.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    However, if “systemic racism” means that, from the moment of birth, the dice are loaded against a black child from the ghetto succeeding in life, no one can doubt that the outcomes are different and inferior for blacks on average.

    What Edward Banfield said 50 years ago. That’s just not a potent vector influencing the trajectory of people’s lives. More of one then than now. You’re not going to have similar outcomes because every population carries the weight of the past. You can socialize the cost of education and training, you can ameliorate market outcomes with various sorts of collective consumption and income transfer, but you can’t pee for someone. If people are satisfied with their lives in a given state, they’re not motivated to seek something different. That’s not a social problem. An actual problem is that (in re black youths and others) their time and patience is wasted with half-assed schooling (especially the practice of making academic subjects the default during high school) when they could be learning skills which might enhance their earning power. They might not take much of an interest in that, but the option should be open to them. Right now a grand total of 2% of our teacher corps are deployed to voTech.

  147. @Twinkie
    @William Badwhite


    dealt with the natives
     
    LOL.

    Exterminated is more like it. We are all adults here. Let's not minimize or be euphemistic. Otherwise, critiquing Jack D for deception becomes hypocritical.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @William Badwhite, @Wilkey

    Exterminated is more like it.

    Certainly some were (e.g. Comanche), others were moved against their will but not exterminated (e.g. Cherokee), while others were left where they were and they eventually interbred enough to be barely distinguishable (e.g. Seminole).

    As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread there are more of them today than there were when the English landed at Jamestown in 1607.

    But were they dispossessed? Yes. Often brutally? Yes. That’s been the way of the world forever.

    Once North America was discovered by Europeans, it was game over for the natives and their lifestyle. If it wasn’t the English it would have been the Spanish or the French or the Chinese or whoever, but there was no way illiterate stone age people were going to hold onto an entire continent and keep out much more advanced civilizations.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @William Badwhite

    "it was game over for the natives and their lifestyle"

    I'm getting a sense that the "natives" are us this time around. I'm going to miss the tacos.

  148. tfw “antisemitism exists” draws screeching antisemitic slur-denials from the unzetariat, presumably basting in their BO in their nazi-memorabolia cluttered “dens” (ie, garages) in their sub-suburban “compounds” (shithole ranchhouses deep in the flyover zone)

  149. five minutes ago: conventional sailer and co wisdom states that “asians” etc are more racist than anyone else

    now: asian immigrant castes aren’t racist, because it doesn’t exist — it’s just rationality

  150. @vinteuil
    @Wilkey


    I predict that Biden’s nominee will be California State Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, who is half black and half – you guessed it – Jewish.

     

    Wikipedia's article on Kruger includes this faintly hilarious sentence:

    "If she replaces Justice Stephen Breyer, she would also continue the tradition of the court's 'Jewish seat.' While Justice Elena Kagan is also Jewish, Breyer sits in a seat that has historically been assigned to a Jew for a large part of the past 100 years."

    In other words: what's ours is ours, by right, forever. What's yours is up for grabs.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Jack D

    LOL. So can white Protestants claim the other eight seats in perpetuity, by right of historical precedent?

    FWIW, the best version of your quote I’ve read is: “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”

  151. it’s incredible the kind of mileage unz troggs get out of notions such as “oh those are just the opinions of some urban slickster philly jew” when his central point is easily valid: most of the atavistic boomer right that reads this shitsite have almost no contact or knowledge with actual urban environments — you’re rancid flyover-burgers, in the main. you’d have no idea how to function in such an environment, and so lump you’re basic hardworking, fundamentally decent (albeit stupid) black from the risky variant, the way a real urbanite can.

    you, meanwhile, are too stupid to understand that that lack of distinction is in fact systemic racism of a type

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @zundel

    Most of us are able to use the word “your” as the possessive form.

  152. Well it’s an honor to be quoted by Steve in an actual post. I’m glad he devoted one to this point – what does “systemic racism” actually mean? – because it will become increasingly important if the term continues to be prominently used. And I should mention that commenter houston1992 had a good response to Jack’s comment in the original thread where he points out that the term’s purpose is clearly as a blunt weapon against whites.

    When this term first started cropping up several years ago it very much made me think of the similar term “institutional racism”. I first became aware of that one twenty years ago when I would read some of the UK papers online, like the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times and the Independent. The term had become very much in vogue there as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn’t until the end of the decade that the government report on the police’s conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police. In other words, they couldn’t prove the cops had done anything wrong, but they knew it was a barrel full of bad apples.

    Anyway, the meaning and purpose of “systemic” and “institutional” racism are similar, but I suspect they’ve now settled on going with “systemic racism” because it’s even more vague and opaque and provides more wiggle room for avoiding the hard-to-provide specifics of what official concrete mechanism it is that’s holding blacks down but not other groups of color such as East or South Asians. Even the most partisan liberals and hysterical leftists might have a hard time telling the public with a straight face that current year American institutions and governing bodies are overtly geared toward the oppression of non-whites. So now they can just wave their hands and say it’s the “system”, and not ever have to nail down the details.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Sam Malone

    I was glad to see your comment on here too, Sam, along with Jack's, making for a good debate, well "take-down" might be more like it.

    The term "systemic" may be vague to people who don't even think hard about it, but people just need to get to the root of the word to see what the proponents of this BS are up to. "System.". It's the whole system. That's pretty understandable. They will not be satisfied until the whole system, everything that is currently still White-run or even just full of lots of whites, is taken over.

    Like Communists everywhere, they want to destroy all traditional culture. That it is all set up against black people is one of their purported reasons this time around.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Sam Malone


    When this term first started cropping up several years ago it very much made me think of the similar term “institutional racism”. I first became aware of that one twenty years ago when I would read some of the UK papers online ... . The term had become very much in vogue there as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
     
    This got me curious, so I gave "institutional racism" the same Google analysis as "systemic racism", above.

    On Google Trends (web), "institutional racism" appears as a weaker version of "systemic racism", having a certain background hum, but spiking on George Floyd day.

    On Google Ngram viewer (books), "institutional" has an older and stronger pedigree than "systemic", having an original heyday in the 1960s and early 1970s that rivals "systemic's" more recent ascent. By the late 1970s and 1980s, though, "institutional" had gone into decline, but then huffed back to life in the late 1980s in parallel with the appearance of its arriviste "systemic" sister but still travelling at a higher elevation. Ngrams end in 2019, so we don't know if "systemic" finally outstripped "institutional" in the book world, but that looks like the way to bet.

    The overall impression is that the academic gnomes working to legitimate vague racism emanations as a valid concept invested most heavily in the "institutional" branding, perhaps because it sounded more stolid, objective and pretentious. The project stalled as 1960s radical chic began to wear off, but got an unexpected boost from the same force that initially brought "systemic" up from obscurity. Then perhaps due to media coverage of "systemic risk" driving home the idea that "systemic _____" could be a real thing, "systemic racism" became an authorial hit in almost exact proportion as interest in "systemic risk" waned. So the "institutional" gnomes seem to be jumping to the "systemic" bandwagon as it polls better in the provinces.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Sam Malone


    Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn’t until the end of the decade that the government report on the police’s conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police.

     

    This is complete nonsense.

    Lawrence was stabbed to death by two juvenile delinquents called Dobson and Norris,and possibly 3 other youths, and after various trials, an attempted private prosecution, appeals, quashings and retrials the pair were convicted.

    Interestingly, the director of public prosecutions at the time was Keir Starmer, who is now the leader of the Labor Party, and possibly the UK's next prime minister.

    However it came out much later that Norris' father, who was a known drug smuggler, had made payments to at least one detective involved in the case to suppress evidence, hence the anger at the metropolitan police (of London.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Jonathan Mason, @Sam Malone

  153. @Twinkie
    @William Badwhite


    dealt with the natives
     
    LOL.

    Exterminated is more like it. We are all adults here. Let's not minimize or be euphemistic. Otherwise, critiquing Jack D for deception becomes hypocritical.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @William Badwhite, @Wilkey

    Hunter gatherers seldom survived anywhere when they came into contact with more advanced populations. They were either exterminated or, more often, mixed in with the more advanced, invading populations at greatly reduced percentages. At any rate, the options were to adapt to the new technology (if you could), be outbred, or die off.

    That’s the ugly reality of evolution. It’s one way beneficial genes become fixed in the population.

    The only difference between what happened in America and Australia and what happened in Ancient China or Europe or India or anywhere else is that it’s recent enough that we know how it all went down. In the Americas it was often as simple as the natives not having the immune systems to survive pathogens the invaders brought with them. Many of the rest simply refused or were confounded by the prospect of living as whites did.

    Needless to say, this habit of trying to guilt people over the conquest of America is nothing more than obnoxious psychological warfare. If you look at it as:

    Immigrants > Settlers > Natives*

    …it is nothing more than the immigrants kicking around the settlers, whom they have just displaced. “We’re sorry these bad settlers we have now conquered conquered you natives who were here before them.”

    Nevermind that it is only thanks to the settlers that the immigrants came to begin with. They would never have risked settling the new land themselves, or taking on the risks of dealing with the natives they blame the settlers for destroying.

    In many cases it may just be a lack of self-awareness, but in many other cases there is no doubt that they know full well what they are doing.

    * Note that here I’m using “settler” and “immigrant” in the sense of which population group a person identifies with, not whether they themselves actually “settled” or “immigrated” anywhere.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Wilkey

    > The only difference between what happened in America and Australia and what happened in Ancient China or Europe or India or anywhere else is that it’s recent enough that we know how it all went down.

    Agree. And don't leave Africa off the list. The Bantu Expansion was the Contraction of the Pygmies, Bushmen, Hottentots, and entire peoples whose names are forgotten by history.

    , @Twinkie
    @Wilkey


    Needless to say, this habit of trying to guilt people over the conquest of America is nothing more than obnoxious psychological warfare.
     
    Nowhere in my comment did I suggest such a guilt. I grew up watching Westerns (and Kung Fu movies). I avidly read Laura Ingalls Wilder as a kid (as did my children - still their favorite children's stories). My children descend from - on their mother's side - American settlers who battled the American Indians and tamed the prairies.

    That doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't recognize the large-scale misery that conquest inflicted on the first inhabitants of this land, whose suffering that far exceeded any experienced by all the late-arrivals to the country who seem to want to claim oppression in order to guilt-trip whites. It was brought up as a counterpoint to talk of alleged Jewish suffering here.

    Far more saliently, I prize accuracy and clarity. I found "dealt with" much too euphemistic and opaque.

    Replies: @JimDandy

  154. @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    Discrimination is a good thing.
     
    Is discrimination also good when high IQ, affluent GoodWhites look down on you and your progeny as "white trash" and marginalize you?

    The former contributes to the survival of the individual, the latter to survival of the race.
     
    And the GoodWhites would justify their discrimination against you and yours as being eugenically good (not unlike the way the commenter Thomm goes on about how "20% of whites are waste matter").

    Full stop on immigration.
     
    I agree with this... though for different reasons. I think it's good for most Americans, period.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    “Is discrimination also good when high IQ, affluent GoodWhites look down on you and your progeny as “white trash” and marginalize you?”

    Is water a good thing when it drowns you? Jesus Christ, you waste so much time with patronizing whataboutism. To me, you are the same as a good white, sitting up in your cloud tsk tsking middleclass whites who dare to prefer to be among their own kind.

    I don’t give a fuck how much smarter Asians think they are than Europeans. We get to have countries of our own. If Asia is so great they wouldn’t be coming here. You all need to go back.

  155. @Mike Tre
    "Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one’s thoughts."

    In short, discrimination is a part of our inherent survival instincts.

    Mircro discrimination: crossing the street when approaching a negro on the sidewalk.

    Macro discrimination: Full stop on immigration.

    The former contributes to the survival of the individual, the latter to survival of the race.

    Discrimination is a good thing.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @ben tillman

    Discrimination is a good thing.

    Absolutely.

    Discrimination is what the immune system does. It discriminates between self and non-self to prevent the latter from harming the former. Discrimination is fundamental to life.

  156. @Jack D
    @ic1000


    Reading this threads, many commenters point out ways that “it sucks to be black in 2022 America.”
     
    Really? Other than the cab example, which I gave in my initial comment, can you point to comments that said that? Because all I saw was a lot of denial or statements to the effect that it's mostly/entirely the blacks own fault.

    As I have often pointed out, blacks in America have their own blame shifting issue. There is a lot of denial of agency and the automatic assumption that things are done TO black people and never BY black people. Even when the black man pulls the trigger, it's "society" that made him do it. This is obviously the wrong way of looking at the issues.

    But OTOH, I don't see a lot of acceptance of responsibility by the Men of Unz either. According to them, whites have always extended nothing but a helping hand to blacks in America. Not only are blacks not disfavored, they are positively favored (which is not to say that this is not true in certain spheres). Or maybe racism once existing but starting in 1964 it disappeared overnight - since then everything has been a bed of roses. They, like blacks, dindu nuthin. If anyone is racist, it's those immigrant cab drivers, not real Americans.

    This kind of denial is not a good look on anyone. It's not surprising that in the face of such denial that blacks and their political allies would decide that they only way that they are going to get white people to stopped behaving racisly is to force them and impose quotas because they are never going to get voluntary compliance from people who are in complete denial that an issue even exists.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @ic1000, @Brutusale

    Tikkun your own olam, Jack. It amuses me that the concept is pulled out and dusted off when Jews want others to do the work.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Brutusale

    Here is a man who wanted to do a hands on, Christian version of Tikkun Olam and didn't try to get others to do it for him. Didn't work out well:

    EXCLUSIVE: Pregnant Miss America contestant's born-again Christian husband, 37, is shot dead in front of her and their two-year-old son as they spread the word of God in rough Alabama neighborhood: Boy, 17, is arrested for murder

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10444397/Pregnant-ex-Miss-America-contestants-husband-37-shot-dead-two-year-old-son.html

    I thought it was bad form to call black men "boy" in 2022? I guess when you are arrested for murder it's better to be a juvenile. Do they have any photos of Jerimiah at say age 12 that they could publish? It was really very kind of Jerimiah that he only killed the husband and not the whole family.

    Replies: @Brutusale

  157. @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    As if I don’t know who you’ll say.
     
    You don't. Like a lot of unwise people, you think you can read the minds of other people.

    why don’t you just state who you believe to be less racially bigoted?
     
    I am not a simpleton, so I don't think people of any race are inherently less or more racist. With bigotry, what I have observed (both firsthand and through the study of history) is that there is much contingency.

    Simply, this is what I think: racism tends to be strong with a certain group of people when that group believes it has been subject to much harm from others. As an example, I have found blacks in America to be much more racist than most other groups, largely because - I suspect - they believe (wrongly) they have suffered at the hands of others.

    As another example, the Germans prior to World War I were not particularly anti-Semitic. The Jewish population in Germany was small and it was well-assimilated, so, unsurprisingly, anti-Semitism was in significant decline. But anti-Semitism rose dramatically in the aftermath of World War I when the German populace suffered enormously at the hands of the victors even though the former thought - inaccurately - their armies were never defeated in the field.

    Take a hike.
     
    I'd like to see to you try to make me.

    You are cast from the same mold as Jack D.
     
    Simpletons are people who can't make distinctions.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    “I’d like to see to you try to make me.”

    No, you wouldn’t. But the fact that you would actually make that elementary school yard statement is revealing. If a simpleton like me can trigger you so easily into making absurd references to physical confrontation, what does it say about you?

    You and Jack D both defend and excuse and justify the pattern of poor behavior found within both of your extended racial families. You are both fair weather Americans. You are normie Americans when it’s to your benefit, but then the two of you like make sure to exclude yourselves racially when less noble topics in reference to US History come up. Jack likes to remind his “fellow whites” that we “should have picked our own cotton,” as if jews had nothing to do with black slavery, or as if more then .0001% of the commenters here are descended from anyone who actually owned African slaves in the pre/early American south.

    So I’ll tell you what: follow me around the comment section if you like. I’m flattered that such a high IQ, high class, ultimate human weapon such as yourself chooses to spend his time following around a simpleton like me. LOL It’s like a microcosm of all the east Asian immigrant invaders that desire to live in European countries.

    • Troll: Alrenous
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    No, you wouldn’t.
     
    What are you going to do to make me "take a hike," tough guy? Obviously, you don't know who I am, so all that "take a hike" bluster is nothing but nonsense, but let's assume you are standing in front of me on the street. What are you going to do exactly? I'll even let you assume that I am unarmed (otherwise you are eating multiple rounds of 124 grain Federal 9mm HST bullets). Describe for me how exactly - step by step - you'd make me take a hike.

    And physical confrontations are not "absurd" for me. I have had considerable experience in violence in my life and have trained for them since I was in grade school. So when people think they are being tough saying things like "Take a hike," I am usually curious just exactly how they intend to achieve that goal.

    trigger
     
    As for as I can tell, the only people who use words like "trigger" non-ironically in order to put down their interlocutors are Millennial girls. I know of no real-life blue collar tough guys who use that kind of Internet-speak.

    But since you brought it up, who do you think is more likely triggered by the Internet, someone who dispassionately analyzes and breaks things down or someone who rages "You are a god-damned liar" at pseudonymous internet interlocutors?

    You and Jack D both defend and excuse and justify the pattern of poor behavior found within both of your extended racial families. You are both fair weather Americans. You are normie Americans when it’s to your benefit, but then the two of you like make sure to exclude yourselves racially when less noble topics in reference to US History come up.
     
    First of all, I am not race-obsessed like you, so I don't consider other East Asians to be any kind of "family" of mine. I have a real family and a concrete, organic community of my own whose members are my people (family, relatives, blood-brothers, friends, colleagues, fellow parishioners, other parents who homeschool with me, etc. who happen to be mostly white).

    So go ahead and find me an example of where I am being racially tribal.

    So I’ll tell you what: follow me around the comment section if you like. I’m flattered that...
     
    You shouldn't be. I don't do it all the time, but I like to rhetorically smack down stupidity once in a while. You are it today.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

  158. @vinteuil
    @Wilkey


    I predict that Biden’s nominee will be California State Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, who is half black and half – you guessed it – Jewish.

     

    Wikipedia's article on Kruger includes this faintly hilarious sentence:

    "If she replaces Justice Stephen Breyer, she would also continue the tradition of the court's 'Jewish seat.' While Justice Elena Kagan is also Jewish, Breyer sits in a seat that has historically been assigned to a Jew for a large part of the past 100 years."

    In other words: what's ours is ours, by right, forever. What's yours is up for grabs.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Jack D

    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do. I would guess that Kruger has no more than a 1 in 7 chance of being the nominee just based on the number of names on the shortlist.

    Frankly, Kruger would not be a bad choice among the short list. As a 50% Jamaican/ 50% Jewish woman with 0% ADOS blood, she is much smarter than most ADOS blacks, even Talented 10th types.

    This is her husband , BTW, a fine Aryan type man:

    I’m sure she has lovely 1/4 black “wheatish” (as the subcons say) colored children.

    Although Kruger’s father was Jewish, I have seen nothing that indicates that she is a practicing Jew herself or that she was raised in the Jewish religion.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do.
     
    I keep hearing the name Alphabet Soup Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk (presumably not up to Ginsberg's standards). My guess is she'll be Biden's nominee.
    , @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do.
     
    When you've reached the point, in a country only 2% Jewish, that five of the six most powerful Cabinet members are Jewish (including the one letting our country be invaded by millions of illegals), as are four of the five most recent Dem SCOTUS nominees, I think that what the hell is happening becomes a concern of far more than just crazy Holocaust-denying conspiracy theorists.

    The Democratic Party tried to make the most powerful court in the land 44% Jewish. A court that has the right to overturn any law it wants in any jurisdiction in the country.

    And this is all by the political party the literally obsesses over "equality" to the point that they allowed our cities to explode in riots less than two years ago.

    This is not crazy Joo talk. This is serious business.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @JMcG, @Jack D

  159. @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    >It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy
    Nope.
    Reminder that as part of the Clankening (the State Department riots) they killed police officers, one by immolation, with firemen kept away. Ukraine has no democratic tradition apart from an aberrant start in ancient history (which was also marked by self-defeating corruption).
    >no such protests in Russia or Belarus
    You omit Kazakhstan, where "farmers" showed up at the capital with weapons and proceeded efficiently to choke points. I certainly hope we don't see State Department riots anywhere.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Paperback Writer

    “You omit Kazakhstan”

    The NED coup that failed.

    “Ukraine”

    It’s a gangster state; a foreign aid cash cow for elite American politicians and their shiftless, dullard offspring.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @SunBakedSuburb

    It’s a gangster state; a foreign aid cash cow for elite American politicians and their shiftless, dullard offspring.

    Overseas aid received by Ukraine has varied over the last decade between 0.4% and 1.6% of their gross national income, or between $700 million and $1.6 billion.

    Freedom House has a recent report on the Ukraine. Much discussion of graft, little or nothing of state violence. Journalists are menaced now and again by various parties, some of them beat up.


    I tend to wonder what the result in the comboxes would be if Unz blocked Russian ISPs for a week.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    , @Almost Missouri
    @SunBakedSuburb

    https://i.imgur.com/k5ed3aU.jpeg

    Replies: @Brutusale

  160. @Wilkey
    @Twinkie

    Hunter gatherers seldom survived anywhere when they came into contact with more advanced populations. They were either exterminated or, more often, mixed in with the more advanced, invading populations at greatly reduced percentages. At any rate, the options were to adapt to the new technology (if you could), be outbred, or die off.

    That's the ugly reality of evolution. It's one way beneficial genes become fixed in the population.

    The only difference between what happened in America and Australia and what happened in Ancient China or Europe or India or anywhere else is that it's recent enough that we know how it all went down. In the Americas it was often as simple as the natives not having the immune systems to survive pathogens the invaders brought with them. Many of the rest simply refused or were confounded by the prospect of living as whites did.

    Needless to say, this habit of trying to guilt people over the conquest of America is nothing more than obnoxious psychological warfare. If you look at it as:

    Immigrants > Settlers > Natives*

    ...it is nothing more than the immigrants kicking around the settlers, whom they have just displaced. "We're sorry these bad settlers we have now conquered conquered you natives who were here before them."

    Nevermind that it is only thanks to the settlers that the immigrants came to begin with. They would never have risked settling the new land themselves, or taking on the risks of dealing with the natives they blame the settlers for destroying.

    In many cases it may just be a lack of self-awareness, but in many other cases there is no doubt that they know full well what they are doing.

    * Note that here I'm using "settler" and "immigrant" in the sense of which population group a person identifies with, not whether they themselves actually "settled" or "immigrated" anywhere.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Twinkie

    > The only difference between what happened in America and Australia and what happened in Ancient China or Europe or India or anywhere else is that it’s recent enough that we know how it all went down.

    Agree. And don’t leave Africa off the list. The Bantu Expansion was the Contraction of the Pygmies, Bushmen, Hottentots, and entire peoples whose names are forgotten by history.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  161. @Jack D
    @vinteuil

    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do. I would guess that Kruger has no more than a 1 in 7 chance of being the nominee just based on the number of names on the shortlist.

    Frankly, Kruger would not be a bad choice among the short list. As a 50% Jamaican/ 50% Jewish woman with 0% ADOS blood, she is much smarter than most ADOS blacks, even Talented 10th types.

    This is her husband , BTW, a fine Aryan type man:

    https://jenner.com/system/assets/people/804/profile/Hauck_Brian_COLOR.jpg?1433399258

    I'm sure she has lovely 1/4 black "wheatish" (as the subcons say) colored children.

    Although Kruger's father was Jewish, I have seen nothing that indicates that she is a practicing Jew herself or that she was raised in the Jewish religion.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Wilkey

    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do.

    I keep hearing the name Alphabet Soup Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk (presumably not up to Ginsberg’s standards). My guess is she’ll be Biden’s nominee.

  162. @William Badwhite
    @Twinkie


    Exterminated is more like it.
     
    Certainly some were (e.g. Comanche), others were moved against their will but not exterminated (e.g. Cherokee), while others were left where they were and they eventually interbred enough to be barely distinguishable (e.g. Seminole).

    As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread there are more of them today than there were when the English landed at Jamestown in 1607.

    But were they dispossessed? Yes. Often brutally? Yes. That's been the way of the world forever.

    Once North America was discovered by Europeans, it was game over for the natives and their lifestyle. If it wasn't the English it would have been the Spanish or the French or the Chinese or whoever, but there was no way illiterate stone age people were going to hold onto an entire continent and keep out much more advanced civilizations.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “it was game over for the natives and their lifestyle”

    I’m getting a sense that the “natives” are us this time around. I’m going to miss the tacos.

  163. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1.

    That is zeroth Amendment BS.

    As others have said, there is a difference between settling a largely uninhabited and undeveloped land, and leveraging the benefits of an existing society and infrastructure that others have already built (immigration). America was settled, and those settlers waged a war for independence before there was significant “immigration”.

  164. anon[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    It occurs to me that one of the problems with the comment section of this blog is the absence of thoughtful black voices. I can't be the spokesman for the black people of America.

    But, from what I can glean from black folks that I know is that that being black in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Obviously, nowadays it also gains you many advantages. But whatever the advantages and disadvantages are, being black means experiencing life in America in a way that is different than whites experience it. Whether "systemic racism" is really the correct term for this or not, if you tell black people, "Everything is fine now. That's all over with, nowadays white people will treat you the same, even better than whites", they will tell you that you are gaslighting them.

    As I said in my original comment, the fact that this je nais se quoi (I hesitate to call it "systemic racism" because so many people object to that term) exists does not justify turning our society literally upside down ("the last shall be first") or justify the "remedies" that SJW's prescribe for "systemic racism". But I don't think that it is going to work to just tell black people that it's all in their heads or that it's all their fault because racism (systemic or otherwise) simply does not exist anymore so they should just shut up. The Men of Unz can tell each other that but it's not going to work on blacks.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    Being a man in America means being treated negatively in certain situations. Females or cops may treat you with suspicion, as a threat. Many more males than females are arrested, jailed and shot.
    Therefore, I suffer from “systemic misandry”, for the same reasons blacks suffer from “systemic racism”. We both need to stop being a threat, black males doubly so, and the systemic whatever will go away.

    As for “systemic antisemitism” in America, this reminds me of the old European adage: “The Jew cries out as he strikes you”.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @anon


    “The Jew cries out as he strikes you”.
     
    Freaking hell, another moron after I just recently corrected someone on this.

    You remind me of Biff in Back To The Future, who keeps on saying "make like a tree and get outta here," which completely misses the point.

    What exactly would be weird about "crying out" as you strike someone? Isn't that what a battle cry does?

    Get it right: it's "....cries out IN PAIN as he strikes you...."
  165. @Brutusale
    @Jack D

    Tikkun your own olam, Jack. It amuses me that the concept is pulled out and dusted off when Jews want others to do the work.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Here is a man who wanted to do a hands on, Christian version of Tikkun Olam and didn’t try to get others to do it for him. Didn’t work out well:

    EXCLUSIVE: Pregnant Miss America contestant’s born-again Christian husband, 37, is shot dead in front of her and their two-year-old son as they spread the word of God in rough Alabama neighborhood: Boy, 17, is arrested for murder

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10444397/Pregnant-ex-Miss-America-contestants-husband-37-shot-dead-two-year-old-son.html

    I thought it was bad form to call black men “boy” in 2022? I guess when you are arrested for murder it’s better to be a juvenile. Do they have any photos of Jerimiah at say age 12 that they could publish? It was really very kind of Jerimiah that he only killed the husband and not the whole family.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @Jack D

    Pound that table, Jack!

  166. Anon[215] • Disclaimer says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Almost Missouri

    Jack is loyal to his people; indeed, Jack is fanatically loyal to his people. Anyone who has read Jack's comments will know that he's a Jekyll and Hyde character.

    If the subject has nothing to do with Jews, Jack is thoughtful, balanced and insightful. If a subject has even the most tangential connection to Jews, he's laughably biased. (I mean that literally. I've more than once spit out my coffee in laughter at what Jack has written.)

    I believe that Jack truly believes in systemic racism because keeping systemic racism alive with gentile whites as a concept, in his mind, helps Jews. It's why he brought up Jews in his original comment. (Jack would have been O'Brien's star pupil. He really sees that extra finger if he believes it will help Jews.)

    Everyone arguing about whether systemic racism exists are missing the point. Medieval scribes understood that there were the facts of an event and there was a greater truth - the promotion of Christianity. The scribes would write about an event (or not) with the greater truth in mind. Changing facts or leaving certain facts out of their story was perfectly fine if it promoted the greater truth. They saw nothing wrong with misrepresenting the event.

    Steve and the Sperg Right want to argue about the facts and logic, but what they don't understand is that Jack and the Left (Jack isn't a Leftist, btw, just a Zionist) don't care about the facts. They care about their greater truth, which is their people or their cause. This is why Steve's Citizenism is such a failure and why Jack's people - and the Left - have been so successful.

    Replies: @Anon, @Mike Tre

    Medieval scribes understood that there were the facts of an event and there was a greater truth

    Do you have a citation?

    Steve and the Sperg Right want to argue about the facts and logic, but what they don’t understand is that Jack and the Left (Jack isn’t a Leftist, btw, just a Zionist) don’t care about the facts. They care about their greater truth, which is their people or their cause. This is why Steve’s Citizenism is such a failure and why Jack’s people – and the Left – have been so successful.

    Nope. Jack cloaks his arguments in principles, not in the naked advancement of his tribe. Jews have been successful precisely because they avoid making public appeals to their naked self interest.

    Whether Steve intends it or not, citizenism is a good principle with which to advance White interests and shut down immigration.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon

    CoaSC exudes the aroma of yet another corvine sockpuppet. Relentless on the attack, slippery on defense, ever condescending.


    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/aCEAAOSwvP1gpD33/s-l1600.jpg

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  167. @Intelligent Dasein
    America does not have a systemic racism problem. America does not have a systemic anti-Semitism problem. America has a systemic anti-intellectualism problem.

    America is unique among world powers insofar as logic plays absolutely no role in the national dialogue. Everything is sentiment and showmanship---and money. Lots and lots of money.

    This is not the case in Europe. Even in Europe, with its comparative lack of constitutionally guaranteed liberties and its excessive police powers, there is the possibility that dissenting voices will be respected as long as they have a point to make. The dissenters are able to make themselves heard, not just on niche blogs but also sometimes on the state-owned media channels. Furthermore, there is still a lingering tradition of respect for logic among the general populace, and intellectuals have a social status there that they lack in America.

    Europeans believe a lot of stupid nonsense, but they have a mechanism to correct themselves. This I find to be the one hopeful thing about Europe. America has no self-correction; America is only great as long as some preestablished tradition has enough of the truth in it to provide a realistic foundation underneath its otherwise unreflective money-and-status frenzy, and when America goes off the rails it does not stop until everything is destroyed.

    Replies: @Muggles, @Alrenous

    Europeans believe a lot of stupid nonsense, but they have a mechanism to correct themselves. This I find to be the one hopeful thing about Europe.

    when America goes off the rails it does not stop until everything is destroyed.

    Yes, there is much to admire about “Europe” though it is hardly a single entity.

    So are these European “mechanism(s) to correct themselves” called WWI, WWII? Or various smaller wars like Serbia, Spanish Civil War, Finnish/Russian War, Russian-Polish war, and numerous European terrorist actions (IRA, Basque, Red Army Faction, Greek/Italian Terrorists, etc.)? Oh, and Russian Bolshevik civil war? I’m probably leaving out many others.

    That’s only in the 20th century.

    America’s only major internal meltdown was the Civil War/War Between The States in the mid 19th century.

    So this “mechanism to correct itself” is what exactly? War? Terror? The EU (now)?

    Sure, this is somewhat Apples vs. Oranges, but really.

    Do you want to claim that having an ancestor immigrate to any American state since 1776 would have been worse than staying in any European nation during the same period? By what standard?

    Until the 21st century Europe’s “corrective mechanism” consisted of warfare, civil war, terrorism and in many places dictatorial repression. There are a handful of national exceptions, but not many.

    In America, “everything” was never destroyed. Some Southern states suffered badly in the mid 19th century, but compared to European warfare, just during that century, it was a “mostly peaceful protest.”

    • Replies: @Flavius Logicus
    @Muggles

    The only advantage Europe has over U.S.A. is language barriers. We consist of so many nations and speak so many languages, the globalists have hard time working from within. Hungary has the most exotic language in Europe and is also the most based. This is no coincidence.

    But social sciences in Europe are totally Americanised. The professors don't even bother to translate the literature anymore. Actually, a significant amount of young Europeans live mentally in the U.S.A. In Hollywood, not in flyover America. Social science students arguably learn more about the plight of black people in the USA than about their own history. It's funny.

    When I was younger I thought America is non-religious, except for people who celebrate Bar Mitzvah. I also thought it has 30 % of black people and a significant Jewish population. I was really pleasantly surprised when I realised how Christian USA really is.

    People in Europe have a really strange perception of America. And this perception is shaped by tiny Hollywood elite.

  168. @Redman
    @Bernard

    Agree. Jack is a very insightful guy about a lot of things.

    Although he does go on about anti-semitism a bit much. It’s hard to completely give up victimhood once you’ve had a taste of it. Everyone can complain about how their “group” has been unfairly treated in some way.

    My problem is that the modern day slander of “anti-semitism” is now a powerful weapon used by TPTB to quash dissent. It’s a tool of the propagandists.

    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”

    Replies: @anon, @Jonathan Mason

    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”

    The substance of Kennedy Jr.’s speech was that mandatory Covid-19 vaccine programs in workplaces were creating a world worse than the situation facing Jews in Nazi Germany or occupied countries, because Jews could hide or leave the country, but people who are not vaccinated cannot get on a plane to leave the USA, or whatever other country they live in, unless they are already vaccinated.

    A subtle point that Kennedy seems to have missed is that Jews in Nazi Germany could not easily change their status, unless, perhaps they converted to Christianity, whereas being unvaccinated against Covid-19 is a status more like being uncircumcised, in that it can be changed, albeit by a somewhat uncomfortable procedure that has a small possibility of medical complications.

    The Auschwitz Museum posted the following tweet, which was reported by the mainstream press.

    Exploiting of the tragedy of people who suffered, were humiliated, tortured & murdered by the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany – including children like Anne Frank – in a debate about vaccines & limitations during global pandemic is a sad symptom of moral & intellectual decay.— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) January 23, 2022

    So anyway, we are left with the interesting question: Is life in the USA for the unvaccinated now worse than it was for Jews in Nazi Germany? Answers on a postcard please.

    Here in sunny Ecuador, you have to show a vaccination card to go into a supermarket, cinema, or to hop on an intercity bus, but nobody seems terribly bothered. Perhaps all the vaccine nonconformists have already been shipped to concentration camps with Kichwa and Shuar guards to be converted into shrunken heads and sold to tourists as souvenirs, I don’t know.

    For those who are facing extermination, I do have one suggestion. See if you can locate a place where you can get a free vaccine. If you are worried about getting blood clots, you might want to consult your physician first to discuss anticoagulant therapy.

    This may help:

    https://www.walgreens.com/pharmacy/schedule-appointment.jsp#/location

    Disclosure: I have a small position in Walgreens Boots Alliance stock options in my IRA.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jonathan Mason

    If you've already been vaccinated, then why did they let the headshrinkers get to you, Jonathan?

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Jonathan Mason


    A subtle point that Kennedy seems to have missed is that Jews in Nazi Germany could not easily change their status, unless, perhaps they converted to Christianity, whereas being unvaccinated against Covid-19 is a status more like being uncircumcised, in that it can be changed, albeit by a somewhat uncomfortable procedure that has a small possibility of medical complications.
     
    Perhaps it will someday seep into the heads of f**kwits like you and "HA" (though I wouldn't count on it), it has nothing to do with a little prick of a needle. It has to do with caving into to the dictates of the state. If the state can force you to take medicine you don't want, they can force you to do anything. They are saying "We own your body, not you."

    Are we afraid of a little prick? Yes - we are afraid of little pricks like you and Anthony Fauci.

  169. @zundel
    it's incredible the kind of mileage unz troggs get out of notions such as "oh those are just the opinions of some urban slickster philly jew" when his central point is easily valid: most of the atavistic boomer right that reads this shitsite have almost no contact or knowledge with actual urban environments -- you're rancid flyover-burgers, in the main. you'd have no idea how to function in such an environment, and so lump you're basic hardworking, fundamentally decent (albeit stupid) black from the risky variant, the way a real urbanite can.

    you, meanwhile, are too stupid to understand that that lack of distinction is in fact systemic racism of a type

    Replies: @JMcG

    Most of us are able to use the word “your” as the possessive form.

  170. @Jack D
    @vinteuil

    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do. I would guess that Kruger has no more than a 1 in 7 chance of being the nominee just based on the number of names on the shortlist.

    Frankly, Kruger would not be a bad choice among the short list. As a 50% Jamaican/ 50% Jewish woman with 0% ADOS blood, she is much smarter than most ADOS blacks, even Talented 10th types.

    This is her husband , BTW, a fine Aryan type man:

    https://jenner.com/system/assets/people/804/profile/Hauck_Brian_COLOR.jpg?1433399258

    I'm sure she has lovely 1/4 black "wheatish" (as the subcons say) colored children.

    Although Kruger's father was Jewish, I have seen nothing that indicates that she is a practicing Jew herself or that she was raised in the Jewish religion.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Wilkey

    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do.

    When you’ve reached the point, in a country only 2% Jewish, that five of the six most powerful Cabinet members are Jewish (including the one letting our country be invaded by millions of illegals), as are four of the five most recent Dem SCOTUS nominees, I think that what the hell is happening becomes a concern of far more than just crazy Holocaust-denying conspiracy theorists.

    The Democratic Party tried to make the most powerful court in the land 44% Jewish. A court that has the right to overturn any law it wants in any jurisdiction in the country.

    And this is all by the political party the literally obsesses over “equality” to the point that they allowed our cities to explode in riots less than two years ago.

    This is not crazy Joo talk. This is serious business.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Wilkey

    Look, you have to understand that when you debate with Jack about the Jews, you're arguing with a lawyer representing his client - in a court room where there's no punishment for lying. Jack will say anything to win.

    He's not interested in the "truth." He's interested in his side - his people - winning.

    Btw, Jack is just playing the same game that every group, except whites, play. He's not a bad guy. We're the idiots (and bad guys for not defending our people), not Jack.

    , @JMcG
    @Wilkey

    The Ukrainian people are 82% Christian. Mostly Orthodox and Catholic. The current President of Ukraine, a comedian and actor, is a Jew. His platform is pro-abortion, pro-prostitution, and pro-gambling. Suddenly, the hostility to Russia on the part of certain parties is more easily understood.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Jack D

    , @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    I don't understand this part - while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate - Kruger doesn't really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice "serious business" but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning? In the olden days, the KKK was even more obsessed with Catholics than it was with Jews. When and why did the Catholics "become white" but the Jews didn't?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Wilkey, @Bernard, @Technite78, @Hibernian

  171. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    The Establishment has established this antiquarian narrative — 1619 and all that — about how the roots of racism are the evildoing of the ancestors of white Americans
     
    Didn't Arabs a 1,000 years ago describe Blacks in terms we would recognize today? And I believe the Chinese explorers who went to east Africa had similar reports.

    Maybe someone can back this up. It would be good to show this was a universal opinion long before America was even known to Europe.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Kratoklastes

    Didn’t Arabs a 1,000 years ago describe Blacks in terms we would recognize today? And I believe the Chinese explorers who went to east Africa had similar reports.

    Around the time that they got their arses kicked at Teutoberger Wald (2013 years ago), the Romans said the same sorts of things about Germans, too – but now Krauts build better cars than Wops, and Kraut engineering makes Wop engineering look Stone Age.

    The Romans said more or less the same sort of shit about the inhabitants of Britannia, Gaul, and Iberia.

    Long-term, betting on the Romans turned out to be a bad thing to do. They’re near the bottom of the League Tables nowadays (they’re still above Iberia: something something warmer climate, although the Spanish and Portguese Empires were bigger than Rome at the relevant times).

    More recently – as recently as the 1970s – ‘researchers’ said the same thing about the Irish (claiming that the Irish had an average IQ about equal to US blacks).

    It turns out that there’s always someone prepared to produce a ‘study’ that reinforces the money-men’s prejudices. (The subsequent trajectory of Irish IQ estimates shows that environment matters).

    In no way am I asserting that the future lies with the blacks: their cognitive shortcomings – which seem to be split broadly-evenly between genetics and environment – mean that they have almost nobody in the cognitive ‘Goldilocks Zone‘ (IQ between 120 and 140) required for technological innovation.

    Worse still: even if the environment component was eliminated (i.e., the environment was improved to the extent that only positive effects remained) there’s little prospect of Africa getting to ‘critical mass’ in the Goldilocks IQ range.

    Critical mass doesn’t seem to be a very big proportion of the population: Europeans gave humanity the Industrial Revolution and everything that sprang therefrom, with a population in which a little under 10% of the population has an IQ above 120 – and most of those weren’t working on shit of any relevance whatsoever.

    The key question for Africa – the thing that gets them out of the dependency vortex – is whether or not they can get to a stage where their Smart Fraction is large enough to
     • implement technology that already exists; and
     • maintain what they implement.

    The cognitive cutoff for that is a far more achievable goal – getting to roughly 10% of the population having an IQ above 107 (for Europeans, about a third of people have an IQ above 107).

    If current estimates of African IQ are correct (i.e., that SSA has a mean IQ of 70-75) then the current proportion of people in SSA with IQ > 107 is 1-2% of the population.

    To get to 10% of the population above 107, requires an average IQ of 88 – slightly smarter than the estimates for US blacks and 1970s Irishmen.

    (All of the proportions involve an IQ measure that has a standard deviation of 15 – which is implausibly high when the mean is this low, because of the required lower bound for the ability to wipe one’s own arse).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Kratoklastes

    Everything you said was baloney. The Romans did not have contempt for Germans in the way you’re describing. And we have evidence about the intelligence and technological sophistication of Gauls and Celts versus sub-Saharan Africans.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  172. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri


    do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel?
     
    This is a universal principle although its application must be tailored to specific situations. The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account - for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis). For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service - how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/meet-the-bedouin-unit-protecting-israels-border-advancing-the-community-655477

    Likewise, Israel conducts "affirmative action" in university admissions. The program is focused on the "underprivileged" without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where "socioeconomic diversity" is more important than skin color. Who is more "diverse" or "underprivileged" - the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Art Deco, @Flavius Logicus, @Almost Missouri, @Donald A Thomson

    Jack D. you are such a hypocrite it hurts.

    Israeli don’t take Arabs into their military for the same reason Germans didn’t enlist Jews into Wehrmacht.

    USA actually has an affirmative action in college admissions and is in your own words systemically racist. While Israel has preferential treatment for poorer people in university admissions and does in your own words thus take minority rights into account.

    Israel also builds settlements on Palestinian territory. Then they set up fences and check-points. So when a Palestinian wants to visit his neighbours and relatives he is exanimated and kept waiting, often for hours. Does this count as systemic racism?

    Gaza is modern equivalent of Indian reserve. But there are differences: they don’t have the casinos. And Gaza is the third most densely populated political unit in the world. The population density makes it more similar to Japanese internment camps than to Indian reserves.

    But still in your own words Israel respects the minorities and U.S.A. is systemically racist. Chutzpah.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Flavius Logicus

    Israeli don’t take Arabs into their military for the same reason Germans didn’t enlist Jews into Wehrmacht.

    Arabs are permitted to enlist and Bedouin have been sought after as trackers. Arabs are excused from conscription. Arabs citizens of Israel are not badly treated. Jews in Nazi Germany were.

    Israel also builds settlements on Palestinian territory.

    About 10% of the Arab population of the West Bank lives in the segment where Israeli settlements are located. About 80% of the Jewish population of the West Bank lives in settlements founded prior to 1987. About 15% live in Modin Illit, a city smack on the green line founded in 1995. About 5% live in settlements founded in the years since 1995. Some of the settlements are quite compact. North of 40% of the settler population occupies compact settlements whose total area sums to about 30 square miles.

    Gaza is modern equivalent of Indian reserve.

    It's nothing of the kind. Israel withdrew from Gaza 17 years ago. The responsibility for Gaza lies with UNRWA and Hamas. By some accounts half of the territory's personal income is accounted for by UNRWA doles. And, of course, Hamas squanders resources on building tunnels and buying artillery pieces. The population doesn't have and is not developing much in the way of human capital and by some accounts the only labor market there is a spot market.

    What's grossly amusing about your complaint is that they've been offered a better situation twice in the last 25 years (in addition to the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza) and they sabotaged one offer and rejected another. Well, ya pays ya money and ya takes ya choice.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Flavius Logicus


    he is exanimated
     
    They take his video cartoons away?
  173. There are types of people who make living with them absolutely impossible.

    Blacks and Muslims.

    I am not idolizing any other collective, nor do I suggest any country should take a significant chunk of “others”, but the general rule is: get rid of blacks and Muslims.

    Otherwise, your civilization will collapse.

  174. @SunBakedSuburb
    @J.Ross

    "You omit Kazakhstan"

    The NED coup that failed.

    "Ukraine"

    It's a gangster state; a foreign aid cash cow for elite American politicians and their shiftless, dullard offspring.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri

    It’s a gangster state; a foreign aid cash cow for elite American politicians and their shiftless, dullard offspring.

    Overseas aid received by Ukraine has varied over the last decade between 0.4% and 1.6% of their gross national income, or between \$700 million and \$1.6 billion.

    Freedom House has a recent report on the Ukraine. Much discussion of graft, little or nothing of state violence. Journalists are menaced now and again by various parties, some of them beat up.

    I tend to wonder what the result in the comboxes would be if Unz blocked Russian ISPs for a week.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Art Deco

    "I tend to wonder what the result in the comboxes would be if Unz blocked Russian ISPs for a week."

    If you're implying that I'm some sort of psychological warfare specialist working for the Putin regime to help vanquish the Babylonian sickness that has long plagued Western Civilization and have been rewarded for my efforts with a plush dacha outside St. Petersburg filled with reddish-blond-haired kids with blue eyes that I sired with my two gorgeous Russian wives, well, that's just "silly." *

    Still waiting on those nude pix of Buddy Ebsen.

    *Never forget!

  175. @Muggles
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Europeans believe a lot of stupid nonsense, but they have a mechanism to correct themselves. This I find to be the one hopeful thing about Europe.

    when America goes off the rails it does not stop until everything is destroyed.
     
    Yes, there is much to admire about "Europe" though it is hardly a single entity.

    So are these European "mechanism(s) to correct themselves" called WWI, WWII? Or various smaller wars like Serbia, Spanish Civil War, Finnish/Russian War, Russian-Polish war, and numerous European terrorist actions (IRA, Basque, Red Army Faction, Greek/Italian Terrorists, etc.)? Oh, and Russian Bolshevik civil war? I'm probably leaving out many others.

    That's only in the 20th century.

    America's only major internal meltdown was the Civil War/War Between The States in the mid 19th century.

    So this "mechanism to correct itself" is what exactly? War? Terror? The EU (now)?

    Sure, this is somewhat Apples vs. Oranges, but really.

    Do you want to claim that having an ancestor immigrate to any American state since 1776 would have been worse than staying in any European nation during the same period? By what standard?

    Until the 21st century Europe's "corrective mechanism" consisted of warfare, civil war, terrorism and in many places dictatorial repression. There are a handful of national exceptions, but not many.

    In America, "everything" was never destroyed. Some Southern states suffered badly in the mid 19th century, but compared to European warfare, just during that century, it was a "mostly peaceful protest."

    Replies: @Flavius Logicus

    The only advantage Europe has over U.S.A. is language barriers. We consist of so many nations and speak so many languages, the globalists have hard time working from within. Hungary has the most exotic language in Europe and is also the most based. This is no coincidence.

    But social sciences in Europe are totally Americanised. The professors don’t even bother to translate the literature anymore. Actually, a significant amount of young Europeans live mentally in the U.S.A. In Hollywood, not in flyover America. Social science students arguably learn more about the plight of black people in the USA than about their own history. It’s funny.

    When I was younger I thought America is non-religious, except for people who celebrate Bar Mitzvah. I also thought it has 30 % of black people and a significant Jewish population. I was really pleasantly surprised when I realised how Christian USA really is.

    People in Europe have a really strange perception of America. And this perception is shaped by tiny Hollywood elite.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  176. @SunBakedSuburb
    @J.Ross

    "You omit Kazakhstan"

    The NED coup that failed.

    "Ukraine"

    It's a gangster state; a foreign aid cash cow for elite American politicians and their shiftless, dullard offspring.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Almost Missouri

    • Thanks: SunBakedSuburb
    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @Almost Missouri

    I'm about 50 pages into Red Handed, and there have been some revelations that I find fascinating.

    Hunter Biden originally got hooked up with the Chinese through the Thornton Group, an LLC located in a sleepy Boston suburb.

    https://www.bizapedia.com/ma/thornton-group-llc.html

    Notice the third partner listed? James Bulger, Uncle Whitey's namesake and son of the Corrupt Midget, former Massachusetts Senate President Billy Bulger.

    It's crooks and liars all the way down.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  177. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri


    do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel?
     
    This is a universal principle although its application must be tailored to specific situations. The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account - for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis). For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service - how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/meet-the-bedouin-unit-protecting-israels-border-advancing-the-community-655477

    Likewise, Israel conducts "affirmative action" in university admissions. The program is focused on the "underprivileged" without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where "socioeconomic diversity" is more important than skin color. Who is more "diverse" or "underprivileged" - the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Art Deco, @Flavius Logicus, @Almost Missouri, @Donald A Thomson

    That Israel refrains from training a potentially hostile minority in warfare strikes me as (reasonable) prudence rather than majority beneficence toward the minority. Likewise with ensuring that the few who are so trained become as content and assimilated as possible afterwards.

    Whatever affirmative action Israeli universities practice, I’m confident that the institutionalized discrimination against the majority nowhere approaches that in the US.

    But in any case, none of this answers the question of whether you more readily excuse Palestinian offenses against Israelis and more readily condemn Israeli offenses against Palestinians on the basis of their minority/majority relationship.

  178. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do.
     
    When you've reached the point, in a country only 2% Jewish, that five of the six most powerful Cabinet members are Jewish (including the one letting our country be invaded by millions of illegals), as are four of the five most recent Dem SCOTUS nominees, I think that what the hell is happening becomes a concern of far more than just crazy Holocaust-denying conspiracy theorists.

    The Democratic Party tried to make the most powerful court in the land 44% Jewish. A court that has the right to overturn any law it wants in any jurisdiction in the country.

    And this is all by the political party the literally obsesses over "equality" to the point that they allowed our cities to explode in riots less than two years ago.

    This is not crazy Joo talk. This is serious business.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @JMcG, @Jack D

    Look, you have to understand that when you debate with Jack about the Jews, you’re arguing with a lawyer representing his client – in a court room where there’s no punishment for lying. Jack will say anything to win.

    He’s not interested in the “truth.” He’s interested in his side – his people – winning.

    Btw, Jack is just playing the same game that every group, except whites, play. He’s not a bad guy. We’re the idiots (and bad guys for not defending our people), not Jack.

  179. @Twinkie

    I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure.
     
    This is Jack D's usual Jews-as-perpetual-victims shtick and strawman attacks combined in one.

    Who exactly denies that anti-Semitism has never existed in America? It seems to me that the position of most people categorized as "anti-Semites" by the likes of Jack D (including me) is that:

    1. Historically, Jews were despised in much of the world and, yes, often were targets of violence, not just because of their religious differences and lack of assimilation, but also because they often enriched themselves from "middle-man" roles such as tax-farming in Eastern Europe through which they ingratiated themselves with the ruling aristocracy while oppressing and immiserating the peasantry.

    2. Notwithstanding this history elsewhere, the United States has been exceptionally tolerant and open to Jewish immigrants and their progeny, with the founding president of the country, one George Washington, explicitly stating in his letter to a Jewish community in the country: "May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

    3. To the extent that Jews suffered from discrimination in the U.S., it has been generally much milder than that in other countries and, in this country, no worse - and frequently much less egregious - than those suffered by other ethnic groups.

    4. The net result being that Jews were able to achieve and ascend to the heights of power and dominance in this country, with prominent and even overwhelming overrepresentation in media, entertainment, finance, government, law, and academia.

    5. And despite such toleration and acceptance (and even admiration from many quarters), Jews have been at the forefront of various political and ideological movements to criticize and overturn the established (and hitherto very beneficial) social ethos, morality, and traditions of this country all the while and simultaneously proclaiming themselves as the victims and maintaining themselves as ruling elites of this country.

    As I wrote to him recently, whining is generally unattractive, but it becomes repulsive when done by those on top.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr., @Hibernian, @AnotherDad

    “…—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

    This.

    Problem is with people who don’t want to just be free to live their own lives, but want to run other peoples’ lives.

    • Agree: Twinkie, Adam Smith
  180. @Marie H
    To lighten up the comments:
    I worked with a young Jewish man who had red hair and blue eyes. He had a negative interaction with an older woman from Boston. She called him "paddy". He said he knew he had been insulted but he didn't know what paddy meant. I told him it was an Irish immigrant and paddy wagons are for Irish immigrants who have been arrested.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Yeah, but where does “paddy” wagon come from? I’d guess from the name Patrick, as they routinely rounded up bunches of drunk violent Irishmen, many named Pattie (Patty?), hence Patty Wagon.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It comes from "Padraig," Irish Gaelic for Patrick. When I was a very young kid in Davenport IA, the local news would quite openly report that the police had loaded drunk and disorderly patrons of a local bar, of unspecified ethnicity (the patrons, that is), into a paddy wagon or wagons. Neither my full blooded Irish Mother nor my part Irish Father, both from Chicago, seemed to be bothered by this.

  181. @Sam Malone
    Well it's an honor to be quoted by Steve in an actual post. I'm glad he devoted one to this point - what does "systemic racism" actually mean? - because it will become increasingly important if the term continues to be prominently used. And I should mention that commenter houston1992 had a good response to Jack's comment in the original thread where he points out that the term's purpose is clearly as a blunt weapon against whites.

    When this term first started cropping up several years ago it very much made me think of the similar term "institutional racism". I first became aware of that one twenty years ago when I would read some of the UK papers online, like the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times and the Independent. The term had become very much in vogue there as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn't until the end of the decade that the government report on the police's conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of "institutional racism" in the London Metropolitan Police. In other words, they couldn't prove the cops had done anything wrong, but they knew it was a barrel full of bad apples.

    Anyway, the meaning and purpose of "systemic" and "institutional" racism are similar, but I suspect they've now settled on going with "systemic racism" because it's even more vague and opaque and provides more wiggle room for avoiding the hard-to-provide specifics of what official concrete mechanism it is that's holding blacks down but not other groups of color such as East or South Asians. Even the most partisan liberals and hysterical leftists might have a hard time telling the public with a straight face that current year American institutions and governing bodies are overtly geared toward the oppression of non-whites. So now they can just wave their hands and say it's the "system", and not ever have to nail down the details.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri, @Jonathan Mason

    I was glad to see your comment on here too, Sam, along with Jack’s, making for a good debate, well “take-down” might be more like it.

    The term “systemic” may be vague to people who don’t even think hard about it, but people just need to get to the root of the word to see what the proponents of this BS are up to. “System.”. It’s the whole system. That’s pretty understandable. They will not be satisfied until the whole system, everything that is currently still White-run or even just full of lots of whites, is taken over.

    Like Communists everywhere, they want to destroy all traditional culture. That it is all set up against black people is one of their purported reasons this time around.

  182. @Sam Malone
    Well it's an honor to be quoted by Steve in an actual post. I'm glad he devoted one to this point - what does "systemic racism" actually mean? - because it will become increasingly important if the term continues to be prominently used. And I should mention that commenter houston1992 had a good response to Jack's comment in the original thread where he points out that the term's purpose is clearly as a blunt weapon against whites.

    When this term first started cropping up several years ago it very much made me think of the similar term "institutional racism". I first became aware of that one twenty years ago when I would read some of the UK papers online, like the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times and the Independent. The term had become very much in vogue there as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn't until the end of the decade that the government report on the police's conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of "institutional racism" in the London Metropolitan Police. In other words, they couldn't prove the cops had done anything wrong, but they knew it was a barrel full of bad apples.

    Anyway, the meaning and purpose of "systemic" and "institutional" racism are similar, but I suspect they've now settled on going with "systemic racism" because it's even more vague and opaque and provides more wiggle room for avoiding the hard-to-provide specifics of what official concrete mechanism it is that's holding blacks down but not other groups of color such as East or South Asians. Even the most partisan liberals and hysterical leftists might have a hard time telling the public with a straight face that current year American institutions and governing bodies are overtly geared toward the oppression of non-whites. So now they can just wave their hands and say it's the "system", and not ever have to nail down the details.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri, @Jonathan Mason

    When this term first started cropping up several years ago it very much made me think of the similar term “institutional racism”. I first became aware of that one twenty years ago when I would read some of the UK papers online … . The term had become very much in vogue there as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

    This got me curious, so I gave “institutional racism” the same Google analysis as “systemic racism”, above.

    On Google Trends (web), “institutional racism” appears as a weaker version of “systemic racism”, having a certain background hum, but spiking on George Floyd day.

    On Google Ngram viewer (books), “institutional” has an older and stronger pedigree than “systemic”, having an original heyday in the 1960s and early 1970s that rivals “systemic’s” more recent ascent. By the late 1970s and 1980s, though, “institutional” had gone into decline, but then huffed back to life in the late 1980s in parallel with the appearance of its arriviste “systemic” sister but still travelling at a higher elevation. Ngrams end in 2019, so we don’t know if “systemic” finally outstripped “institutional” in the book world, but that looks like the way to bet.

    The overall impression is that the academic gnomes working to legitimate vague racism emanations as a valid concept invested most heavily in the “institutional” branding, perhaps because it sounded more stolid, objective and pretentious. The project stalled as 1960s radical chic began to wear off, but got an unexpected boost from the same force that initially brought “systemic” up from obscurity. Then perhaps due to media coverage of “systemic risk” driving home the idea that “systemic _____” could be a real thing, “systemic racism” became an authorial hit in almost exact proportion as interest in “systemic risk” waned. So the “institutional” gnomes seem to be jumping to the “systemic” bandwagon as it polls better in the provinces.

  183. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Marie H

    Yeah, but where does "paddy" wagon come from? I'd guess from the name Patrick, as they routinely rounded up bunches of drunk violent Irishmen, many named Pattie (Patty?), hence Patty Wagon.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    It comes from “Padraig,” Irish Gaelic for Patrick. When I was a very young kid in Davenport IA, the local news would quite openly report that the police had loaded drunk and disorderly patrons of a local bar, of unspecified ethnicity (the patrons, that is), into a paddy wagon or wagons. Neither my full blooded Irish Mother nor my part Irish Father, both from Chicago, seemed to be bothered by this.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  184. @Jonathan Mason
    @Redman


    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”
     
    The substance of Kennedy Jr.'s speech was that mandatory Covid-19 vaccine programs in workplaces were creating a world worse than the situation facing Jews in Nazi Germany or occupied countries, because Jews could hide or leave the country, but people who are not vaccinated cannot get on a plane to leave the USA, or whatever other country they live in, unless they are already vaccinated.

    A subtle point that Kennedy seems to have missed is that Jews in Nazi Germany could not easily change their status, unless, perhaps they converted to Christianity, whereas being unvaccinated against Covid-19 is a status more like being uncircumcised, in that it can be changed, albeit by a somewhat uncomfortable procedure that has a small possibility of medical complications.

    The Auschwitz Museum posted the following tweet, which was reported by the mainstream press.

    Exploiting of the tragedy of people who suffered, were humiliated, tortured & murdered by the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany - including children like Anne Frank - in a debate about vaccines & limitations during global pandemic is a sad symptom of moral & intellectual decay.— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) January 23, 2022
     
    So anyway, we are left with the interesting question: Is life in the USA for the unvaccinated now worse than it was for Jews in Nazi Germany? Answers on a postcard please.

    Here in sunny Ecuador, you have to show a vaccination card to go into a supermarket, cinema, or to hop on an intercity bus, but nobody seems terribly bothered. Perhaps all the vaccine nonconformists have already been shipped to concentration camps with Kichwa and Shuar guards to be converted into shrunken heads and sold to tourists as souvenirs, I don't know.

    For those who are facing extermination, I do have one suggestion. See if you can locate a place where you can get a free vaccine. If you are worried about getting blood clots, you might want to consult your physician first to discuss anticoagulant therapy.

    This may help:

    https://www.walgreens.com/pharmacy/schedule-appointment.jsp#/location

    Disclosure: I have a small position in Walgreens Boots Alliance stock options in my IRA.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Mr. Anon

    If you’ve already been vaccinated, then why did they let the headshrinkers get to you, Jonathan?

  185. @Jack D
    @Brutusale

    Here is a man who wanted to do a hands on, Christian version of Tikkun Olam and didn't try to get others to do it for him. Didn't work out well:

    EXCLUSIVE: Pregnant Miss America contestant's born-again Christian husband, 37, is shot dead in front of her and their two-year-old son as they spread the word of God in rough Alabama neighborhood: Boy, 17, is arrested for murder

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10444397/Pregnant-ex-Miss-America-contestants-husband-37-shot-dead-two-year-old-son.html

    I thought it was bad form to call black men "boy" in 2022? I guess when you are arrested for murder it's better to be a juvenile. Do they have any photos of Jerimiah at say age 12 that they could publish? It was really very kind of Jerimiah that he only killed the husband and not the whole family.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    Pound that table, Jack!

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  186. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do.
     
    When you've reached the point, in a country only 2% Jewish, that five of the six most powerful Cabinet members are Jewish (including the one letting our country be invaded by millions of illegals), as are four of the five most recent Dem SCOTUS nominees, I think that what the hell is happening becomes a concern of far more than just crazy Holocaust-denying conspiracy theorists.

    The Democratic Party tried to make the most powerful court in the land 44% Jewish. A court that has the right to overturn any law it wants in any jurisdiction in the country.

    And this is all by the political party the literally obsesses over "equality" to the point that they allowed our cities to explode in riots less than two years ago.

    This is not crazy Joo talk. This is serious business.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @JMcG, @Jack D

    The Ukrainian people are 82% Christian. Mostly Orthodox and Catholic. The current President of Ukraine, a comedian and actor, is a Jew. His platform is pro-abortion, pro-prostitution, and pro-gambling. Suddenly, the hostility to Russia on the part of certain parties is more easily understood.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @JMcG

    Read The Nation for Ukraine coverage. You may hate their leftism but on Ukraine they've been good.

    Zelensky replaced the utterly corrupt oligarch Poroshenko. It's more complicated than Zelensky/Jew/corruption. Zelensky is actually covertly pro-Russian, or at least, not anti-Russian. I suspect much of these American machinations may have something to do with undermining him. But who knows?

    https://archive.is/C07AX

    Replies: @IHTG, @J.Ross

    , @Jack D
    @JMcG

    Zelensky was popularly elected. He is not hostile to Putin because he is a Jew. Putin is hostile to him because having a democracy on his border makes him nervous. He wants a puppet leader that is accountable to him. This is not hard to understand.

    Replies: @JMcG

  187. @anonymous
    @Twinkie


    Here is an unsolicited bit of advice: instead of going on about “anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering in America were real,” how about you just say, from now on, Jews have had it good here, we should be grateful to this country and be patriotic.
     
    Let’s hear Jack D express some gratitude to “WASPs” who allowed his tribe into their country and who pulled his tribe’s chestnuts out of the fire in WWII.

    Has he ever said “Thank you”? Have they?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    and who pulled his tribe’s chestnuts out of the fire in WWII.

    Has he ever said “Thank you”? Have they?

    When he lived, I used to listen to Milt Rosenberg’s radio show, because he had the most interesting collection of interview guests (“the Poets, the Pundits, the Prime Ministers”, as his tagline used to put it) and Rosenberg was an unusually well prepared host, by dint of native intelligence, good education, and by often having pre-read (or perhaps having an assistant pre-read) works that the guest had written.

    On one occasion, he had several old veterans of the WWII Euro theater on as guests. These were guys who had seen combat, lost friends, etc. Rosenberg was born in America and so was in no direct danger from the war (he appears not to have served in the WWII military himself, despite being the right age), but at the end of the interview, in his slightly awkward professorial way, he did take it upon himself to thank the vets for saving him and his relations from a potentially dismal future. There followed a moment of nonplussed silence from the guests, then Rosenberg quickly wrapped up the show. I think it had never occurred to the vets that saving Rosenberg’s relations was what they had fought, killed and died for. I’m not sure they were elated by the revelation.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Almost Missouri

    The Nazis needed to be stopped, but the French and British, who were nearby, dropped the ball. Also, don't think they wouldn't have tried to come to the western Hemisphere if the French, the British, and us didn't do anything to stop him.

    Replies: @anonymous

  188. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    All this Joo talk is just going to make you look even more stupid than you really are when Biden nominates a (non-Jewish) black woman as he has already promised to do.
     
    When you've reached the point, in a country only 2% Jewish, that five of the six most powerful Cabinet members are Jewish (including the one letting our country be invaded by millions of illegals), as are four of the five most recent Dem SCOTUS nominees, I think that what the hell is happening becomes a concern of far more than just crazy Holocaust-denying conspiracy theorists.

    The Democratic Party tried to make the most powerful court in the land 44% Jewish. A court that has the right to overturn any law it wants in any jurisdiction in the country.

    And this is all by the political party the literally obsesses over "equality" to the point that they allowed our cities to explode in riots less than two years ago.

    This is not crazy Joo talk. This is serious business.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @JMcG, @Jack D

    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate – Kruger doesn’t really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice “serious business” but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning? In the olden days, the KKK was even more obsessed with Catholics than it was with Jews. When and why did the Catholics “become white” but the Jews didn’t?

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Jack D

    Maybe when Jussie Smollett's father first started threatening to kill anyone who called him white? I don't know, I'm just trying to help.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices
     
    There are about 10-15 times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented in the Supreme Court, Cabinet or institutions as Jews are.

    And I didn't suggest Jews weren't white. I consider them an ethnic group, not a race.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Twinkie

    , @Bernard
    @Jack D


    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate – Kruger doesn’t really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice “serious business” but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning?
     
    This is an obtuse argument you’ve made on several occasions Jack. While there are a large number of Catholics on the court, they are Catholic Christians who share the unifying belief of all Christians, that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic are all separate denominations within Judaism, but when distinguishing between different faiths, they are considered as one, just as Christian denominations are. The same is true with Sunni and Shia Muslims, and on and on. The US (though nominally) is more than 80% Christian. That fact that there is a representational disparity in favor of one denomination of Christianity, is a slight of hand that portrays Catholicism as a separate entity. You understand that the distinction is not a suitable comparison, but you continue to apply it. If Jews are overrepresented, which they are, just state the obvious. Many have brilliant minds, and are deserving of the position.

    I for one would not care one bit if the US Supreme Court consisted of nine Jewish constitutionalists, but those are few a far between.

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @Abolish_public_education, @Paperback Writer

    , @Technite78
    @Jack D

    It's hard for me to believe you're unable to understand the concept of "per capita". Therefore it seems more likely you are intentionally making an argument you know to be disingenuous.

    Talk about reinforcing the stereotype...

    , @Hibernian
    @Jack D


    ...Kruger doesn’t really count even in the unlikely event he picks her).
     
    She's one of the top two candidates according to most observers. Patrilineal descent has been accepted by Reform Judaism for a fair long time, I think.

    Replies: @Jack D

  189. It seems like “systemic racism” is kind of invisible, like something that must exist somewhere else, but not in your state or city as far as you can see.

    But supposing that some people see the whole system of corporate hegemony in the US as a kind of systemic racism?

    Pretty much anybody can make a decent hamburger, so why are the majority of hamburgers in the US sold by corporate chains?

    Here in Ecuador you can find McDonalds, usually in an indoor shopping mall or major transportation hub food patio, but for every McDonalds you will find 50 microbusinesses selling hamburgers that are just as good, but half the price.

    The same goes for practically every type of business. In the city where I live practically nobody has to walk more than 200 meters from their home to find basic services like groceries, fruit and vegetables, a bakery, a pharmacy, and a cooked lunch.

    Yet the US has “food deserts”, which I have seen myself, for example on the north side of Jacksonville, FL, where there are predominantly black residents, and have seen mile upon mile of homes with no businesses to serve them.

    Why don’t the residents of those areas get off their asses and start making hamburgers, selling fruit and veg, and making meals on wheels lunches? Is there something in the US air that stops them? Could this be the systemic racism?

    When it comes to selling illegal drugs the same population shows plenty of enterprise.

    A lot of businesses don’t want to open in such areas because of the risk of walk-in crime and robbery, but why don’t such communities provide protection to their own businesses by dealing with local malefactors, as they do for drug dealerships?

    Go to the “bahia” markets near the river in Guayaquil, (a large cityin Ecuador) and you can find at my best estimate about 200 dealers selling cell phones, cell phone covers, and similar items, and about 50 dealers selling pharmaceuticals. It is difficult to actually count them, since the businesses extend as far as the eye can see.

    The same goes for most common everyday commodities. At my local market there are probably well over a hundred people selling fruit and vegetables, but I usually go to a woman who has my weekly order of potatoes and carrots ready peeled and chopped for me, and then to another place to buy my oranges for my breakfast OJ, and one learns who has the best produce and the best deals.

    Not many people own cars, but huge numbers of people work as bus drivers, tram drivers, ticket inspectors, and taxi drivers, so the transportation business takes up the slack in providing activity for people who are not college educated, (although you do have to be a high school graduate to get a driver’s license.)

    So there are lots and lots and lots of people employed in microbusinesses, cooking, and transportation, and they have their children there too, learning the business, and maybe their family pets too.

    But the US has Amazon.com, and obviously lots of people are employed shipping and delivering stuff, but probably the end result is still a lot less jobs for microbusinesses and a lot less jobs within walking distance of where people live.

    So maybe it is corporate hegemony that is the real “systemic racism”. If people have microbusinesses in Haiti, why don’t they replicate the same thing in the US?

    Maybe it is more important to a healthy society to have things arranged to create jobs rather than create wealth, and to have many businesses close to where people live to create happy communities, rather than have a few vast businesses far away.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jonathan Mason


    Go to the “bahia” markets near the river in Guayaquil, (a large city in Ecuador) and you can find at my best estimate about 200 dealers selling cell phones, cell phone covers, and similar items, and about 50 dealers selling pharmaceuticals.
     
    Guayaquil, "City of Thieves". Here are some classic examples:

    Infamous Thief in $1 Million NYC Gold Bucket Heist Tells of Dramatic Escape From Country

    What's Easier Than Getting Robbed in Guayaquil?

    Ecuador to Increase Police Manpower in Guayaquil After Killings

    The city's former mayor sported an Adolfic toothbrush mustache and was dubbed el Loco by the locals. Later he was removed from the Presidency for mental instability.

    Perhaps Ecuador is a model for us!

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  190. @Anon
    @J1234


    but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children – one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have – take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races?
     
    What if one doesn’t have any children (increasingly true of many Whites)? Does your argument crumble?

    Replies: @J1234, @bomag

    I’d presume they have near relatives with children they care about; or distant relatives with children; or friends; or friends of friends; etc.

  191. @J1234
    Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?

    That question is important when pondering the difference between most of the post-1960's (when leftism became commonplace and conspicuous in the free world, but not dominant or omnipotent) and the last 15 years or so (with the rise of the mass cult of wokeness.) It used to be that racial justice was just one of many issues that the left tried to balance against each other. Now it dominates, for a variety of reasons, some of them very underhanded.

    I understand that racial "equity" will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry, but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children - one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have - take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races? When you take care of your children, others don't have to, and you can demonstrate your love for your children in a way that they can understand. People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals.

    Replies: @Anon, @Alrenous, @ben tillman, @bomag, @JimDandy, @Rob

    Why should racial egalitarianism… be the center of the moral universe?

    I think of it as taking up Macolm X’s challenge to subsidize Blacks for a generation, after which they will be fully functioning citizens on par with modal America.

    We’re multi-generations into the project, and it’s arcing more to proving Roger Taney prescient when he opined that B & W are too different to get along on a society-wide basis.

  192. Europe has had thousands of years of mostly negative experience in
    dealing with Jews and blacks, and based on this experience, it is now
    in the process of moving in the direction of Fortress Europe.

    Europe had a Eureka moment in dealing with the Jewish problem.
    It was first made explicit by Nietzsche, I believe. Now Nietzsche,
    despite his image, was initially mildly philosemitic. One of his closest
    friends was Paul Rée who was Jewish. But then they both fell in love
    with Andreas-Salomé, a Russian-German woman, and drifted
    apart. Nietzsche suffered a lot of anguish, and perhaps then his
    attitude toward Jews has changed. Anyway, Nietzsche proposed
    a simple rule – to promote social harmony the percentage of Jews
    should be no larger than a certain upper limit that promotes their
    assimilation. In other words, a country should only have as many Jews
    as can assimilate, and no more. What that limit is, is obviously a matter
    of controversy but 0.5% seems like a good try. The vast majority of
    Western European countries, after largely expelling Jews in the Middle
    Ages, have historically limited the number of Jews through the current era
    to 0.1-0.3%, with the notable recent exception of France. The U.S. with
    2-3% of Jews expressly violates this rule.

    As we know, after being expelled Jews mostly ended up in the
    Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ruled by Poland, and hence
    sometimes referred to as Greater Poland, which included Western
    Ukraine. That’s why Ukrainian is basically polonized Russian.
    By 1600, 80-90% of the Ashkenazi Jews lived within the domain
    of Polish civilization. Polish was an official language at the Knesset
    in the 1950%. The percentage of Jews within the PLC was 9-10%,
    obviously unsustainable in the long run. The Jews left mixed memories.
    A lot of them included greedy landlords, loan sharks, dishonest
    shopkeepers and pawnbrokers, drug dealers (trying to turn the
    population into alcoholics), owners of vice industries (bordellos,
    gambling establishments, peddlers of pornography, etc). But the
    larger point is that the Jews refused to assimilate. At 10% they basically
    formed their own separate country, refused to learn the local
    languages, ran their own educational and legal systems, and at
    the Versailles Peace conference activist Jews argued vehemently
    against restoring Polish independence. Europe (and Russia)
    have learned from how Polish generosity was repaid by the Jews,
    and don’t want this to happen again.

    • Replies: @Anon 2
    @Anon 2

    My point is that since the expulsion of the Jews from Western Europe
    (incl. Italy, Spain, and the German States) in the Middle Ages,
    Western European countries have limited the percentage of Jews
    to under 0.5% (today it’s largely 0.1-0.3% in most countries). As a result,
    they were able to thrive on a grand scale (e.g., develop their merchant
    class, their educational and cultural institutions) without the Jewish
    interference. They didn’t have to deal with the “Culture of Critique,” Jewish
    radical leftism, and the Jewish monopolization of the merchant classes.

    On the other hand, in the last 150 years Jews have basically invaded
    France, and wrecked many of its cultural institutions. French
    cinema today is unrecognizable compared to the days of Jean Renoir,
    François Truffaut, Eric Rohmer, Jacques Tati, Alain Resnais, Claude
    Lelouch, Jacques Demy, etc We’ll be hearing about it as the election season
    begins to heat up in France.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @anon
    @Anon 2


    Europe had a Eureka moment in dealing with the Jewish problem. It was first made explicit by Nietzsche, I believe. Nietzsche proposed a simple rule – to promote social harmony the percentage of Jews should be no larger than a certain upper limit that promotes their assimilation.
     
    Where did Nietzsche say this?

    Replies: @Anon 2

  193. @Sam Malone
    Well it's an honor to be quoted by Steve in an actual post. I'm glad he devoted one to this point - what does "systemic racism" actually mean? - because it will become increasingly important if the term continues to be prominently used. And I should mention that commenter houston1992 had a good response to Jack's comment in the original thread where he points out that the term's purpose is clearly as a blunt weapon against whites.

    When this term first started cropping up several years ago it very much made me think of the similar term "institutional racism". I first became aware of that one twenty years ago when I would read some of the UK papers online, like the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times and the Independent. The term had become very much in vogue there as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn't until the end of the decade that the government report on the police's conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of "institutional racism" in the London Metropolitan Police. In other words, they couldn't prove the cops had done anything wrong, but they knew it was a barrel full of bad apples.

    Anyway, the meaning and purpose of "systemic" and "institutional" racism are similar, but I suspect they've now settled on going with "systemic racism" because it's even more vague and opaque and provides more wiggle room for avoiding the hard-to-provide specifics of what official concrete mechanism it is that's holding blacks down but not other groups of color such as East or South Asians. Even the most partisan liberals and hysterical leftists might have a hard time telling the public with a straight face that current year American institutions and governing bodies are overtly geared toward the oppression of non-whites. So now they can just wave their hands and say it's the "system", and not ever have to nail down the details.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri, @Jonathan Mason

    Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn’t until the end of the decade that the government report on the police’s conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police.

    This is complete nonsense.

    Lawrence was stabbed to death by two juvenile delinquents called Dobson and Norris,and possibly 3 other youths, and after various trials, an attempted private prosecution, appeals, quashings and retrials the pair were convicted.

    Interestingly, the director of public prosecutions at the time was Keir Starmer, who is now the leader of the Labor Party, and possibly the UK’s next prime minister.

    However it came out much later that Norris’ father, who was a known drug smuggler, had made payments to at least one detective involved in the case to suppress evidence, hence the anger at the metropolitan police (of London.)

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason



    laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police.
     
    This is complete nonsense.
     
    Well, the BBC sure seems to think that it was all about "institutional racism". This was the top result for "Stephen Lawrence" at the BBC site:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0359tnq

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Jonathan Mason

    Yes, but he wasn't killed by police!

    , @Sam Malone
    @Jonathan Mason

    Thanks for providing some background on the matter. I should have made clear that I neither know the details of the Stephen Lawrence affair, nor have ever cared to find out. Even 22 years ago I was sick of hearing about "racism" and did my best to flick past the coverage of his death in the UK papers. I just knew that he was a black youth who died and the police were ultimately blamed, and that the media was full of talk that "institutional racism" in the Met was to blame. This much is entirely correct, and my point was simply that the affair familiarized me with the term "institutional racism".

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  194. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    I don't understand this part - while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate - Kruger doesn't really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice "serious business" but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning? In the olden days, the KKK was even more obsessed with Catholics than it was with Jews. When and why did the Catholics "become white" but the Jews didn't?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Wilkey, @Bernard, @Technite78, @Hibernian

    Maybe when Jussie Smollett’s father first started threatening to kill anyone who called him white? I don’t know, I’m just trying to help.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @JimDandy

    Joel Smollett is the Rachel Dolezal of the Jews. I don't think that he represents a mainstream POV in the Jewish community of America. Does this look like the typical Jewish family to you?

    https://spockandchristine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/joel-smollett-family.png.png

    Replies: @JimDandy

  195. However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants – if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant.

    Copy-editing mistake? Or am I missing something?

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  196. @JMcG
    @Wilkey

    The Ukrainian people are 82% Christian. Mostly Orthodox and Catholic. The current President of Ukraine, a comedian and actor, is a Jew. His platform is pro-abortion, pro-prostitution, and pro-gambling. Suddenly, the hostility to Russia on the part of certain parties is more easily understood.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Jack D

    Read The Nation for Ukraine coverage. You may hate their leftism but on Ukraine they’ve been good.

    Zelensky replaced the utterly corrupt oligarch Poroshenko. It’s more complicated than Zelensky/Jew/corruption. Zelensky is actually covertly pro-Russian, or at least, not anti-Russian. I suspect much of these American machinations may have something to do with undermining him. But who knows?

    https://archive.is/C07AX

    • Thanks: JMcG
    • Replies: @IHTG
    @Paperback Writer

    I bet lots of commenters here think Israel is pro war with Russia.

    Replies: @JMcG, @JimDandy

    , @J.Ross
    @Paperback Writer

    One of the best American academic sources on Russia was the husband of the editor in chief of the Nation.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Cohen

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  197. @J.Ross
    OT Protests in Ukraine over tax hikes and crushing business regulations (remember, the hetman is a US-installed billionaire. How does Jeff Bezos or the Walton family feel about small business?). Who could have foreseen that Ukraine was self-defeatingly corrupt and politically divided -- oh, that's right, literally everyone actually familiar with the situation. The dumbest thing about this very dumb situation is this happened before. The Russian-installed guy (whom Nuland replaced with the current oligarch) was a replacement for an earlier IMF/globohomo effort, which collapsed because of self-defeating, runaway corruption.
    Source is RT but if you trust American media over RT you probably think Saddam Hussein had nukes. Hugh Hewitt (intelligent on other matters, but a credentialist, and a worshipper of respectability, a man who wants to be invited to the right parties and at a time when the elite are aberrantly inept) reminds you that Putin only wants to invade Ukraine as a stepping stone to Belgium.

    protesters attempt to storm Ukranian parliament.
    Business owners have been protesting for months against changes to the tax system that took effect this year.
    Chaotic scenes unfolded in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev on Tuesday, as representatives of small and medium-sized businesses tried to break into the building of the Ukrainian parliament – Verkhovna Rada.
    Photos and videos that surfaced on social media showed a crowd of people waving Ukrainian national flags and various other banners marching through the center of Kiev.
    Three protesters and 18 police officers were injured in the fracas, the police said in a statement. At least 20 protesters were detained, according to the media.
     
    25 Jan, 2022
    https://www.rt.com/russia/547344-kiev-protest-business-parliament-storm/

    Replies: @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

    whom Nuland replaced with the current oligarch

    If you mean Poroshenko he was displaced by the comedian Zelensky. Elsewhere I link to an archived article from The Nation which explains this.

  198. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    I don't understand this part - while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate - Kruger doesn't really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice "serious business" but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning? In the olden days, the KKK was even more obsessed with Catholics than it was with Jews. When and why did the Catholics "become white" but the Jews didn't?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Wilkey, @Bernard, @Technite78, @Hibernian

    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices

    There are about 10-15 times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented in the Supreme Court, Cabinet or institutions as Jews are.

    And I didn’t suggest Jews weren’t white. I consider them an ethnic group, not a race.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Wilkey

    "And I didn’t suggest Jews weren’t white. I consider them an ethnic group, not a race."

    How dare you? You're no better than a holocaust denier! Thankfully, more and more Jews are speaking out against the blood libel you are peddling!


    Commentary:
    No, Jews Aren’t White
    We’re our own thing, and whatever privilege we possess is conditional
    by Liel Leibovitz
    JULY/AUGUST 2021

    The Jerusalem Post:
    Jews are not white: Race and identity in Israel and the US - Opinion
    By BRIAN BLUM Published: NOVEMBER 18, 2021 15:59

    Atlanta Jewish Times:
    Are Jews White? Yes. And No.
    Dave reconsiders the question he asked in a 2016 column that became one of the most-read items on the AJT website.
    By DAVE SCHECHTER

    , @Twinkie
    @Wilkey


    There are about 10-15 times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented in the Supreme Court, Cabinet or institutions as Jews are.
     
    Jack D does this often. When he feels that a conversation about blacks or Jews (whom he brought up in the first place) isn't going well, he tends to go "Look, squirrel!" usually with Catholics (example above) or East Asians (e.g. bringing up Korean adoptees when people discuss dysfunction with black adoptees).

    And note the formulation designed to split Christians. You don't see him referring to the lack of Sephardic or Ultra-Orthodox representation in the Supreme Court, do you? No, but bring up the extreme Jewish overrepresentation and it's "What about the Catholics!"
  199. Jesus, when did Steve start to ban comments? Sure, he’ll let comments that he doesn’t like through . . . a day or two later when nobody reads them.

    Way to go, Steve. You’ve become what you hate.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    He flushes at least one of mine per week. He flushed a reply I made to twink just yesterday.

  200. @Jonathan Mason
    @Sam Malone


    Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn’t until the end of the decade that the government report on the police’s conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police.

     

    This is complete nonsense.

    Lawrence was stabbed to death by two juvenile delinquents called Dobson and Norris,and possibly 3 other youths, and after various trials, an attempted private prosecution, appeals, quashings and retrials the pair were convicted.

    Interestingly, the director of public prosecutions at the time was Keir Starmer, who is now the leader of the Labor Party, and possibly the UK's next prime minister.

    However it came out much later that Norris' father, who was a known drug smuggler, had made payments to at least one detective involved in the case to suppress evidence, hence the anger at the metropolitan police (of London.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Jonathan Mason, @Sam Malone

    laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police.

    This is complete nonsense.

    Well, the BBC sure seems to think that it was all about “institutional racism”. This was the top result for “Stephen Lawrence” at the BBC site:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0359tnq

  201. @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Medieval scribes understood that there were the facts of an event and there was a greater truth
     
    Do you have a citation?

    Steve and the Sperg Right want to argue about the facts and logic, but what they don’t understand is that Jack and the Left (Jack isn’t a Leftist, btw, just a Zionist) don’t care about the facts. They care about their greater truth, which is their people or their cause. This is why Steve’s Citizenism is such a failure and why Jack’s people – and the Left – have been so successful.
     
    Nope. Jack cloaks his arguments in principles, not in the naked advancement of his tribe. Jews have been successful precisely because they avoid making public appeals to their naked self interest.

    Whether Steve intends it or not, citizenism is a good principle with which to advance White interests and shut down immigration.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    CoaSC exudes the aroma of yet another corvine sockpuppet. Relentless on the attack, slippery on defense, ever condescending.

    • LOL: JackOH
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    Hey, hey. Let's leave the anti-Semitic slurs out of this. 😀

  202. @J1234
    Nobody has adequately answered the philosophical question: Why should racial egalitarianism/equality/equity (and the related gay/trans stuff which sort of piggy backs on that issue) be the center of the moral universe?

    That question is important when pondering the difference between most of the post-1960's (when leftism became commonplace and conspicuous in the free world, but not dominant or omnipotent) and the last 15 years or so (with the rise of the mass cult of wokeness.) It used to be that racial justice was just one of many issues that the left tried to balance against each other. Now it dominates, for a variety of reasons, some of them very underhanded.

    I understand that racial "equity" will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry, but how long can acting in the best interest or safety or welfare of your own children - one of the most profoundly moral pursuits (and strongest impulses) a person can have - take a back seat to the professed/contrived concern for other races? When you take care of your children, others don't have to, and you can demonstrate your love for your children in a way that they can understand. People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals.

    Replies: @Anon, @Alrenous, @ben tillman, @bomag, @JimDandy, @Rob

    “I understand that racial “equity” will always be a mantra for many blacks in the equality industry”

    Can’t necessarily blame them. They will never achieve equity in a meritocracy. It would be nice if they understood that their people would still be better off living in a meritocracy, but, as you eloquently point out, it ultimately doesn’t really matter what they think. The battle for the narrative of “racism” is a white civil war, and I’m not as sure as you are about this:

    “People can only put on an act for so long, and that includes white liberals.”

    Mass psychosis is a helluva drug.

    • Thanks: J1234
  203. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices
     
    There are about 10-15 times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented in the Supreme Court, Cabinet or institutions as Jews are.

    And I didn't suggest Jews weren't white. I consider them an ethnic group, not a race.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Twinkie

    “And I didn’t suggest Jews weren’t white. I consider them an ethnic group, not a race.”

    How dare you? You’re no better than a holocaust denier! Thankfully, more and more Jews are speaking out against the blood libel you are peddling!

    Commentary:
    No, Jews Aren’t White
    We’re our own thing, and whatever privilege we possess is conditional
    by Liel Leibovitz
    JULY/AUGUST 2021

    The Jerusalem Post:
    Jews are not white: Race and identity in Israel and the US – Opinion
    By BRIAN BLUM Published: NOVEMBER 18, 2021 15:59

    Atlanta Jewish Times:
    Are Jews White? Yes. And No.
    Dave reconsiders the question he asked in a 2016 column that became one of the most-read items on the AJT website.
    By DAVE SCHECHTER

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  204. @Jonathan Mason
    @Sam Malone


    Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn’t until the end of the decade that the government report on the police’s conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police.

     

    This is complete nonsense.

    Lawrence was stabbed to death by two juvenile delinquents called Dobson and Norris,and possibly 3 other youths, and after various trials, an attempted private prosecution, appeals, quashings and retrials the pair were convicted.

    Interestingly, the director of public prosecutions at the time was Keir Starmer, who is now the leader of the Labor Party, and possibly the UK's next prime minister.

    However it came out much later that Norris' father, who was a known drug smuggler, had made payments to at least one detective involved in the case to suppress evidence, hence the anger at the metropolitan police (of London.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Jonathan Mason, @Sam Malone

    Yes, but he wasn’t killed by police!

  205. @Mike Tre
    @Twinkie

    "I’d like to see to you try to make me."

    No, you wouldn't. But the fact that you would actually make that elementary school yard statement is revealing. If a simpleton like me can trigger you so easily into making absurd references to physical confrontation, what does it say about you?

    You and Jack D both defend and excuse and justify the pattern of poor behavior found within both of your extended racial families. You are both fair weather Americans. You are normie Americans when it's to your benefit, but then the two of you like make sure to exclude yourselves racially when less noble topics in reference to US History come up. Jack likes to remind his "fellow whites" that we "should have picked our own cotton," as if jews had nothing to do with black slavery, or as if more then .0001% of the commenters here are descended from anyone who actually owned African slaves in the pre/early American south.

    So I'll tell you what: follow me around the comment section if you like. I'm flattered that such a high IQ, high class, ultimate human weapon such as yourself chooses to spend his time following around a simpleton like me. LOL It's like a microcosm of all the east Asian immigrant invaders that desire to live in European countries.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    No, you wouldn’t.

    What are you going to do to make me “take a hike,” tough guy? Obviously, you don’t know who I am, so all that “take a hike” bluster is nothing but nonsense, but let’s assume you are standing in front of me on the street. What are you going to do exactly? I’ll even let you assume that I am unarmed (otherwise you are eating multiple rounds of 124 grain Federal 9mm HST bullets). Describe for me how exactly – step by step – you’d make me take a hike.

    And physical confrontations are not “absurd” for me. I have had considerable experience in violence in my life and have trained for them since I was in grade school. So when people think they are being tough saying things like “Take a hike,” I am usually curious just exactly how they intend to achieve that goal.

    trigger

    As for as I can tell, the only people who use words like “trigger” non-ironically in order to put down their interlocutors are Millennial girls. I know of no real-life blue collar tough guys who use that kind of Internet-speak.

    But since you brought it up, who do you think is more likely triggered by the Internet, someone who dispassionately analyzes and breaks things down or someone who rages “You are a god-damned liar” at pseudonymous internet interlocutors?

    You and Jack D both defend and excuse and justify the pattern of poor behavior found within both of your extended racial families. You are both fair weather Americans. You are normie Americans when it’s to your benefit, but then the two of you like make sure to exclude yourselves racially when less noble topics in reference to US History come up.

    First of all, I am not race-obsessed like you, so I don’t consider other East Asians to be any kind of “family” of mine. I have a real family and a concrete, organic community of my own whose members are my people (family, relatives, blood-brothers, friends, colleagues, fellow parishioners, other parents who homeschool with me, etc. who happen to be mostly white).

    So go ahead and find me an example of where I am being racially tribal.

    So I’ll tell you what: follow me around the comment section if you like. I’m flattered that…

    You shouldn’t be. I don’t do it all the time, but I like to rhetorically smack down stupidity once in a while. You are it today.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke, ic1000
    • Troll: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Twinkie


    What are you going to do to make me “take a hike,” tough guy?
     
    You're not that far from the Appalachian Trail, are you? He could ship you a pair of good boots.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Mike Tre
    @Twinkie

    Tl;dr

    (Barely audible whisper) Psst. You should go back.

  206. @Jonathan Mason
    It seems like "systemic racism" is kind of invisible, like something that must exist somewhere else, but not in your state or city as far as you can see.

    But supposing that some people see the whole system of corporate hegemony in the US as a kind of systemic racism?

    Pretty much anybody can make a decent hamburger, so why are the majority of hamburgers in the US sold by corporate chains?

    Here in Ecuador you can find McDonalds, usually in an indoor shopping mall or major transportation hub food patio, but for every McDonalds you will find 50 microbusinesses selling hamburgers that are just as good, but half the price.

    The same goes for practically every type of business. In the city where I live practically nobody has to walk more than 200 meters from their home to find basic services like groceries, fruit and vegetables, a bakery, a pharmacy, and a cooked lunch.

    Yet the US has "food deserts", which I have seen myself, for example on the north side of Jacksonville, FL, where there are predominantly black residents, and have seen mile upon mile of homes with no businesses to serve them.

    Why don't the residents of those areas get off their asses and start making hamburgers, selling fruit and veg, and making meals on wheels lunches? Is there something in the US air that stops them? Could this be the systemic racism?

    When it comes to selling illegal drugs the same population shows plenty of enterprise.

    A lot of businesses don't want to open in such areas because of the risk of walk-in crime and robbery, but why don't such communities provide protection to their own businesses by dealing with local malefactors, as they do for drug dealerships?

    Go to the "bahia" markets near the river in Guayaquil, (a large cityin Ecuador) and you can find at my best estimate about 200 dealers selling cell phones, cell phone covers, and similar items, and about 50 dealers selling pharmaceuticals. It is difficult to actually count them, since the businesses extend as far as the eye can see.

    The same goes for most common everyday commodities. At my local market there are probably well over a hundred people selling fruit and vegetables, but I usually go to a woman who has my weekly order of potatoes and carrots ready peeled and chopped for me, and then to another place to buy my oranges for my breakfast OJ, and one learns who has the best produce and the best deals.

    Not many people own cars, but huge numbers of people work as bus drivers, tram drivers, ticket inspectors, and taxi drivers, so the transportation business takes up the slack in providing activity for people who are not college educated, (although you do have to be a high school graduate to get a driver's license.)

    So there are lots and lots and lots of people employed in microbusinesses, cooking, and transportation, and they have their children there too, learning the business, and maybe their family pets too.

    But the US has Amazon.com, and obviously lots of people are employed shipping and delivering stuff, but probably the end result is still a lot less jobs for microbusinesses and a lot less jobs within walking distance of where people live.

    So maybe it is corporate hegemony that is the real "systemic racism". If people have microbusinesses in Haiti, why don't they replicate the same thing in the US?

    Maybe it is more important to a healthy society to have things arranged to create jobs rather than create wealth, and to have many businesses close to where people live to create happy communities, rather than have a few vast businesses far away.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Go to the “bahia” markets near the river in Guayaquil, (a large city in Ecuador) and you can find at my best estimate about 200 dealers selling cell phones, cell phone covers, and similar items, and about 50 dealers selling pharmaceuticals.

    Guayaquil, “City of Thieves”. Here are some classic examples:

    Infamous Thief in \$1 Million NYC Gold Bucket Heist Tells of Dramatic Escape From Country

    What’s Easier Than Getting Robbed in Guayaquil?

    Ecuador to Increase Police Manpower in Guayaquil After Killings

    The city’s former mayor sported an Adolfic toothbrush mustache and was dubbed el Loco by the locals. Later he was removed from the Presidency for mental instability.

    Perhaps Ecuador is a model for us!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thanks for the interesting links.

    In particular this one is interesting. https://pages.kiva.org/blog/whats-easier-than-getting-robbed-in-guayaquil

    If you just read the link title, you would think the article was about getting robbed in Guayaquil. The article is not dated, but I suspect it was written several years ago. Guayaquil has a growing fleet of electric buses that are both clean and silent, and which have brakes that work quite well.

    Based on my experience of about 20 visits the central area of Guayaquil around the Malecon is extremely clean, safe and well policed and suitable for families. It is also a rather beautiful city.

    https://www.ecuadortravelonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CITY-TOUR-GUAYAQUIL-CITY-TOUR-PLUS-%E2%80%9CPANAMA-HAT-HANDMADE-FACTORY%E2%80%9D-thump.jpg
    (I have stayed in that twisty building.)


    Unfortunately there has been recent gang warfare within the prisons and outside in some of the less desirable areas of the city.

    However the most significant point in the linked article is that which I quote here, a plea for donors to make small business loans to individuals to enable them to fight their way out of poverty and be independent.

    These cases make clear that, yes, there is delinquency in Guayaquil – but this is also a city where people raise their families, live, work, dream and hope… Please help to give hard-working micro-entrepreneurs their chance in a life-time to realize their dreams and stay away from delinquency and crime, by lending on Kiva. KF15 Fellow Jason Jones has coined a brilliant term for this strategy: Fighting Crime Kiva Style. There are not many things that are easier than getting robbed in Guayaquil. But one of them definitely is making a loan on Kiva!

    What would it take to convert those soulless food deserts of mostly black Northwest Jacksonville, FL into vibrant trading communities with hundreds of small businesses serving their own population? Is there something in the "system" that discourages individual enterprise and steers blacks into government employment, unemployment, or else a life of crime? Just asking for a friend.

    Replies: @Jack D

  207. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices
     
    There are about 10-15 times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented in the Supreme Court, Cabinet or institutions as Jews are.

    And I didn't suggest Jews weren't white. I consider them an ethnic group, not a race.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Twinkie

    There are about 10-15 times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented in the Supreme Court, Cabinet or institutions as Jews are.

    Jack D does this often. When he feels that a conversation about blacks or Jews (whom he brought up in the first place) isn’t going well, he tends to go “Look, squirrel!” usually with Catholics (example above) or East Asians (e.g. bringing up Korean adoptees when people discuss dysfunction with black adoptees).

    And note the formulation designed to split Christians. You don’t see him referring to the lack of Sephardic or Ultra-Orthodox representation in the Supreme Court, do you? No, but bring up the extreme Jewish overrepresentation and it’s “What about the Catholics!”

    • Agree: Mr. Anon
  208. @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    No, you wouldn’t.
     
    What are you going to do to make me "take a hike," tough guy? Obviously, you don't know who I am, so all that "take a hike" bluster is nothing but nonsense, but let's assume you are standing in front of me on the street. What are you going to do exactly? I'll even let you assume that I am unarmed (otherwise you are eating multiple rounds of 124 grain Federal 9mm HST bullets). Describe for me how exactly - step by step - you'd make me take a hike.

    And physical confrontations are not "absurd" for me. I have had considerable experience in violence in my life and have trained for them since I was in grade school. So when people think they are being tough saying things like "Take a hike," I am usually curious just exactly how they intend to achieve that goal.

    trigger
     
    As for as I can tell, the only people who use words like "trigger" non-ironically in order to put down their interlocutors are Millennial girls. I know of no real-life blue collar tough guys who use that kind of Internet-speak.

    But since you brought it up, who do you think is more likely triggered by the Internet, someone who dispassionately analyzes and breaks things down or someone who rages "You are a god-damned liar" at pseudonymous internet interlocutors?

    You and Jack D both defend and excuse and justify the pattern of poor behavior found within both of your extended racial families. You are both fair weather Americans. You are normie Americans when it’s to your benefit, but then the two of you like make sure to exclude yourselves racially when less noble topics in reference to US History come up.
     
    First of all, I am not race-obsessed like you, so I don't consider other East Asians to be any kind of "family" of mine. I have a real family and a concrete, organic community of my own whose members are my people (family, relatives, blood-brothers, friends, colleagues, fellow parishioners, other parents who homeschool with me, etc. who happen to be mostly white).

    So go ahead and find me an example of where I am being racially tribal.

    So I’ll tell you what: follow me around the comment section if you like. I’m flattered that...
     
    You shouldn't be. I don't do it all the time, but I like to rhetorically smack down stupidity once in a while. You are it today.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    What are you going to do to make me “take a hike,” tough guy?

    You’re not that far from the Appalachian Trail, are you? He could ship you a pair of good boots.

    • LOL: Mike Tre
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Reg Cæsar


    You’re not that far from the Appalachian Trail, are you? He could ship you a pair of good boots.
     
    I chuckled.

    I think he is a city boy and probably doesn't know much about what boots are good for upcountry.

    I might have mentioned before that I own a farmhouse in Appalachia in a pretty inaccessible area. I don't go hiking, the hike comes to me!

    All my life, I dreamt of owning a property where I could open the back door and be able to shoot. This property is on a mountain (and the soil is pretty poor, so not much of a farm), but it provides for a natural backstop, so it was a good fit.
  209. @Wilkey
    @Twinkie

    Hunter gatherers seldom survived anywhere when they came into contact with more advanced populations. They were either exterminated or, more often, mixed in with the more advanced, invading populations at greatly reduced percentages. At any rate, the options were to adapt to the new technology (if you could), be outbred, or die off.

    That's the ugly reality of evolution. It's one way beneficial genes become fixed in the population.

    The only difference between what happened in America and Australia and what happened in Ancient China or Europe or India or anywhere else is that it's recent enough that we know how it all went down. In the Americas it was often as simple as the natives not having the immune systems to survive pathogens the invaders brought with them. Many of the rest simply refused or were confounded by the prospect of living as whites did.

    Needless to say, this habit of trying to guilt people over the conquest of America is nothing more than obnoxious psychological warfare. If you look at it as:

    Immigrants > Settlers > Natives*

    ...it is nothing more than the immigrants kicking around the settlers, whom they have just displaced. "We're sorry these bad settlers we have now conquered conquered you natives who were here before them."

    Nevermind that it is only thanks to the settlers that the immigrants came to begin with. They would never have risked settling the new land themselves, or taking on the risks of dealing with the natives they blame the settlers for destroying.

    In many cases it may just be a lack of self-awareness, but in many other cases there is no doubt that they know full well what they are doing.

    * Note that here I'm using "settler" and "immigrant" in the sense of which population group a person identifies with, not whether they themselves actually "settled" or "immigrated" anywhere.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Twinkie

    Needless to say, this habit of trying to guilt people over the conquest of America is nothing more than obnoxious psychological warfare.

    Nowhere in my comment did I suggest such a guilt. I grew up watching Westerns (and Kung Fu movies). I avidly read Laura Ingalls Wilder as a kid (as did my children – still their favorite children’s stories). My children descend from – on their mother’s side – American settlers who battled the American Indians and tamed the prairies.

    That doesn’t mean I can’t or shouldn’t recognize the large-scale misery that conquest inflicted on the first inhabitants of this land, whose suffering that far exceeded any experienced by all the late-arrivals to the country who seem to want to claim oppression in order to guilt-trip whites. It was brought up as a counterpoint to talk of alleged Jewish suffering here.

    Far more saliently, I prize accuracy and clarity. I found “dealt with” much too euphemistic and opaque.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Twinkie

    Bravo, Raches! Bravo!

    Replies: @Twinkie

  210. @Twinkie
    @Wilkey


    Needless to say, this habit of trying to guilt people over the conquest of America is nothing more than obnoxious psychological warfare.
     
    Nowhere in my comment did I suggest such a guilt. I grew up watching Westerns (and Kung Fu movies). I avidly read Laura Ingalls Wilder as a kid (as did my children - still their favorite children's stories). My children descend from - on their mother's side - American settlers who battled the American Indians and tamed the prairies.

    That doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't recognize the large-scale misery that conquest inflicted on the first inhabitants of this land, whose suffering that far exceeded any experienced by all the late-arrivals to the country who seem to want to claim oppression in order to guilt-trip whites. It was brought up as a counterpoint to talk of alleged Jewish suffering here.

    Far more saliently, I prize accuracy and clarity. I found "dealt with" much too euphemistic and opaque.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    Bravo, Raches! Bravo!

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @JimDandy


    Raches
     
    Now that’s an insult. You take that back.

    Is he still around? I don’t see him on the blog roll.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  211. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri


    do you subscribe to the same theory of greater responsibility for the majority, greater excuse for the minority when it comes to Israel?
     
    This is a universal principle although its application must be tailored to specific situations. The notion that people have here that American Jews have double standards when it comes to Israel is completely false.

    Israeli law itself takes minority rights into account - for example Arabs are exempt from the military draft (although they can serve on a voluntary basis). For Arabs who do join, the Israelis make special efforts to assist them with improving their Hebrew and learning the rudiments of life in a modern society after they leave military service - how to conduct oneself at a job interview, how to open a bank account, etc.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/meet-the-bedouin-unit-protecting-israels-border-advancing-the-community-655477

    Likewise, Israel conducts "affirmative action" in university admissions. The program is focused on the "underprivileged" without specific regard to race. The US would do well to follow this model, where "socioeconomic diversity" is more important than skin color. Who is more "diverse" or "underprivileged" - the son of an unemployed white coal miner in W. Virginia or that of a black doctor from Beverly Hills?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Art Deco, @Flavius Logicus, @Almost Missouri, @Donald A Thomson

    Palestine/Israel is an Apartheid country under Jewish White Supremacist rule. Half of the Palestinians have been driven out of their own country and only one third of the remnant even have voting rights. If there weren’t as many Palestinians still in their own country as Jews, that may have changed to a greater extent but Palestine/Israel is currently under more vicious and racist rule than South Africa was under their Apartheid. Jews, particularly Jewish Communists, have done good work against non-Jewish supremacists but that doesn’t change their preference for Apartheid if Jews are the master race. Everything that Jews lie that white Yanks do in the USA is what Jews do and love doing in the only country they completely control.

    Hitler made a mistake in refusing the Nazi/Zionist alliance but the Arabs, even under colonial rule, were certainly more powerful at the time. He’d have done better for Germany if he’d accepted the alliance with the Zionists to create Israel on the basis of their shared values. That would have been nothing like his later plan to move Jews to Madagascar if Germany won. The Jews in Madagascar would have been under SS rule and been Palestinians rather than Israelis. A Jew would have been crazy to want that level of evil. Victimhood is so much easier to bear if it’s imaginary. [email protected]

  212. @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    >It means that Ukraine is a functioning democracy
    Nope.
    Reminder that as part of the Clankening (the State Department riots) they killed police officers, one by immolation, with firemen kept away. Ukraine has no democratic tradition apart from an aberrant start in ancient history (which was also marked by self-defeating corruption).
    >no such protests in Russia or Belarus
    You omit Kazakhstan, where "farmers" showed up at the capital with weapons and proceeded efficiently to choke points. I certainly hope we don't see State Department riots anywhere.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Paperback Writer

    https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/george-kennan-russia-insights-and-recommendations

    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States. Who can say what the final status of the Ukraine should be unless he knows the character of the Russia to which the adjustment will have to be made? As for the satellite states: they must, and will, recover their full independence; but they will not assure themselves of a stable and promising future if they make the mistake of proceeding from feelings of revenge and hatred toward the Russian people who have shared their tragedy, and if they try to base that future on the exploitation of the initial difficulties of a well-intentioned Russian regime struggling to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism. (Foreign Affairs, 04.01.51)

    • Thanks: J.Ross
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Paperback Writer

    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States.

    Your interlocutor doesn't know sh!t from apple butter. The share of the Ukraine's gross national income accounted for by exports bounces around a set point of 47%, so it is an unusually trade-dependent economy given its dimensions, population, and productive capacity. However, the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics indicates for the most recent year, the destination of exports by value was apportioned about as follows:


    China: 14.3%
    Poland: 6.6%
    Russia: 5.4%
    Turkey: 4.9%
    Germany: 4.2%
    India: 4.0%
    Italy: 3.9%
    Netherlands: 3.6%
    Egypt: 3.2%
    White Russia: 2.7%
    Hungary: 2.5%
    Spain: 2.5%
    Roumania: 2.2%
    United States: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.6%
    Other: 36%


    Sources of imports were apportioned about as follows:

    China: 15.5%
    Germany: 10%
    Russia: 8.5%
    Poland: 7.6%
    United States: 5.5%
    White Russia: 5.4%
    Germany: 4.5%
    Italy: 4%
    France: 2.8%
    Hungary: 2.3%
    Japan: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.8%
    Switzerland: 1.9%
    Slovakia: 1.5%
    Lithuania: 1.5%
    Other: 27%


    And, of course, Pennsylvania does not have its own currency, its own central bank, or its own bourse. It doesn't have a customs inspectorate or an immigration inspectorate either.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @J.Ross

    , @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer


    the initial difficulties of a well-intentioned Russian regime struggling to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism.
     
    Exactly - when I look at the Putin regime that's what I see. Who could possibly be more well intentioned than Putin? When you look in the dictionary under "well-intentioned" they have a picture of him.

    And who doesn't want to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism more than Putin? In his own words, in 2005:

    "First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."

    Vlad is all about overcoming the legacy of Bolshevism.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  213. @Anon 2
    Europe has had thousands of years of mostly negative experience in
    dealing with Jews and blacks, and based on this experience, it is now
    in the process of moving in the direction of Fortress Europe.

    Europe had a Eureka moment in dealing with the Jewish problem.
    It was first made explicit by Nietzsche, I believe. Now Nietzsche,
    despite his image, was initially mildly philosemitic. One of his closest
    friends was Paul Rée who was Jewish. But then they both fell in love
    with Andreas-Salomé, a Russian-German woman, and drifted
    apart. Nietzsche suffered a lot of anguish, and perhaps then his
    attitude toward Jews has changed. Anyway, Nietzsche proposed
    a simple rule - to promote social harmony the percentage of Jews
    should be no larger than a certain upper limit that promotes their
    assimilation. In other words, a country should only have as many Jews
    as can assimilate, and no more. What that limit is, is obviously a matter
    of controversy but 0.5% seems like a good try. The vast majority of
    Western European countries, after largely expelling Jews in the Middle
    Ages, have historically limited the number of Jews through the current era
    to 0.1-0.3%, with the notable recent exception of France. The U.S. with
    2-3% of Jews expressly violates this rule.

    As we know, after being expelled Jews mostly ended up in the
    Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ruled by Poland, and hence
    sometimes referred to as Greater Poland, which included Western
    Ukraine. That’s why Ukrainian is basically polonized Russian.
    By 1600, 80-90% of the Ashkenazi Jews lived within the domain
    of Polish civilization. Polish was an official language at the Knesset
    in the 1950%. The percentage of Jews within the PLC was 9-10%,
    obviously unsustainable in the long run. The Jews left mixed memories.
    A lot of them included greedy landlords, loan sharks, dishonest
    shopkeepers and pawnbrokers, drug dealers (trying to turn the
    population into alcoholics), owners of vice industries (bordellos,
    gambling establishments, peddlers of pornography, etc). But the
    larger point is that the Jews refused to assimilate. At 10% they basically
    formed their own separate country, refused to learn the local
    languages, ran their own educational and legal systems, and at
    the Versailles Peace conference activist Jews argued vehemently
    against restoring Polish independence. Europe (and Russia)
    have learned from how Polish generosity was repaid by the Jews,
    and don’t want this to happen again.

    Replies: @Anon 2, @anon

    My point is that since the expulsion of the Jews from Western Europe
    (incl. Italy, Spain, and the German States) in the Middle Ages,
    Western European countries have limited the percentage of Jews
    to under 0.5% (today it’s largely 0.1-0.3% in most countries). As a result,
    they were able to thrive on a grand scale (e.g., develop their merchant
    class, their educational and cultural institutions) without the Jewish
    interference. They didn’t have to deal with the “Culture of Critique,” Jewish
    radical leftism, and the Jewish monopolization of the merchant classes.

    On the other hand, in the last 150 years Jews have basically invaded
    France, and wrecked many of its cultural institutions. French
    cinema today is unrecognizable compared to the days of Jean Renoir,
    François Truffaut, Eric Rohmer, Jacques Tati, Alain Resnais, Claude
    Lelouch, Jacques Demy, etc We’ll be hearing about it as the election season
    begins to heat up in France.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anon 2

    Agree, the Jews in pre-industrial Europe were almost always the thugs of the ruling classes, and the victimhood narrative obscures this.

    Replies: @anon

  214. @Reg Cæsar
    @Twinkie


    What are you going to do to make me “take a hike,” tough guy?
     
    You're not that far from the Appalachian Trail, are you? He could ship you a pair of good boots.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You’re not that far from the Appalachian Trail, are you? He could ship you a pair of good boots.

    I chuckled.

    I think he is a city boy and probably doesn’t know much about what boots are good for upcountry.

    I might have mentioned before that I own a farmhouse in Appalachia in a pretty inaccessible area. I don’t go hiking, the hike comes to me!

    All my life, I dreamt of owning a property where I could open the back door and be able to shoot. This property is on a mountain (and the soil is pretty poor, so not much of a farm), but it provides for a natural backstop, so it was a good fit.

  215. @Paperback Writer
    @JMcG

    Read The Nation for Ukraine coverage. You may hate their leftism but on Ukraine they've been good.

    Zelensky replaced the utterly corrupt oligarch Poroshenko. It's more complicated than Zelensky/Jew/corruption. Zelensky is actually covertly pro-Russian, or at least, not anti-Russian. I suspect much of these American machinations may have something to do with undermining him. But who knows?

    https://archive.is/C07AX

    Replies: @IHTG, @J.Ross

    I bet lots of commenters here think Israel is pro war with Russia.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @IHTG

    I’d say that Israel is miffed that the Ukraine is distracting us from Iran.

    , @JimDandy
    @IHTG

    What are you saying? "Zionists" are not a monolith, nor is Israel. The Neocons are a Jewish Zionist entity, despite a shabbos goy here and there.

  216. https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/vikings-hire-ivy-league-educated-kwesi-adofo-mensah-as-gm/

    Vikings hire former Wall Street trader Kwesi Adofo-Mensah as GM

    Black American, but not the descendant of slaves, gets to a top NFL slot through affirmative action. Next stop Super Bowl!

    • Replies: @Ed
    @Kilroy

    He had fairly successful jobs at previous NFL organizations and is Ivy League educated.

    Hate to break it to you but there are talented black people.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  217. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    I don't understand this part - while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate - Kruger doesn't really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice "serious business" but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning? In the olden days, the KKK was even more obsessed with Catholics than it was with Jews. When and why did the Catholics "become white" but the Jews didn't?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Wilkey, @Bernard, @Technite78, @Hibernian

    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate – Kruger doesn’t really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice “serious business” but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning?

    This is an obtuse argument you’ve made on several occasions Jack. While there are a large number of Catholics on the court, they are Catholic Christians who share the unifying belief of all Christians, that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic are all separate denominations within Judaism, but when distinguishing between different faiths, they are considered as one, just as Christian denominations are. The same is true with Sunni and Shia Muslims, and on and on. The US (though nominally) is more than 80% Christian. That fact that there is a representational disparity in favor of one denomination of Christianity, is a slight of hand that portrays Catholicism as a separate entity. You understand that the distinction is not a suitable comparison, but you continue to apply it. If Jews are overrepresented, which they are, just state the obvious. Many have brilliant minds, and are deserving of the position.

    I for one would not care one bit if the US Supreme Court consisted of nine Jewish constitutionalists, but those are few a far between.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Bernard

    This doesn't answer my question. As I said before, Catholics were traditionally suspected by American Nativists as much as if not more than the Jews (yes they were Christians but they followed a corrupt version of that religion that Jesus would have denounced). They answered to the Pope. They had dual loyalty. It was no mere sleight of hand - wars were fought over profound theological differences (just like Shia and Sunni fight wars with each other).

    But at some point things changed and they became okey dokey, nothing to worry about, etc. (just as you portray them) while the Jews didn't get that upgrade among the Nativist crowd. Why?

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    , @JimDandy
    @Bernard

    Actually, Jack makes a great point. After all, writers in all the prominent Catholic publications are proudly declaring that Catholics aren't white, right?

    Replies: @Bernard

    , @Abolish_public_education
    @Bernard

    Constitutionalists are few [&] far between, especially among legal professionals. I would sooner trust the first 9 names in the Boston phone directory ..

    But the institution of SCOTUS, as we've come to know it, is ridiculous anyhow. Reduce the court to its constitutional minimum of one American. Whoever objects to the idea can explain how the arbitrary number of nine [politically appointed, lifetime tenure protected lawyers] is so aromatic.

    To me, any number above 60M would constitute packing.

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Bernard

    With respect, Bernard, gonna have to disagree that Catholics and Protestants have some sort of commonality because they are both Christian denominations. Hatred of Catholics was quite intense in the 19th century and then again in the early 20th. Italians were lynched en masse in New Orleans, churches burned, etc. Intra-religious strife is as common as inter-religious.

    What happened was simply that Catholics proved themselves loyal Americans and assimilated. They do not have a loyalty to another country, and their religion is a distinct second to nationhood. Anti-Catholic bigotry is dead as a doornail.

    Organized non-Orthodox Jewish life is based around (a) separateness based on ethnicity and (b) loyalty to a foreign country. A Jewish bigwig once told me that without Israel, the non-O Jewish community would simply have boiled off into the white population. Well, he didn't say white population but that was the point.

    Also, there's a crazy, perverse movement among show biz Jews (which is to say, a portion of the Jewish elite) to label Jews as "non-white". Most average white Jews think this is nuts. But it's a fact. Even some level-headed Jewish commentators say this.

    Replies: @Bernard

  218. What the activists, Dems etc. want to do is abolish discrimination in every aspect of life. This is nonsensical and dangerous.

    This leads to a situation where a white female store worker is not empowered to immediately lock herself in a room when a lone, disheveled black man enters her high end furniture store. She could end up swiftly fired and her would be murderer lauded as a hero/victim.

    Her natural instinct to protect herself has been drummed out of her by years of propaganda.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
  219. @Kilroy
    https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/vikings-hire-ivy-league-educated-kwesi-adofo-mensah-as-gm/

    Vikings hire former Wall Street trader Kwesi Adofo-Mensah as GM

    Black American, but not the descendant of slaves, gets to a top NFL slot through affirmative action. Next stop Super Bowl!

    Replies: @Ed

    He had fairly successful jobs at previous NFL organizations and is Ivy League educated.

    Hate to break it to you but there are talented black people.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Ed

    Sure but I think his point was that affirmative action wasn't supposed to be for the descendants of slaveowners.

  220. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    I don't understand this part - while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate - Kruger doesn't really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice "serious business" but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning? In the olden days, the KKK was even more obsessed with Catholics than it was with Jews. When and why did the Catholics "become white" but the Jews didn't?

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Wilkey, @Bernard, @Technite78, @Hibernian

    It’s hard for me to believe you’re unable to understand the concept of “per capita”. Therefore it seems more likely you are intentionally making an argument you know to be disingenuous.

    Talk about reinforcing the stereotype…

  221. @JimDandy
    @Twinkie

    Bravo, Raches! Bravo!

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Raches

    Now that’s an insult. You take that back.

    Is he still around? I don’t see him on the blog roll.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Twinkie

    Raches has been moved from Bloggers to the Columnists column. His last post was on December 21st.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Reg Cæsar

  222. @Anon 2
    @Anon 2

    My point is that since the expulsion of the Jews from Western Europe
    (incl. Italy, Spain, and the German States) in the Middle Ages,
    Western European countries have limited the percentage of Jews
    to under 0.5% (today it’s largely 0.1-0.3% in most countries). As a result,
    they were able to thrive on a grand scale (e.g., develop their merchant
    class, their educational and cultural institutions) without the Jewish
    interference. They didn’t have to deal with the “Culture of Critique,” Jewish
    radical leftism, and the Jewish monopolization of the merchant classes.

    On the other hand, in the last 150 years Jews have basically invaded
    France, and wrecked many of its cultural institutions. French
    cinema today is unrecognizable compared to the days of Jean Renoir,
    François Truffaut, Eric Rohmer, Jacques Tati, Alain Resnais, Claude
    Lelouch, Jacques Demy, etc We’ll be hearing about it as the election season
    begins to heat up in France.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Agree, the Jews in pre-industrial Europe were almost always the thugs of the ruling classes, and the victimhood narrative obscures this.

    • Replies: @anon
    @J.Ross


    Agree, the Jews in pre-industrial Europe were almost always the thugs of the ruling classes, and the victimhood narrative obscures this.
     
    They were the ruling class.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  223. @Ed
    @Kilroy

    He had fairly successful jobs at previous NFL organizations and is Ivy League educated.

    Hate to break it to you but there are talented black people.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Sure but I think his point was that affirmative action wasn’t supposed to be for the descendants of slaveowners.

  224. To be fair, there is at least one component of “systemic” racism which is truly systemic.

    The vast majority of individuals, whether White, Black, Asian or other, know that Black-majority neighborhoods tend to be more dangerous and Black-majority schools tend to have a disruptive and low-quality learning environment. That is why White and Asian liberals, conservatives, leftists, libertarians, etc. all try to self-separate from Black-majority communities and Black-majority schools. Each person comes up with their own excuse for doing so, but deep down it is due to implicit awareness of HBD effects, even if most will not admit that reality, at least out loud.

    So one “systemic” racism effect in society is a systemic behavioral pattern linked to unacknowledged awareness of HBD, making racial separation preferable for the individual.

  225. @Paperback Writer
    @JMcG

    Read The Nation for Ukraine coverage. You may hate their leftism but on Ukraine they've been good.

    Zelensky replaced the utterly corrupt oligarch Poroshenko. It's more complicated than Zelensky/Jew/corruption. Zelensky is actually covertly pro-Russian, or at least, not anti-Russian. I suspect much of these American machinations may have something to do with undermining him. But who knows?

    https://archive.is/C07AX

    Replies: @IHTG, @J.Ross

    One of the best American academic sources on Russia was the husband of the editor in chief of the Nation.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Cohen

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    Yes, he was. He discovered Lev Golinkin, who now writes for the Nation and other places.

    Gilbert Doctorow is good, too. This is important:

    https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2022/01/26/the-pro-detente-position-of-willy-brandts-ostpolitik-still-is-alive-and-finding-its-voice-in-germany-today/

    That German admiral wasn't speaking only for himself.

    Meanwhile, I'm amused to see pipsqueaks who comment from behind anonymous nicknames say ignorant things about titans like George Kennan. True, Kennan started out as "Mr. X". But writing from the interior of State, he had to, and he soon revealed his name.

    We badly need a new George Kennan. Our chief challenge is the rise of China.

    It's occurred to me that Russia may simply be toying with us. They won't invade anything. But watching us lose our shit while their strategic ally prepares to invade Taiwan might be in the cards....

    Replies: @J.Ross

  226. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @JackOH

    You're right on the mark, Jack.

    'Social justice' is another one.

    Legitimate concepts don't need adjectives.

    Replies: @JackOH

    TLRC, I’d mentioned to Nicholas Stix a week ago we really need a strong analysis of whether terms such as “civil rights”, “voting rights”, “systemic racism”, “social justice” (thanks), etc., are actually cover rhetoric for some sort of Black Supremacist re-ordering of America. By “re-ordering”, I mean essentially Black minority rule over pacified White tax cows using the implicit threat of Black violence to keep Whites in line.

    You don’t need to be a cracker or a Klansman to ask of Black leaders, “When is enough enough?”

    Herr Hitler and Comrade Stalin enjoyed good attention from Western democrats, conservatives and liberals respectively, who saw a fair shake for Germans and better treatment for poor workers as a good thing. Then they over-egged the pudding with war, famine, and mass terror.

    Likewise, I think most Americans are very okay with the end of de jure segregation, which is how I think most Americans understood “civil rights”. What we have now is some sort of New Racism that’s taken its place, in my opinion, and it’s a one-way anti-White street, and we ought to examine that as cold-bloodedly as possible without fear or favor.

  227. @Twinkie
    @JimDandy


    Raches
     
    Now that’s an insult. You take that back.

    Is he still around? I don’t see him on the blog roll.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    Raches has been moved from Bloggers to the Columnists column. His last post was on December 21st.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @MEH 0910

    Does anybody still read his word salad?

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @MEH 0910


    Raches has been moved from Bloggers to the Columnists column.
     
    Raches Dolezal.
  228. @Jonathan Mason
    @Redman


    Case in point: RFK Jr. just gave a powerful speech on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It was ostensibly about Covid, but it was really more about the creeping totalitarianism in America and a call to reassert the principles in the Constitution. How did the MSM media react? By slamming him for even mentioning Anne Frank and the Nazis who killed her while warning about the evils of slipping into totalitarianism. Not one word about the substance of his speech. The MSM message is that the sheeple can go back to sleep and continue to ignore the “anti-Semitic whack job.”
     
    The substance of Kennedy Jr.'s speech was that mandatory Covid-19 vaccine programs in workplaces were creating a world worse than the situation facing Jews in Nazi Germany or occupied countries, because Jews could hide or leave the country, but people who are not vaccinated cannot get on a plane to leave the USA, or whatever other country they live in, unless they are already vaccinated.

    A subtle point that Kennedy seems to have missed is that Jews in Nazi Germany could not easily change their status, unless, perhaps they converted to Christianity, whereas being unvaccinated against Covid-19 is a status more like being uncircumcised, in that it can be changed, albeit by a somewhat uncomfortable procedure that has a small possibility of medical complications.

    The Auschwitz Museum posted the following tweet, which was reported by the mainstream press.

    Exploiting of the tragedy of people who suffered, were humiliated, tortured & murdered by the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany - including children like Anne Frank - in a debate about vaccines & limitations during global pandemic is a sad symptom of moral & intellectual decay.— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) January 23, 2022
     
    So anyway, we are left with the interesting question: Is life in the USA for the unvaccinated now worse than it was for Jews in Nazi Germany? Answers on a postcard please.

    Here in sunny Ecuador, you have to show a vaccination card to go into a supermarket, cinema, or to hop on an intercity bus, but nobody seems terribly bothered. Perhaps all the vaccine nonconformists have already been shipped to concentration camps with Kichwa and Shuar guards to be converted into shrunken heads and sold to tourists as souvenirs, I don't know.

    For those who are facing extermination, I do have one suggestion. See if you can locate a place where you can get a free vaccine. If you are worried about getting blood clots, you might want to consult your physician first to discuss anticoagulant therapy.

    This may help:

    https://www.walgreens.com/pharmacy/schedule-appointment.jsp#/location

    Disclosure: I have a small position in Walgreens Boots Alliance stock options in my IRA.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Mr. Anon

    A subtle point that Kennedy seems to have missed is that Jews in Nazi Germany could not easily change their status, unless, perhaps they converted to Christianity, whereas being unvaccinated against Covid-19 is a status more like being uncircumcised, in that it can be changed, albeit by a somewhat uncomfortable procedure that has a small possibility of medical complications.

    Perhaps it will someday seep into the heads of f**kwits like you and “HA” (though I wouldn’t count on it), it has nothing to do with a little prick of a needle. It has to do with caving into to the dictates of the state. If the state can force you to take medicine you don’t want, they can force you to do anything. They are saying “We own your body, not you.”

    Are we afraid of a little prick? Yes – we are afraid of little pricks like you and Anthony Fauci.

  229. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon

    CoaSC exudes the aroma of yet another corvine sockpuppet. Relentless on the attack, slippery on defense, ever condescending.


    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/aCEAAOSwvP1gpD33/s-l1600.jpg

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Hey, hey. Let’s leave the anti-Semitic slurs out of this. 😀

    • LOL: Twinkie
  230. @JMcG
    @Wilkey

    The Ukrainian people are 82% Christian. Mostly Orthodox and Catholic. The current President of Ukraine, a comedian and actor, is a Jew. His platform is pro-abortion, pro-prostitution, and pro-gambling. Suddenly, the hostility to Russia on the part of certain parties is more easily understood.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Jack D

    Zelensky was popularly elected. He is not hostile to Putin because he is a Jew. Putin is hostile to him because having a democracy on his border makes him nervous. He wants a puppet leader that is accountable to him. This is not hard to understand.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Jack D

    I agree completely. I was just pointing out that his Jewishness accounts for some of the puzzling alignments of interest I’ve seen here.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  231. @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/george-kennan-russia-insights-and-recommendations


    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States. Who can say what the final status of the Ukraine should be unless he knows the character of the Russia to which the adjustment will have to be made? As for the satellite states: they must, and will, recover their full independence; but they will not assure themselves of a stable and promising future if they make the mistake of proceeding from feelings of revenge and hatred toward the Russian people who have shared their tragedy, and if they try to base that future on the exploitation of the initial difficulties of a well-intentioned Russian regime struggling to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism. (Foreign Affairs, 04.01.51)
     

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jack D

    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States.

    Your interlocutor doesn’t know sh!t from apple butter. The share of the Ukraine’s gross national income accounted for by exports bounces around a set point of 47%, so it is an unusually trade-dependent economy given its dimensions, population, and productive capacity. However, the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics indicates for the most recent year, the destination of exports by value was apportioned about as follows:

    China: 14.3%
    Poland: 6.6%
    Russia: 5.4%
    Turkey: 4.9%
    Germany: 4.2%
    India: 4.0%
    Italy: 3.9%
    Netherlands: 3.6%
    Egypt: 3.2%
    White Russia: 2.7%
    Hungary: 2.5%
    Spain: 2.5%
    Roumania: 2.2%
    United States: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.6%
    Other: 36%

    Sources of imports were apportioned about as follows:

    China: 15.5%
    Germany: 10%
    Russia: 8.5%
    Poland: 7.6%
    United States: 5.5%
    White Russia: 5.4%
    Germany: 4.5%
    Italy: 4%
    France: 2.8%
    Hungary: 2.3%
    Japan: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.8%
    Switzerland: 1.9%
    Slovakia: 1.5%
    Lithuania: 1.5%
    Other: 27%

    And, of course, Pennsylvania does not have its own currency, its own central bank, or its own bourse. It doesn’t have a customs inspectorate or an immigration inspectorate either.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Kennan was not wrong when he wrote this. The problem is that he wrote these words in 1951. Kennan had a lot of insight in his time but the man has been dead for decades. He was not Nostradamus.

    Things have changed. Virginia was economically part of the United States in 1860 but if the South had won the Civil War then 50 years afterward it wouldn't have been. Economic bonds are not unbreakable.

    The Putin Gang's view of what does or does not constitute unbreakable bonds is strictly situational. When it suits them ( Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc.) they do not hesitate to peel off bits and pieces of sovereign states.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Art Deco


    Your interlocutor doesn’t know sh!t from apple butter.
     
    It was George Kennan. Would love to see you say this from your own name, in a reputable publication, saying that "Mr X" didn't "know shit from apple butter."

    In addition to being a pompous windbag, you don't even bother to read the cites. He was speaking of Ukraine in 1951.
    , @J.Ross
    @Art Deco

    Art, where are Ukraine and Russia geographically, in two words? To where did most refugees from the disastrous Western takeover of Ukraine flee?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  232. @Bernard
    @Jack D


    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate – Kruger doesn’t really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice “serious business” but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning?
     
    This is an obtuse argument you’ve made on several occasions Jack. While there are a large number of Catholics on the court, they are Catholic Christians who share the unifying belief of all Christians, that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic are all separate denominations within Judaism, but when distinguishing between different faiths, they are considered as one, just as Christian denominations are. The same is true with Sunni and Shia Muslims, and on and on. The US (though nominally) is more than 80% Christian. That fact that there is a representational disparity in favor of one denomination of Christianity, is a slight of hand that portrays Catholicism as a separate entity. You understand that the distinction is not a suitable comparison, but you continue to apply it. If Jews are overrepresented, which they are, just state the obvious. Many have brilliant minds, and are deserving of the position.

    I for one would not care one bit if the US Supreme Court consisted of nine Jewish constitutionalists, but those are few a far between.

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @Abolish_public_education, @Paperback Writer

    This doesn’t answer my question. As I said before, Catholics were traditionally suspected by American Nativists as much as if not more than the Jews (yes they were Christians but they followed a corrupt version of that religion that Jesus would have denounced). They answered to the Pope. They had dual loyalty. It was no mere sleight of hand – wars were fought over profound theological differences (just like Shia and Sunni fight wars with each other).

    But at some point things changed and they became okey dokey, nothing to worry about, etc. (just as you portray them) while the Jews didn’t get that upgrade among the Nativist crowd. Why?

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Jack D


    Catholics were traditionally suspected by American Nativists...But at some point things changed and they became okey dokey, nothing to worry about, etc. (just as you portray them) while the Jews didn’t get that upgrade among the Nativist crowd. Why?
     
    Because they assimilated as a group and came to love and respect America and her history, rather than constantly denigrating the "Nativists" (by which you mean Founding Stock Americans who didn't want their country substantially changed)?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Twinkie, @Thomm

  233. Hey everybody, check it out: Sailer found the nigger!

    Then he straps on the facediaper as he heads out for another ineffectual and hazardous round of President Trump’s tiny little prick.

    Yo, pro tip: when a small hands man finna tap you at Warp Speed with his tiny little Prick, you run the other way. All the ladies round here agree, amirite!?¡

  234. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Almost Missouri

    Jack is loyal to his people; indeed, Jack is fanatically loyal to his people. Anyone who has read Jack's comments will know that he's a Jekyll and Hyde character.

    If the subject has nothing to do with Jews, Jack is thoughtful, balanced and insightful. If a subject has even the most tangential connection to Jews, he's laughably biased. (I mean that literally. I've more than once spit out my coffee in laughter at what Jack has written.)

    I believe that Jack truly believes in systemic racism because keeping systemic racism alive with gentile whites as a concept, in his mind, helps Jews. It's why he brought up Jews in his original comment. (Jack would have been O'Brien's star pupil. He really sees that extra finger if he believes it will help Jews.)

    Everyone arguing about whether systemic racism exists are missing the point. Medieval scribes understood that there were the facts of an event and there was a greater truth - the promotion of Christianity. The scribes would write about an event (or not) with the greater truth in mind. Changing facts or leaving certain facts out of their story was perfectly fine if it promoted the greater truth. They saw nothing wrong with misrepresenting the event.

    Steve and the Sperg Right want to argue about the facts and logic, but what they don't understand is that Jack and the Left (Jack isn't a Leftist, btw, just a Zionist) don't care about the facts. They care about their greater truth, which is their people or their cause. This is why Steve's Citizenism is such a failure and why Jack's people - and the Left - have been so successful.

    Replies: @Anon, @Mike Tre

    Twinkles is exactly the same in regards to Asians, and Rosie/Queen Alden in regards to wymynsez.

  235. @Art Deco
    @Paperback Writer

    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States.

    Your interlocutor doesn't know sh!t from apple butter. The share of the Ukraine's gross national income accounted for by exports bounces around a set point of 47%, so it is an unusually trade-dependent economy given its dimensions, population, and productive capacity. However, the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics indicates for the most recent year, the destination of exports by value was apportioned about as follows:


    China: 14.3%
    Poland: 6.6%
    Russia: 5.4%
    Turkey: 4.9%
    Germany: 4.2%
    India: 4.0%
    Italy: 3.9%
    Netherlands: 3.6%
    Egypt: 3.2%
    White Russia: 2.7%
    Hungary: 2.5%
    Spain: 2.5%
    Roumania: 2.2%
    United States: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.6%
    Other: 36%


    Sources of imports were apportioned about as follows:

    China: 15.5%
    Germany: 10%
    Russia: 8.5%
    Poland: 7.6%
    United States: 5.5%
    White Russia: 5.4%
    Germany: 4.5%
    Italy: 4%
    France: 2.8%
    Hungary: 2.3%
    Japan: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.8%
    Switzerland: 1.9%
    Slovakia: 1.5%
    Lithuania: 1.5%
    Other: 27%


    And, of course, Pennsylvania does not have its own currency, its own central bank, or its own bourse. It doesn't have a customs inspectorate or an immigration inspectorate either.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @J.Ross

    Kennan was not wrong when he wrote this. The problem is that he wrote these words in 1951. Kennan had a lot of insight in his time but the man has been dead for decades. He was not Nostradamus.

    Things have changed. Virginia was economically part of the United States in 1860 but if the South had won the Civil War then 50 years afterward it wouldn’t have been. Economic bonds are not unbreakable.

    The Putin Gang’s view of what does or does not constitute unbreakable bonds is strictly situational. When it suits them ( Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc.) they do not hesitate to peel off bits and pieces of sovereign states.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Jack D

    Kennan was a typical American moron re. national question. He simply didn't understand the power of national identity, especially among peoples who fight for it.

    Cognitively impaired.

  236. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Jesus, when did Steve start to ban comments? Sure, he'll let comments that he doesn't like through . . . a day or two later when nobody reads them.

    Way to go, Steve. You've become what you hate.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    He flushes at least one of mine per week. He flushed a reply I made to twink just yesterday.

  237. @Twinkie
    @Mike Tre


    No, you wouldn’t.
     
    What are you going to do to make me "take a hike," tough guy? Obviously, you don't know who I am, so all that "take a hike" bluster is nothing but nonsense, but let's assume you are standing in front of me on the street. What are you going to do exactly? I'll even let you assume that I am unarmed (otherwise you are eating multiple rounds of 124 grain Federal 9mm HST bullets). Describe for me how exactly - step by step - you'd make me take a hike.

    And physical confrontations are not "absurd" for me. I have had considerable experience in violence in my life and have trained for them since I was in grade school. So when people think they are being tough saying things like "Take a hike," I am usually curious just exactly how they intend to achieve that goal.

    trigger
     
    As for as I can tell, the only people who use words like "trigger" non-ironically in order to put down their interlocutors are Millennial girls. I know of no real-life blue collar tough guys who use that kind of Internet-speak.

    But since you brought it up, who do you think is more likely triggered by the Internet, someone who dispassionately analyzes and breaks things down or someone who rages "You are a god-damned liar" at pseudonymous internet interlocutors?

    You and Jack D both defend and excuse and justify the pattern of poor behavior found within both of your extended racial families. You are both fair weather Americans. You are normie Americans when it’s to your benefit, but then the two of you like make sure to exclude yourselves racially when less noble topics in reference to US History come up.
     
    First of all, I am not race-obsessed like you, so I don't consider other East Asians to be any kind of "family" of mine. I have a real family and a concrete, organic community of my own whose members are my people (family, relatives, blood-brothers, friends, colleagues, fellow parishioners, other parents who homeschool with me, etc. who happen to be mostly white).

    So go ahead and find me an example of where I am being racially tribal.

    So I’ll tell you what: follow me around the comment section if you like. I’m flattered that...
     
    You shouldn't be. I don't do it all the time, but I like to rhetorically smack down stupidity once in a while. You are it today.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    Tl;dr

    (Barely audible whisper) Psst. You should go back.

    • Troll: Alrenous
  238. @IHTG
    @Paperback Writer

    I bet lots of commenters here think Israel is pro war with Russia.

    Replies: @JMcG, @JimDandy

    I’d say that Israel is miffed that the Ukraine is distracting us from Iran.

  239. @Jack D
    @JMcG

    Zelensky was popularly elected. He is not hostile to Putin because he is a Jew. Putin is hostile to him because having a democracy on his border makes him nervous. He wants a puppet leader that is accountable to him. This is not hard to understand.

    Replies: @JMcG

    I agree completely. I was just pointing out that his Jewishness accounts for some of the puzzling alignments of interest I’ve seen here.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @JMcG

    Where did you get the idea that Putin has any negative feelings about Zelensky (as Ukraine's prez, not personally) or even that Zelensky has anything to do with the current impasse? Genuinely curious.

    From what I've gathered, Zelensky is a nonentity, the guy people voted for only because they loathed Poroshenko, a corrupt oligarch.

    We needn't rehearse the details from 2014 but all this started there. This has zero to do with Zelensky.

    I think you're too hipped on the Jewish thing. It's totally irrelevant.

  240. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South.

    Could somebody please explain to an uncultured simpleton like me why this was a **bad** thing? Was there something wrong with the water in those Colored fountains? Was it poisoned? Or is the problem simply, that it hurt the poor darkies’ feelings? Is that it? Is that the whole reason? Hurt feelings? All this sturm and drang over hurt feelings for saying, “You go over there and use that one”?

    Gee, you’d think people would appreciate, double the number of fountains = shorter lines.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @jsm

    First of all, water fountains were the least of it. 2nd, government provided facilities for blacks were supposed to be "separate but equal" according to the Supreme Ct. The South did great with the separate part but they were a little short on the "equal". So typically the "white" fountain was a modern refrigerated fountain and the colored one dispense tepid tap water:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9FUmLg6WDKI/VxyMB2H607I/AAAAAAACKiI/5tl3oIhrRt0x2VUIRh3mFOPZMLiCFEutACLcB/s640/Segregation%2Bfountain%252C%2BNorth%2BCarolina%252C%2B1950.jpg

    Even tepid tap water wouldn't have been so bad but the black version of things like public schools, universities, etc. were also separate and UNequal.

    Replies: @Alrenous, @silviosilver

  241. @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/george-kennan-russia-insights-and-recommendations


    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States. Who can say what the final status of the Ukraine should be unless he knows the character of the Russia to which the adjustment will have to be made? As for the satellite states: they must, and will, recover their full independence; but they will not assure themselves of a stable and promising future if they make the mistake of proceeding from feelings of revenge and hatred toward the Russian people who have shared their tragedy, and if they try to base that future on the exploitation of the initial difficulties of a well-intentioned Russian regime struggling to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism. (Foreign Affairs, 04.01.51)
     

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jack D

    the initial difficulties of a well-intentioned Russian regime struggling to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism.

    Exactly – when I look at the Putin regime that’s what I see. Who could possibly be more well intentioned than Putin? When you look in the dictionary under “well-intentioned” they have a picture of him.

    And who doesn’t want to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism more than Putin? In his own words, in 2005:

    “First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”

    Vlad is all about overcoming the legacy of Bolshevism.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    As far as I can see, Putin is a stone-cold Machiavellian who at least has the sense to make policy decisions which, when all is said and done, have corrected some problems and allowed Russian society's natural healing processes to correct others. The problem we're facing now is that (by all appearances) Russia's rejuvenation is taking a back seat to revanchist schemes, with the risk of loss and injury to parties on every side of the transaction.


    Adolf Hitler was a damaged human being in his mundane life and a man who'd drunk deep draughts of social and political crazy. Putin isn't like that in any obtrusive way. Hitler, bad as he was, did make some prudent decisions beneficial to Germany as a collective. Germany's economic recovery after 1932 was near to being the most rapid in the occidental world and Germany had managed to engineer a de facto abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. It stiffed the Allies of the reparations and began a re-armament program in 1935 that was pursued without British or French interference. By the end of 1938, they'd acquired a mess of territory in Europe the Hohenzollern reich had never held, territory with more productive capacity than the menu of territories Germany had lost in 1914-18. Every piece of Germanophone territory in Europe it would have been practical to hold was theirs with the exception of some border zones in Lithuania and Italy which had perhaps 500,000 people living in them. They acquired it all without firing a shot. Then they went to war to snatch a mess of territory populated by Poles while Soviet Russia took the rest. . You can see what that got them in the end. I'm hoping that's not the sort of historical moment through which we're living.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Almost Missouri

  242. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jonathan Mason


    Go to the “bahia” markets near the river in Guayaquil, (a large city in Ecuador) and you can find at my best estimate about 200 dealers selling cell phones, cell phone covers, and similar items, and about 50 dealers selling pharmaceuticals.
     
    Guayaquil, "City of Thieves". Here are some classic examples:

    Infamous Thief in $1 Million NYC Gold Bucket Heist Tells of Dramatic Escape From Country

    What's Easier Than Getting Robbed in Guayaquil?

    Ecuador to Increase Police Manpower in Guayaquil After Killings

    The city's former mayor sported an Adolfic toothbrush mustache and was dubbed el Loco by the locals. Later he was removed from the Presidency for mental instability.

    Perhaps Ecuador is a model for us!

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Thanks for the interesting links.

    In particular this one is interesting. https://pages.kiva.org/blog/whats-easier-than-getting-robbed-in-guayaquil

    If you just read the link title, you would think the article was about getting robbed in Guayaquil. The article is not dated, but I suspect it was written several years ago. Guayaquil has a growing fleet of electric buses that are both clean and silent, and which have brakes that work quite well.

    Based on my experience of about 20 visits the central area of Guayaquil around the Malecon is extremely clean, safe and well policed and suitable for families. It is also a rather beautiful city.
    (I have stayed in that twisty building.)

    Unfortunately there has been recent gang warfare within the prisons and outside in some of the less desirable areas of the city.

    However the most significant point in the linked article is that which I quote here, a plea for donors to make small business loans to individuals to enable them to fight their way out of poverty and be independent.

    These cases make clear that, yes, there is delinquency in Guayaquil – but this is also a city where people raise their families, live, work, dream and hope… Please help to give hard-working micro-entrepreneurs their chance in a life-time to realize their dreams and stay away from delinquency and crime, by lending on Kiva. KF15 Fellow Jason Jones has coined a brilliant term for this strategy: Fighting Crime Kiva Style. There are not many things that are easier than getting robbed in Guayaquil. But one of them definitely is making a loan on Kiva!

    What would it take to convert those soulless food deserts of mostly black Northwest Jacksonville, FL into vibrant trading communities with hundreds of small businesses serving their own population? Is there something in the “system” that discourages individual enterprise and steers blacks into government employment, unemployment, or else a life of crime? Just asking for a friend.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason


    What would it take to convert those soulless food deserts of mostly black Northwest Jacksonville, FL into vibrant trading communities with hundreds of small businesses serving their own population?
     
    Yes, that's easy. Get rid of the social welfare system and reduce the minimum wage to $2.50/hr (approximately what it is in Ecuador) so that low income people will have no choice but to scramble for a living in the informal sector.

    There is zero chance of this happening here. Big business and agribusiness LURV food stamps. The black community LURVs food stamps. The average tax payer (whose pocket is being picked to feed these other constituencies) isn't hurt enough by the cost to care deeply about the pickpocketing.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jonathan Mason

  243. @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr.
    @Twinkie

    Jews have been at the forefront of various political and ideological movements to criticize and overturn the established (and hitherto very beneficial) social ethos, morality, and traditions of this country all

    Jews have been at the forefront of many things, both good and bad. One might argue, plausibly, that this is simply a function of thier higher intelligence.

    When they talk about Jews, white gentiles who are hard-core anti-semites sound a lot like Al Sharpton talking about white gentiles, only their arguments at least rise to the level of speciousness.

    I have never really been a true believer in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Those canards were stupid the first million times they were trotted out.

    • Replies: @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr.
    @ben tillman

    What a brilliant refutation. I stand corrected!

  244. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer


    the initial difficulties of a well-intentioned Russian regime struggling to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism.
     
    Exactly - when I look at the Putin regime that's what I see. Who could possibly be more well intentioned than Putin? When you look in the dictionary under "well-intentioned" they have a picture of him.

    And who doesn't want to overcome the legacy of Bolshevism more than Putin? In his own words, in 2005:

    "First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."

    Vlad is all about overcoming the legacy of Bolshevism.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    As far as I can see, Putin is a stone-cold Machiavellian who at least has the sense to make policy decisions which, when all is said and done, have corrected some problems and allowed Russian society’s natural healing processes to correct others. The problem we’re facing now is that (by all appearances) Russia’s rejuvenation is taking a back seat to revanchist schemes, with the risk of loss and injury to parties on every side of the transaction.

    Adolf Hitler was a damaged human being in his mundane life and a man who’d drunk deep draughts of social and political crazy. Putin isn’t like that in any obtrusive way. Hitler, bad as he was, did make some prudent decisions beneficial to Germany as a collective. Germany’s economic recovery after 1932 was near to being the most rapid in the occidental world and Germany had managed to engineer a de facto abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. It stiffed the Allies of the reparations and began a re-armament program in 1935 that was pursued without British or French interference. By the end of 1938, they’d acquired a mess of territory in Europe the Hohenzollern reich had never held, territory with more productive capacity than the menu of territories Germany had lost in 1914-18. Every piece of Germanophone territory in Europe it would have been practical to hold was theirs with the exception of some border zones in Lithuania and Italy which had perhaps 500,000 people living in them. They acquired it all without firing a shot. Then they went to war to snatch a mess of territory populated by Poles while Soviet Russia took the rest. . You can see what that got them in the end. I’m hoping that’s not the sort of historical moment through which we’re living.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Thanks: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    "Not as crazy as Hitler" is sort of a weak endorsement.

    Democratically elected leaders have a "sell by" date. No matter how good their leadership, at some point they run out of ideas or are no longer the man for current conditions or people just get sick of them and in a democracy you elect new leadership.

    Putin OTOH, can't leave even if he wants to. There's no retirement scheme for dictators. Leaving means at a minimum losing his wealth and the wealth of his corrupt cronies. Maybe even losing his life or his freedom.

    And he sees himself as the man selected by history to restore the greatness of Russia. As you say, Hitler, by 1938 had already gathered most of the German speakers under his rule and retaken all of the territories historically ruled by Germans. By that measure, Putin's job is not done.

    Stirring up patriotism by fomenting a war to regain "lost territory" (even if the rest of the world sees your claim as questionable) is a popular favorite among dictators. See Argentina and the Falklands. This makes you super popular among your people UNLESS you lose the war. Maybe Putin isn't planning on losing.

    When does reach become overreach, ambition become overambition? Unfortunately, the only way to find out is the hard way. Up until now, Putin has played his cards well - he has taken back Crimea and re-exerted Russian influence in the near abroad. Who are you to tell him that Ukraine is one bite of the apple too many? Maybe it isn't? The Europeans depend on Russia for much of their natural gas. Do they care about Ukraine enough to sit in the cold? The Germans are not exactly wildly enthusiastic about backing Ukraine. Biden's leadership is questionable, to put it charitably.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Art Deco

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Art Deco

    Generally agree. As far as I can see, Putin's actions are entirely consistent with the interests of a large land power with a history of being harassed/attacked by its irrationally exuberant neighbors, which lately has been the US.


    Hitler, bad as he was, did make some prudent decisions beneficial to Germany as a collective. Germany’s economic recovery after 1932 was near to being the most rapid in the occidental world and Germany had managed to engineer a de facto abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. It stiffed the Allies of the reparations and began a re-armament program in 1935 that was pursued without British or French interference.
     
    Yeah, the Versailles Treaty itself was something of a stiffing of Germany as after the armistice, Woodrow Wilson appeared on the continent proclaiming the "self-determination of peoples", but it turned out that the self-determination was only going to apply to those the Western Allies chose, so Germany and a bunch of eastern nations got divided up, while France and the UK got all their property back and then some.

    While the Western chancelleries may felt they pulled off a bit of a coup, the popular feeling, not limited to the losers, was that Germans, Austrians, etc. had gotten rooked, not necessarily by the notorious "stab in the back" but by the power players in front. After all, Germany had agreed to an Armistice, not a Surrender, and the final front dispositions were all on Allied territory rather than within the Central Powers, so why did the end result look like a Central loss and an Allied victory?

    Thus while the Western chancelleries may have been unhappy about Hitler's reconstruction of Germany in the 1930s, the masses of people they wanted to use to do something about it weren't particularly inclined to shed a whole lot more of their blood to prevent Germany from doing exactly what Wilson et al had promised to everyone in 1918-1919. So with the Sudetenland, Austria, and Danzig, Germany was just doing for itself what the Versailles parties had promised to everyone but forbidden to them. Alsace-Lorraine was still a sore spot, but like Sothern Tyrol, ya can't always get what you want.

    Had he stopped there, Hitler might be remembered today as a German Atatürk. But in 1939 he invaded the non-German sovereignty of Poland, which France and Britain had booby-trapped by giving the Polish government unlimited guarantees. (There was a long piece here at Unz a while back whose headline implied that Poland wasn't as innocent a victim as conventional history suggests, but I never got around to reading it. In any case, the Soviet Union also invaded Poland but didn't suffer the same multilateral war declarations as a result.)

    Even after 1939, Hitler could still have salvaged the decade's achievements by standing pat and bullying or finishing off the UK. But instead he invaded the USSR and declared war on the USA in 1941. From that point, it was just a matter of time.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

  245. @Jonathan Mason
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thanks for the interesting links.

    In particular this one is interesting. https://pages.kiva.org/blog/whats-easier-than-getting-robbed-in-guayaquil

    If you just read the link title, you would think the article was about getting robbed in Guayaquil. The article is not dated, but I suspect it was written several years ago. Guayaquil has a growing fleet of electric buses that are both clean and silent, and which have brakes that work quite well.

    Based on my experience of about 20 visits the central area of Guayaquil around the Malecon is extremely clean, safe and well policed and suitable for families. It is also a rather beautiful city.

    https://www.ecuadortravelonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CITY-TOUR-GUAYAQUIL-CITY-TOUR-PLUS-%E2%80%9CPANAMA-HAT-HANDMADE-FACTORY%E2%80%9D-thump.jpg
    (I have stayed in that twisty building.)


    Unfortunately there has been recent gang warfare within the prisons and outside in some of the less desirable areas of the city.

    However the most significant point in the linked article is that which I quote here, a plea for donors to make small business loans to individuals to enable them to fight their way out of poverty and be independent.

    These cases make clear that, yes, there is delinquency in Guayaquil – but this is also a city where people raise their families, live, work, dream and hope… Please help to give hard-working micro-entrepreneurs their chance in a life-time to realize their dreams and stay away from delinquency and crime, by lending on Kiva. KF15 Fellow Jason Jones has coined a brilliant term for this strategy: Fighting Crime Kiva Style. There are not many things that are easier than getting robbed in Guayaquil. But one of them definitely is making a loan on Kiva!

    What would it take to convert those soulless food deserts of mostly black Northwest Jacksonville, FL into vibrant trading communities with hundreds of small businesses serving their own population? Is there something in the "system" that discourages individual enterprise and steers blacks into government employment, unemployment, or else a life of crime? Just asking for a friend.

    Replies: @Jack D

    What would it take to convert those soulless food deserts of mostly black Northwest Jacksonville, FL into vibrant trading communities with hundreds of small businesses serving their own population?

    Yes, that’s easy. Get rid of the social welfare system and reduce the minimum wage to \$2.50/hr (approximately what it is in Ecuador) so that low income people will have no choice but to scramble for a living in the informal sector.

    There is zero chance of this happening here. Big business and agribusiness LURV food stamps. The black community LURVs food stamps. The average tax payer (whose pocket is being picked to feed these other constituencies) isn’t hurt enough by the cost to care deeply about the pickpocketing.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Yes, that’s easy. Get rid of the social welfare system and reduce the minimum wage to $2.50/hr (approximately what it is in Ecuador) so that low income people will have no choice but to scramble for a living in the informal sector.

    The minimum wage inhibits some employer-employee transactions so reduces the number of people employed, while generating a small increment of additional income for others. It has a small, if unsalutary effect at this time. The current minimum wage in the U.S. is about 15% of mean employee compensation per man-hour. Note, Ecuador's nominal GDP per capita is about 8.5% of that of ours. A minimum wage in that matrix that would be the contextual equivalent of ours would be somewhere in the ball park of $0.65 per hour.

    If you look at BLS data on employment by occupation, the humblest occupations feature mean cash compensation of around $11 per hour. It's a reasonable inference that even without artificial props, today's minimum wage ($7.25) would be something along the lines of what the 10th or 25th percentile would be earning in the humblest occupations. The minimum wage in and of itself is not inhibiting much employment. (Other compliance costs associated with employing people one might guess are much more potent).


    Yes, that’s easy. Get rid of the social welfare system

    Once more with feeling. The vast bulk of the expenditure on 'social welfare' is allocated to Social Security - whose clients are the elderly, the disabled, and survivors, to Medicare (whose clients are the elderly, the disabled, and dialysis patients), and Medicaid (some of whose clients are generically impecunious people and some of whose clients are the nursing home population). Medicare and Medicaid are illiquid benefits; you cannot make rent with them.

    Expenditure on SNAP in 2019 was about $55.6 bn. That's about 5% of what was spent on Social Security. Per person benefit was about $130 a month. It's an income supplement program, not an income replacement program. At that time, 10.7% of the population was enrolled (about 25% of the black population); about 55% of the population meeting the eligibility requirements do not apply.

    As for housing subsidies, the total budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in FY 2019 was $44 bn. That amounts to about 1.7% of all household expenditure on housing. About 3.7% of the households in the U.S. are enrolled in one or another HUD program

    Note that by 2019, the number of TANF recipients in the U.S. had fallen to 2.8 million, i.e. < 1% of the population. TANF actually is an income replacement program.




    There is zero chance of this happening here. Big business and agribusiness LURV food stamps. The black community LURVs food stamps.

    No clue what makes corporation executives tick anymore, but I doubt many of them have a business-case dog in the fight. Again, the proportion of people's incomes spent on food consumed at home is in the single digits and (in an ordinary year) and < 12% of the population is enrolled in SNAP. People in the supply chain that runs from farm to table have an interest in the matter. Keep in mind, about 0.4% of all personal consumption expenditure is attributable to SNAP. That wouldn't be an influential interest if Addison Mitchell McConnell weren't the sort of person who reflexively fellates business lobbies at every opportunity. The Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle for the social work interest, so supports any expenditure which manufactures patron-client relations.


    The average tax payer (whose pocket is being picked to feed these other constituencies) isn’t hurt enough by the cost to care deeply about the pickpocketing.

    The average taxpayer is not fixated on what other people eat. You're kinda sick-o that way.



    Welfare spending and the minimum wage are not why you do not have many food trucks. (BTW, foot trucks were all over Downtown Rochester ca. 1990. Mostly youngish men running them. Young men are not of interest to the social work lobby).

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    Good to see somebody using the little gray cells.

    At least we have here identified a systemic factor that matters a lot to Black lives and shapes their course, even if it is not systemic racism per se.

    Now if we could just figure out a way that it is economically beneficial to raise children in two parent families, but economically disastrous to have children out of wedlock, we would really be making some progress.

    Replies: @Technite78, @Almost Missouri

  246. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    As far as I can see, Putin is a stone-cold Machiavellian who at least has the sense to make policy decisions which, when all is said and done, have corrected some problems and allowed Russian society's natural healing processes to correct others. The problem we're facing now is that (by all appearances) Russia's rejuvenation is taking a back seat to revanchist schemes, with the risk of loss and injury to parties on every side of the transaction.


    Adolf Hitler was a damaged human being in his mundane life and a man who'd drunk deep draughts of social and political crazy. Putin isn't like that in any obtrusive way. Hitler, bad as he was, did make some prudent decisions beneficial to Germany as a collective. Germany's economic recovery after 1932 was near to being the most rapid in the occidental world and Germany had managed to engineer a de facto abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. It stiffed the Allies of the reparations and began a re-armament program in 1935 that was pursued without British or French interference. By the end of 1938, they'd acquired a mess of territory in Europe the Hohenzollern reich had never held, territory with more productive capacity than the menu of territories Germany had lost in 1914-18. Every piece of Germanophone territory in Europe it would have been practical to hold was theirs with the exception of some border zones in Lithuania and Italy which had perhaps 500,000 people living in them. They acquired it all without firing a shot. Then they went to war to snatch a mess of territory populated by Poles while Soviet Russia took the rest. . You can see what that got them in the end. I'm hoping that's not the sort of historical moment through which we're living.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Almost Missouri

    “Not as crazy as Hitler” is sort of a weak endorsement.

    Democratically elected leaders have a “sell by” date. No matter how good their leadership, at some point they run out of ideas or are no longer the man for current conditions or people just get sick of them and in a democracy you elect new leadership.

    Putin OTOH, can’t leave even if he wants to. There’s no retirement scheme for dictators. Leaving means at a minimum losing his wealth and the wealth of his corrupt cronies. Maybe even losing his life or his freedom.

    And he sees himself as the man selected by history to restore the greatness of Russia. As you say, Hitler, by 1938 had already gathered most of the German speakers under his rule and retaken all of the territories historically ruled by Germans. By that measure, Putin’s job is not done.

    Stirring up patriotism by fomenting a war to regain “lost territory” (even if the rest of the world sees your claim as questionable) is a popular favorite among dictators. See Argentina and the Falklands. This makes you super popular among your people UNLESS you lose the war. Maybe Putin isn’t planning on losing.

    When does reach become overreach, ambition become overambition? Unfortunately, the only way to find out is the hard way. Up until now, Putin has played his cards well – he has taken back Crimea and re-exerted Russian influence in the near abroad. Who are you to tell him that Ukraine is one bite of the apple too many? Maybe it isn’t? The Europeans depend on Russia for much of their natural gas. Do they care about Ukraine enough to sit in the cold? The Germans are not exactly wildly enthusiastic about backing Ukraine. Biden’s leadership is questionable, to put it charitably.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Jack D

    To compare Putin to Hitler is absurd, because Hitler was a radical revolutionary with a firm set of beliefs that would, if he had temporarily succeeded, have annihilated parts & created new forms of Western civilization. He was, in his intentions, far more radical than Communists- he wanted a new type of civilization, similar to Nietzsche's & ideologically Darwinian interpretation of the Manu code.

    Putin is a national leader leading a nation that has, without losing the global war, become 2nd rate, just like that. His success is in the restoration and creation of many good things for Russians (food, clothing, housing, change to normalcy,...). But, his policy towards traditional neighbors has exacerbated ill-will among them. No one of Russia's neighbors likes them (by the way- that is certainly the future of China, virtually the whole world united against them).

    All those different peoples, from Baltic peoples, Ukrainians,... to Caucasians & numerous Muslim Turkic peoples- simply dislike them. And they dislike them very much. They feel that Russians are invading aliens, a threat to their existence.

    Any comparison with the US is meaningless because American "victims" want to become Americans or to have some special relations, from Puerto Rico, Philippines, Cuba, Vietnam, all of Latin America...

    As far as Russians go, they seem to be not very capable for modern life. Their historical culture, although European, is too collectivist for the modern global world.

    https://cepa.org/putins-nasty-soviet-nostalgia/

    Putin’s Nasty Soviet Nostalgia

    https://carnegiemoscow.org/2021/01/14/how-proponents-and-opponents-of-political-change-see-russia-s-future-pub-83607

    How Proponents and Opponents of Political Change See Russia’s Future

    So, it's more than democracy or anything similar.

    Russians have lost their status of power as they'd possessed it in the past, say, 3 centuries; they cannot compete in the modern, hyper-technological world; also, the US behavior didn't help, simply because the US has tried, in the past 3 decades, virtually to dismember Russia or to make it a fiefdom of global capitalism, with America as the oligarch-in-chief.

    In sum- the US is destroying itself through ethnic suicide; Russia is lagging as a second rate world power nobody likes to be in contact with, and her people have collective psychology and identity not conductive for a prosperous modern country - even isolationist one like Japan.

    As I see it, this all is simply unsolvable.

    The same goes for Islamic and Oriental peoples who, as masses, are not conductive to democracy because they lack individualism, entrepreneurial spirit, or are bound by religious dogmas.

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    “Not as crazy as Hitler” is sort of a weak endorsement.

    Get back to me when you're ready to acknowledge the distinction between a description and an endorsement and when you can state my viewpoint with minimal accuracy.



    Putin OTOH, can’t leave even if he wants to. There’s no retirement scheme for dictators. Leaving means at a minimum losing his wealth and the wealth of his corrupt cronies. Maybe even losing his life or his freedom.

    Gyorgy Malenkov, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Nikita Khruschev, and Boris Yeltsin lived out their days unmolested. Mikhail Gorbachev is still alive.


    . As you say, Hitler, by 1938 had already gathered most of the German speakers under his rule and retaken all of the territories historically ruled by Germans. By that measure, Putin’s job is not done.

    I didn't say that. He hadn't taken those fragments of the Prussian provinces of West Prussia, Posen, and Silesia which were part of Poland. He hadn't taken Alsace-Lorraine. He hadn't taken the Germanophone Swiss cantons. He hadn't taken the Germanophone enclaves in Hungary, Roumania, and on the Volga. He hadn't taken Germany's old overseas dependencies. A sensible autocrat would not have wanted any of these territories (and Hitler certainly did not have Switzerland, Alsace-Lorraine, or Kamerun on his front burner, if he wanted them at all). He actually believed all that hooey about lebensraum.

    Whether Putin is using that measure or not I could not say. I merely note he is behaving incautiously. Issuing a demand to the western powers that they abrogate treaties with 10 east European countries is upping the ante.

    Replies: @Jack D

  247. @Gamecock
    @nebulafox

    "PC beliefs in general are a status symbol of sorts. You can afford to believe in them and not have your life ruined."

    Prosperity breeds decadence. Decadence breeds collapse.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Or as the Chinese would put it, 富不过三代. America in 1992 had levels of wealth, power, and stability that no other nation had before. Because of that, we could afford to have Baby Boomer frivolity in our political system, the stuff that you best see in the reaction to 1/6 with the simultaneous ignoring of the 2020 riots and what they did in the midst of their own lockdown policies, in the 1990s. That’s why a lot of this started., when you think about it. The absolute pettiness and gauzy idealism covering up venality. The Soviet Union didn’t exist anymore, so there was no real check on the stupidity, ideological beliefs, and corruption of a new generation of political elites.

    (If the PRC didn’t have the level of influence they do domestically in the US-at a level that the USSR could only have dreamt about, even at their post-FDR spy peak in the US-I’d say that getting a rival that can challenge us might not be the worst thing in the world, because it would forcibly reintroduce seriousness and the desire to actually *lead*, to take responsibility among our elites. Or I used to think that, anyway. Events in Ukraine right now are proving that wrong.)

    Continue another couple decades, though, and… well, the piper demands to be paid.

    This wheel will turn with enough effort, time, and luck. This is a damned special country. But I’m under no delusions about how in the hole we’ve gotten.

  248. @Jonathan Mason
    @Sam Malone


    Lawrence was a black youth killed by police in 1993, leading to what was probably one of the first modern three-alarm whoop-de-doos by the press and government over innocent black babies being slaughtered by evil police. This one happened in slow motion though, and it wasn’t until the end of the decade that the government report on the police’s conduct came out, laying blame on the nebulous but lethal force of “institutional racism” in the London Metropolitan Police.

     

    This is complete nonsense.

    Lawrence was stabbed to death by two juvenile delinquents called Dobson and Norris,and possibly 3 other youths, and after various trials, an attempted private prosecution, appeals, quashings and retrials the pair were convicted.

    Interestingly, the director of public prosecutions at the time was Keir Starmer, who is now the leader of the Labor Party, and possibly the UK's next prime minister.

    However it came out much later that Norris' father, who was a known drug smuggler, had made payments to at least one detective involved in the case to suppress evidence, hence the anger at the metropolitan police (of London.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Jonathan Mason, @Sam Malone

    Thanks for providing some background on the matter. I should have made clear that I neither know the details of the Stephen Lawrence affair, nor have ever cared to find out. Even 22 years ago I was sick of hearing about “racism” and did my best to flick past the coverage of his death in the UK papers. I just knew that he was a black youth who died and the police were ultimately blamed, and that the media was full of talk that “institutional racism” in the Met was to blame. This much is entirely correct, and my point was simply that the affair familiarized me with the term “institutional racism”.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Sam Malone

    Yes, when you said that Lawrence was killed by police, it was not clear that you did not know who killed Lawrence, or that you had deliberately avoided finding out such information because it was upsetting for you, but thanks for clarifying.

    You are right that a lot was said about the Metropolitan Police being institutionally racist, because it apparently deliberately failed to collect evidence against the gang of five white boys whom eyewitnesses had said had attacked Stephen Lawrence with knives at a bus stop.

    In the long run it became less clear as to whether it was institutional racism at work in the Met, or whether the police had simply been bribed.

    However relatively little was said in the press about institutional racism in the judiciary when the judge had directed the jury to ignore the testimony of Stephen Lawrence's (black) companion who was present at the time of the stabbing.

    As a long-term sequel, Stephen Lawrence's mother Doreen was elevated to the House of Lords, where she remains active as a racial justice advocate.

    Incidentally, this was the famous case in which the Daily Mail eventually published the pictures and names of the five accused murderers, saying that they were murderers, and challenging them to sue the Daily Mail if they disagreed. They didn't.

    The whole affair really dragged the good name of British justice through the mud.

    Replies: @Sam Malone

  249. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Kennan was not wrong when he wrote this. The problem is that he wrote these words in 1951. Kennan had a lot of insight in his time but the man has been dead for decades. He was not Nostradamus.

    Things have changed. Virginia was economically part of the United States in 1860 but if the South had won the Civil War then 50 years afterward it wouldn't have been. Economic bonds are not unbreakable.

    The Putin Gang's view of what does or does not constitute unbreakable bonds is strictly situational. When it suits them ( Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc.) they do not hesitate to peel off bits and pieces of sovereign states.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Kennan was a typical American moron re. national question. He simply didn’t understand the power of national identity, especially among peoples who fight for it.

    Cognitively impaired.

  250. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    As far as I can see, Putin is a stone-cold Machiavellian who at least has the sense to make policy decisions which, when all is said and done, have corrected some problems and allowed Russian society's natural healing processes to correct others. The problem we're facing now is that (by all appearances) Russia's rejuvenation is taking a back seat to revanchist schemes, with the risk of loss and injury to parties on every side of the transaction.


    Adolf Hitler was a damaged human being in his mundane life and a man who'd drunk deep draughts of social and political crazy. Putin isn't like that in any obtrusive way. Hitler, bad as he was, did make some prudent decisions beneficial to Germany as a collective. Germany's economic recovery after 1932 was near to being the most rapid in the occidental world and Germany had managed to engineer a de facto abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. It stiffed the Allies of the reparations and began a re-armament program in 1935 that was pursued without British or French interference. By the end of 1938, they'd acquired a mess of territory in Europe the Hohenzollern reich had never held, territory with more productive capacity than the menu of territories Germany had lost in 1914-18. Every piece of Germanophone territory in Europe it would have been practical to hold was theirs with the exception of some border zones in Lithuania and Italy which had perhaps 500,000 people living in them. They acquired it all without firing a shot. Then they went to war to snatch a mess of territory populated by Poles while Soviet Russia took the rest. . You can see what that got them in the end. I'm hoping that's not the sort of historical moment through which we're living.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Almost Missouri

    Generally agree. As far as I can see, Putin’s actions are entirely consistent with the interests of a large land power with a history of being harassed/attacked by its irrationally exuberant neighbors, which lately has been the US.

    Hitler, bad as he was, did make some prudent decisions beneficial to Germany as a collective. Germany’s economic recovery after 1932 was near to being the most rapid in the occidental world and Germany had managed to engineer a de facto abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. It stiffed the Allies of the reparations and began a re-armament program in 1935 that was pursued without British or French interference.

    Yeah, the Versailles Treaty itself was something of a stiffing of Germany as after the armistice, Woodrow Wilson appeared on the continent proclaiming the “self-determination of peoples”, but it turned out that the self-determination was only going to apply to those the Western Allies chose, so Germany and a bunch of eastern nations got divided up, while France and the UK got all their property back and then some.

    While the Western chancelleries may felt they pulled off a bit of a coup, the popular feeling, not limited to the losers, was that Germans, Austrians, etc. had gotten rooked, not necessarily by the notorious “stab in the back” but by the power players in front. After all, Germany had agreed to an Armistice, not a Surrender, and the final front dispositions were all on Allied territory rather than within the Central Powers, so why did the end result look like a Central loss and an Allied victory?

    Thus while the Western chancelleries may have been unhappy about Hitler’s reconstruction of Germany in the 1930s, the masses of people they wanted to use to do something about it weren’t particularly inclined to shed a whole lot more of their blood to prevent Germany from doing exactly what Wilson et al had promised to everyone in 1918-1919. So with the Sudetenland, Austria, and Danzig, Germany was just doing for itself what the Versailles parties had promised to everyone but forbidden to them. Alsace-Lorraine was still a sore spot, but like Sothern Tyrol, ya can’t always get what you want.

    Had he stopped there, Hitler might be remembered today as a German Atatürk. But in 1939 he invaded the non-German sovereignty of Poland, which France and Britain had booby-trapped by giving the Polish government unlimited guarantees. (There was a long piece here at Unz a while back whose headline implied that Poland wasn’t as innocent a victim as conventional history suggests, but I never got around to reading it. In any case, the Soviet Union also invaded Poland but didn’t suffer the same multilateral war declarations as a result.)

    Even after 1939, Hitler could still have salvaged the decade’s achievements by standing pat and bullying or finishing off the UK. But instead he invaded the USSR and declared war on the USA in 1941. From that point, it was just a matter of time.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri


    Had he stopped there, Hitler might be remembered today as a German Atatürk.
     
    Had he stopped there, then Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler and he wouldn't have gotten to where he was in the first place. Germans believe in thoroughly carrying things out to their completion - they don't like to half ass things. A job worth doing is a job worth doing well! This could be building a car or it could be the complete conquest of Eurasia. This could be sweeping the sidewalk in front of your house or it could be the extermination of every single last Jew on Earth. Things have to be carried out to their logical conclusion. You're not going to make a few desultory swipes with the broom leaving half the dirt and then go drink wine like an Italian. You are going to keep at it until that sidewalk is CLEAN.

    So there was a straight and uninterruptable line between the conquest of the Sudetenland and the conquest of Moscow. Between the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of 1933 and the chimneys of Auschwitz. There was no possible logical point in between any more than you can park your airplane in the air halfway over the ocean.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Almost Missouri

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Almost Missouri


    Generally agree. As far as I can see, Putin’s actions are entirely consistent with the interests of a large land power with a history of being harassed/attacked by its irrationally exuberant neighbors, which lately has been the US.

     

    Hahaha. I don't think that's what AD is saying but I'm amused at your deft reframing. Keep it up!
  251. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    Jack this comment yours is almost a textbook illustration of why letting Jews come to America has been a disaster.

    ~

    BTW, i’m curious why since America was never “WASPland” but a “nation of immigrants” “from day 1”, why it was that immigrants had to “push back against discrimination”? why Jews had to fight for entry to country clubs? …. why Jews even wanted to join Waspy Acres CC?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    It never had anything to do with country clubs. Making it about country clubs, which are of interest only to the 1%, completely misses the point. When my mother in law was growing up (she is 99) as the American born daughter of Ellis Island immigrants (actually her mother was born in the Jewish ghetto of Philadelphia but her father came over as a child and actually immigrants to Philadelphia didn't have to go thru Ellis Island - they cleared immigration at the dock on the Delaware River and could practically walk to the ghetto from the dock) country clubs were the farthest thing from her mind (although, later in life she ended up joining one). What she was concerned about was getting into college and many colleges discriminated against Jews. She was concerned about getting a job and many large employers wouldn't hire Jews. When her parents honeymooned, they wanted to stay in a hotel and many hotels wouldn't take Jews. When they wanted to buy a house, there were neighborhoods where Jews were not allowed to buy. And so on. These were real bread and butter issues that affected their daily lives and that's why they struggled. Making it sound like it was only about country club membership trivializes the whole thing.

    , @JimDandy
    @AnotherDad

    Because many Jews proudly help their own to the detriment of other groups, but literally make a federal case of it when other groups use that strategy.


    chutz·pah
    /ˈho͝otspə,ˈKHo͝otspə/
    noun INFORMAL
    extreme self-confidence or audacity.
    "love him or hate him, you have to admire Cohen's chutzpah"

    , @anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    Jack this comment yours is almost a textbook illustration of why letting Jews come to America has been a disaster.
     
    Please explain.
  252. @IHTG
    @Paperback Writer

    I bet lots of commenters here think Israel is pro war with Russia.

    Replies: @JMcG, @JimDandy

    What are you saying? “Zionists” are not a monolith, nor is Israel. The Neocons are a Jewish Zionist entity, despite a shabbos goy here and there.

  253. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    … If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.

    Just for the record: anyone who thinks there was anything the least bit wrong with the Chinese Exclusion Act is unfit to live in a civilized society.

    Even the Chinese understand that. The Chinese government–of course–protested at the time. (They are Chinese working in the interest of Chinese, not Americans.) But the Chinese understood–and clearly understand today–that excluding various foreigners from settling is a very wise policy.

    The failure of the Act, was that it turned out the Chinese weren’t the critical set of foreigners needing exclusion.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad


    Chinese understood–and clearly understand today–that excluding various foreigners from settling is a very wise policy.
     
    At that time, not only did the Chinese not exclude foreigners from settling, but in various cities (Shanghai, Tianjin, etc.) there were areas where only foreigners were allowed to settle and where Chinese law did not even apply.

    One of the things that I despise here is that people invent imaginary cardboard cutout cartoon versions of other countries (China, Israel, Japan, etc.) and hold them up and say "See, these other people would never allow to happen to them what is happening to us" while pointing to the imaginary cartoons. But if you were to look at the actual countries involved, the picture is much more nuanced.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Anon
    @AnotherDad


    The failure of the Act, was that it turned out the Chinese weren’t the critical set of foreigners needing exclusion.
     
    https://www.twitter.com/CaesarSalad99/status/1486786564654993409
  254. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    "Not as crazy as Hitler" is sort of a weak endorsement.

    Democratically elected leaders have a "sell by" date. No matter how good their leadership, at some point they run out of ideas or are no longer the man for current conditions or people just get sick of them and in a democracy you elect new leadership.

    Putin OTOH, can't leave even if he wants to. There's no retirement scheme for dictators. Leaving means at a minimum losing his wealth and the wealth of his corrupt cronies. Maybe even losing his life or his freedom.

    And he sees himself as the man selected by history to restore the greatness of Russia. As you say, Hitler, by 1938 had already gathered most of the German speakers under his rule and retaken all of the territories historically ruled by Germans. By that measure, Putin's job is not done.

    Stirring up patriotism by fomenting a war to regain "lost territory" (even if the rest of the world sees your claim as questionable) is a popular favorite among dictators. See Argentina and the Falklands. This makes you super popular among your people UNLESS you lose the war. Maybe Putin isn't planning on losing.

    When does reach become overreach, ambition become overambition? Unfortunately, the only way to find out is the hard way. Up until now, Putin has played his cards well - he has taken back Crimea and re-exerted Russian influence in the near abroad. Who are you to tell him that Ukraine is one bite of the apple too many? Maybe it isn't? The Europeans depend on Russia for much of their natural gas. Do they care about Ukraine enough to sit in the cold? The Germans are not exactly wildly enthusiastic about backing Ukraine. Biden's leadership is questionable, to put it charitably.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Art Deco

    To compare Putin to Hitler is absurd, because Hitler was a radical revolutionary with a firm set of beliefs that would, if he had temporarily succeeded, have annihilated parts & created new forms of Western civilization. He was, in his intentions, far more radical than Communists- he wanted a new type of civilization, similar to Nietzsche’s & ideologically Darwinian interpretation of the Manu code.

    Putin is a national leader leading a nation that has, without losing the global war, become 2nd rate, just like that. His success is in the restoration and creation of many good things for Russians (food, clothing, housing, change to normalcy,…). But, his policy towards traditional neighbors has exacerbated ill-will among them. No one of Russia’s neighbors likes them (by the way- that is certainly the future of China, virtually the whole world united against them).

    All those different peoples, from Baltic peoples, Ukrainians,… to Caucasians & numerous Muslim Turkic peoples- simply dislike them. And they dislike them very much. They feel that Russians are invading aliens, a threat to their existence.

    Any comparison with the US is meaningless because American “victims” want to become Americans or to have some special relations, from Puerto Rico, Philippines, Cuba, Vietnam, all of Latin America…

    As far as Russians go, they seem to be not very capable for modern life. Their historical culture, although European, is too collectivist for the modern global world.

    https://cepa.org/putins-nasty-soviet-nostalgia/

    Putin’s Nasty Soviet Nostalgia

    https://carnegiemoscow.org/2021/01/14/how-proponents-and-opponents-of-political-change-see-russia-s-future-pub-83607

    How Proponents and Opponents of Political Change See Russia’s Future

    So, it’s more than democracy or anything similar.

    Russians have lost their status of power as they’d possessed it in the past, say, 3 centuries; they cannot compete in the modern, hyper-technological world; also, the US behavior didn’t help, simply because the US has tried, in the past 3 decades, virtually to dismember Russia or to make it a fiefdom of global capitalism, with America as the oligarch-in-chief.

    In sum- the US is destroying itself through ethnic suicide; Russia is lagging as a second rate world power nobody likes to be in contact with, and her people have collective psychology and identity not conductive for a prosperous modern country – even isolationist one like Japan.

    As I see it, this all is simply unsolvable.

    The same goes for Islamic and Oriental peoples who, as masses, are not conductive to democracy because they lack individualism, entrepreneurial spirit, or are bound by religious dogmas.

    • Thanks: William Badwhite
  255. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Jack this comment yours is almost a textbook illustration of why letting Jews come to America has been a disaster.

    ~

    BTW, i'm curious why since America was never "WASPland" but a "nation of immigrants" "from day 1", why it was that immigrants had to "push back against discrimination"? why Jews had to fight for entry to country clubs? .... why Jews even wanted to join Waspy Acres CC?

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @anonymous

    It never had anything to do with country clubs. Making it about country clubs, which are of interest only to the 1%, completely misses the point. When my mother in law was growing up (she is 99) as the American born daughter of Ellis Island immigrants (actually her mother was born in the Jewish ghetto of Philadelphia but her father came over as a child and actually immigrants to Philadelphia didn’t have to go thru Ellis Island – they cleared immigration at the dock on the Delaware River and could practically walk to the ghetto from the dock) country clubs were the farthest thing from her mind (although, later in life she ended up joining one). What she was concerned about was getting into college and many colleges discriminated against Jews. She was concerned about getting a job and many large employers wouldn’t hire Jews. When her parents honeymooned, they wanted to stay in a hotel and many hotels wouldn’t take Jews. When they wanted to buy a house, there were neighborhoods where Jews were not allowed to buy. And so on. These were real bread and butter issues that affected their daily lives and that’s why they struggled. Making it sound like it was only about country club membership trivializes the whole thing.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  256. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    ... If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.
     
    Just for the record: anyone who thinks there was anything the least bit wrong with the Chinese Exclusion Act is unfit to live in a civilized society.

    Even the Chinese understand that. The Chinese government--of course--protested at the time. (They are Chinese working in the interest of Chinese, not Americans.) But the Chinese understood--and clearly understand today--that excluding various foreigners from settling is a very wise policy.


    The failure of the Act, was that it turned out the Chinese weren't the critical set of foreigners needing exclusion.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anon

    Chinese understood–and clearly understand today–that excluding various foreigners from settling is a very wise policy.

    At that time, not only did the Chinese not exclude foreigners from settling, but in various cities (Shanghai, Tianjin, etc.) there were areas where only foreigners were allowed to settle and where Chinese law did not even apply.

    One of the things that I despise here is that people invent imaginary cardboard cutout cartoon versions of other countries (China, Israel, Japan, etc.) and hold them up and say “See, these other people would never allow to happen to them what is happening to us” while pointing to the imaginary cartoons. But if you were to look at the actual countries involved, the picture is much more nuanced.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    One of the things that I despise here is that people invent imaginary cardboard cutout cartoon versions of other countries (China, Israel, Japan, etc.) and hold them up and say “See, these other people would never allow to happen to them what is happening to us” while pointing to the imaginary cartoons. But if you were to look at the actual countries involved, the picture is much more nuanced.
     
    Yet you do the same thing! See below:

    At that time, not only did the Chinese not exclude foreigners from settling, but in various cities (Shanghai, Tianjin, etc.) there were areas where only foreigners were allowed to settle and where Chinese law did not even apply.
     
    This is, yet again, deceptive. The Qing Dynasty of China did not allow foreign settlements in their territories, because they were some sort of global multi-culturalists. They extremely reluctantly - kicking and screaming is more like it - did so, because they were militarily defeated by the Western powers and the Japanese and were forced to make such humiliating concessions. The Chinese are still mad about it and it deeply affects their psyche in dealing with outsiders.

    Indeed, your comparison of the U.S. to the Qing China is (perhaps unintentionally) canny, because only defeated nations allow wholesale, unopposed settlements of their territories by uninvited foreigners in large numbers (at least the Western powers and the Japanese only stationed diplomats, soldiers, and merchants in China - we have literally millions of semi-literate peasants from outside the borders who exist outside the law in our country).

  257. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Jack this comment yours is almost a textbook illustration of why letting Jews come to America has been a disaster.

    ~

    BTW, i'm curious why since America was never "WASPland" but a "nation of immigrants" "from day 1", why it was that immigrants had to "push back against discrimination"? why Jews had to fight for entry to country clubs? .... why Jews even wanted to join Waspy Acres CC?

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @anonymous

    Because many Jews proudly help their own to the detriment of other groups, but literally make a federal case of it when other groups use that strategy.

    chutz·pah
    /ˈho͝otspə,ˈKHo͝otspə/
    noun INFORMAL
    extreme self-confidence or audacity.
    “love him or hate him, you have to admire Cohen’s chutzpah”

  258. @Bernard
    @Jack D


    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate – Kruger doesn’t really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice “serious business” but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning?
     
    This is an obtuse argument you’ve made on several occasions Jack. While there are a large number of Catholics on the court, they are Catholic Christians who share the unifying belief of all Christians, that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic are all separate denominations within Judaism, but when distinguishing between different faiths, they are considered as one, just as Christian denominations are. The same is true with Sunni and Shia Muslims, and on and on. The US (though nominally) is more than 80% Christian. That fact that there is a representational disparity in favor of one denomination of Christianity, is a slight of hand that portrays Catholicism as a separate entity. You understand that the distinction is not a suitable comparison, but you continue to apply it. If Jews are overrepresented, which they are, just state the obvious. Many have brilliant minds, and are deserving of the position.

    I for one would not care one bit if the US Supreme Court consisted of nine Jewish constitutionalists, but those are few a far between.

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @Abolish_public_education, @Paperback Writer

    Actually, Jack makes a great point. After all, writers in all the prominent Catholic publications are proudly declaring that Catholics aren’t white, right?

    • Replies: @Bernard
    @JimDandy


    Actually, Jack makes a great point. After all, writers in all the prominent Catholic publications are proudly declaring that Catholics aren’t white, right?
     
    That’s news to me, could you cite this prominent publication?

    Replies: @JimDandy

  259. @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I really don't know of all other societies (were things better or worse for immigrants in Canada or Australia or Argentina?) , but America is somewhat unique in that it was an immigrant society from day 1. Somaliland is the land of the Somalis - it's right there in the name so anyone who is not a Somali should not expect to be treated well. It's like if you go to a steak house and complain that the pizza isn't great. But America is America, it's not WASPland.

    As for "how well it has treated foreigners" it really depends which foreigners. If by foreigners you mean Africans then I'd say treating them as slaves was not good treatment. If it was Chinese, then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment. If it was Japanese, then putting them in concentration camps was not good treatment.

    But overall, yes, America has been very good to its immigrants. I can't begin to tell you how much my parents loved America and the economic and social opportunities that it afforded to them and to their children and how favorably it contrasted with their experiences in Europe (I'm not just talking about their experience during the war, which is obviously a very low bar, but also their experience in prewar Poland). The people who look at ONLY the bad things that America has done have it wrong (as do the people who only look at the good things). A thoughtful analysis is that it has been a mixed bag but in the end America has allowed its immigrants to thrive like (almost) no where else.

    However, a lot of this was only accomplished through struggle and pushing back against discrimination - if immigrants and blacks had relied on the status quo there would still be separate water fountains for blacks in the South. On paper, America had a wonderful rule book called the Constitution, but it didn't always live up to its rule book.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Achmed E. Newman, @William Badwhite, @Technite78, @jsm, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad, @anonymous

    then passing the Chinese Exclusion Act was not good treatment.

    The Chinese exclude non-Chinese from China.

  260. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Jack this comment yours is almost a textbook illustration of why letting Jews come to America has been a disaster.

    ~

    BTW, i'm curious why since America was never "WASPland" but a "nation of immigrants" "from day 1", why it was that immigrants had to "push back against discrimination"? why Jews had to fight for entry to country clubs? .... why Jews even wanted to join Waspy Acres CC?

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @anonymous

    Jack this comment yours is almost a textbook illustration of why letting Jews come to America has been a disaster.

    Please explain.

  261. @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason


    What would it take to convert those soulless food deserts of mostly black Northwest Jacksonville, FL into vibrant trading communities with hundreds of small businesses serving their own population?
     
    Yes, that's easy. Get rid of the social welfare system and reduce the minimum wage to $2.50/hr (approximately what it is in Ecuador) so that low income people will have no choice but to scramble for a living in the informal sector.

    There is zero chance of this happening here. Big business and agribusiness LURV food stamps. The black community LURVs food stamps. The average tax payer (whose pocket is being picked to feed these other constituencies) isn't hurt enough by the cost to care deeply about the pickpocketing.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jonathan Mason

    Yes, that’s easy. Get rid of the social welfare system and reduce the minimum wage to \$2.50/hr (approximately what it is in Ecuador) so that low income people will have no choice but to scramble for a living in the informal sector.

    The minimum wage inhibits some employer-employee transactions so reduces the number of people employed, while generating a small increment of additional income for others. It has a small, if unsalutary effect at this time. The current minimum wage in the U.S. is about 15% of mean employee compensation per man-hour. Note, Ecuador’s nominal GDP per capita is about 8.5% of that of ours. A minimum wage in that matrix that would be the contextual equivalent of ours would be somewhere in the ball park of \$0.65 per hour.

    If you look at BLS data on employment by occupation, the humblest occupations feature mean cash compensation of around \$11 per hour. It’s a reasonable inference that even without artificial props, today’s minimum wage (\$7.25) would be something along the lines of what the 10th or 25th percentile would be earning in the humblest occupations. The minimum wage in and of itself is not inhibiting much employment. (Other compliance costs associated with employing people one might guess are much more potent).

    Yes, that’s easy. Get rid of the social welfare system

    Once more with feeling. The vast bulk of the expenditure on ‘social welfare’ is allocated to Social Security – whose clients are the elderly, the disabled, and survivors, to Medicare (whose clients are the elderly, the disabled, and dialysis patients), and Medicaid (some of whose clients are generically impecunious people and some of whose clients are the nursing home population). Medicare and Medicaid are illiquid benefits; you cannot make rent with them.

    Expenditure on SNAP in 2019 was about \$55.6 bn. That’s about 5% of what was spent on Social Security. Per person benefit was about \$130 a month. It’s an income supplement program, not an income replacement program. At that time, 10.7% of the population was enrolled (about 25% of the black population); about 55% of the population meeting the eligibility requirements do not apply.

    As for housing subsidies, the total budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in FY 2019 was \$44 bn. That amounts to about 1.7% of all household expenditure on housing. About 3.7% of the households in the U.S. are enrolled in one or another HUD program

    Note that by 2019, the number of TANF recipients in the U.S. had fallen to 2.8 million, i.e. < 1% of the population. TANF actually is an income replacement program.

    There is zero chance of this happening here. Big business and agribusiness LURV food stamps. The black community LURVs food stamps.

    No clue what makes corporation executives tick anymore, but I doubt many of them have a business-case dog in the fight. Again, the proportion of people’s incomes spent on food consumed at home is in the single digits and (in an ordinary year) and < 12% of the population is enrolled in SNAP. People in the supply chain that runs from farm to table have an interest in the matter. Keep in mind, about 0.4% of all personal consumption expenditure is attributable to SNAP. That wouldn't be an influential interest if Addison Mitchell McConnell weren't the sort of person who reflexively fellates business lobbies at every opportunity. The Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle for the social work interest, so supports any expenditure which manufactures patron-client relations.

    The average tax payer (whose pocket is being picked to feed these other constituencies) isn’t hurt enough by the cost to care deeply about the pickpocketing.

    The average taxpayer is not fixated on what other people eat. You’re kinda sick-o that way.

    Welfare spending and the minimum wage are not why you do not have many food trucks. (BTW, foot trucks were all over Downtown Rochester ca. 1990. Mostly youngish men running them. Young men are not of interest to the social work lobby).

  262. @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason


    What would it take to convert those soulless food deserts of mostly black Northwest Jacksonville, FL into vibrant trading communities with hundreds of small businesses serving their own population?
     
    Yes, that's easy. Get rid of the social welfare system and reduce the minimum wage to $2.50/hr (approximately what it is in Ecuador) so that low income people will have no choice but to scramble for a living in the informal sector.

    There is zero chance of this happening here. Big business and agribusiness LURV food stamps. The black community LURVs food stamps. The average tax payer (whose pocket is being picked to feed these other constituencies) isn't hurt enough by the cost to care deeply about the pickpocketing.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jonathan Mason

    Good to see somebody using the little gray cells.

    At least we have here identified a systemic factor that matters a lot to Black lives and shapes their course, even if it is not systemic racism per se.

    Now if we could just figure out a way that it is economically beneficial to raise children in two parent families, but economically disastrous to have children out of wedlock, we would really be making some progress.

    • Replies: @Technite78
    @Jonathan Mason

    That's hysterical. You're giving him credit for coming up with a solution that he admits is unworkable.

    It seems to me a big part of the problem is there are too many people who want to institute "solutions" that sound great but are obviously not going to solve anything, and very likely going to make things worse.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jonathan Mason


    Now if we could just figure out a way that it is economically beneficial to raise children in two parent families, but economically disastrous to have children out of wedlock, we would really be making some progress.
     
    The absence of a welfare state used to do that pretty effectively. Or maybe that's your point.

    It's getting hard to tell where the sarcasm starts.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  263. @Bernard
    @Jack D


    I don’t understand this part – while Jews were 4 of the 5 most recent Dem nominees, Catholics are 6 (or 7 depending on how you count Gorsuch) out of 9 of the ACTUAL sitting justices (and chances are the Jew count is about to go down by 1 to only 1 unless Biden can find a black female Jew to nominate – Kruger doesn’t really count even in the unlikely event he picks her). Why is 1 (actual not potential) Jewish justice “serious business” but 7 Catholic justices are not even worth mentioning?
     
    This is an obtuse argument you’ve made on several occasions Jack. While there are a large number of Catholics on the court, they are Catholic Christians who share the unifying belief of all Christians, that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic are all separate denominations within Judaism, but when distinguishing between different faiths, they are considered as one, just as Christian denominations are. The same is true with Sunni and Shia Muslims, and on and on. The US (though nominally) is more than 80% Christian. That fact that there is a representational disparity in favor of one denomination of Christianity, is a slight of hand that portrays Catholicism as a separate entity. You understand that the distinction is not a suitable comparison, but you continue to apply it. If Jews are overrepresented, which they are, just state the obvious. Many have brilliant minds, and are deserving of the position.

    I for one would not care one bit if the US Supreme Court consisted of nine Jewish constitutionalists, but those are few a far between.

    Replies: @Jack D, @JimDandy, @Abolish_public_education, @Paperback Writer

    Constitutionalists are few [&] far between, especially among legal professionals. I would sooner trust the first 9 names in the Boston phone directory ..

    But the institution of SCOTUS, as we’ve come to know it, is ridiculous anyhow. Reduce the court to its constitutional minimum of one American. Whoever objects to the idea can explain how the arbitrary number of nine [politically appointed, lifetime tenure protected lawyers] is so aromatic.

    To me, any number above 60M would constitute packing.

  264. @JimDandy
    @Jack D

    Maybe when Jussie Smollett's father first started threatening to kill anyone who called him white? I don't know, I'm just trying to help.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Joel Smollett is the Rachel Dolezal of the Jews. I don’t think that he represents a mainstream POV in the Jewish community of America. Does this look like the typical Jewish family to you?

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Jack D

    Commentary:

    No, Jews Aren’t White
    We’re our own thing, and whatever privilege we possess is conditional
    by Liel Leibovitz

    Replies: @Jack D

  265. @Jack D
    @Bernard

    This doesn't answer my question. As I said before, Catholics were traditionally suspected by American Nativists as much as if not more than the Jews (yes they were Christians but they followed a corrupt version of that religion that Jesus would have denounced). They answered to the Pope. They had dual loyalty. It was no mere sleight of hand - wars were fought over profound theological differences (just like Shia and Sunni fight wars with each other).

    But at some point things changed and they became okey dokey, nothing to worry about, etc. (just as you portray them) while the Jews didn't get that upgrade among the Nativist crowd. Why?

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    Catholics were traditionally suspected by American Nativists…But at some point things changed and they became okey dokey, nothing to worry about, etc. (just as you portray them) while the Jews didn’t get that upgrade among the Nativist crowd. Why?

    Because they assimilated as a group and came to love and respect America and her history, rather than constantly denigrating the “Nativists” (by which you mean Founding Stock Americans who didn’t want their country substantially changed)?

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @William Badwhite

    Yep to all that & see my comment to "Bernard" which anticipates what you wrote.

    Let me add this.

    Growing up, I never thought that being Jewish and being white were in conflict. I thought they were the same. (See Norman Podhoretz: My Negro Problem.) I grew up in an area that was ethnically quite mixed - but almost all white. Blacks lived over there. Don't remember Hispanics. There was a Chinese laundry.

    Jews were part of the white ethnic mix. Let's not complicate this. There was no anguishing, soul-searching stuff about which was more prominent. We were both. Like Italians and Irish were both. White and whatever.

    Later on, I learned that there were brown and black Jews and I learned to adjust to that mentally, but this wasn't part of my upbringing. So now I was an Ashkenazi Jew. OK. Whatever. But still, white. Which is true of most of us.

    Here's where it gets weird. In the last 10 or so years is seeing an elite Jewish "flight from white" which Steve has occasionally alluded to. This is entirely a hard-core elite thing and most Jews don't subscribe to it - yet - but let's see. The Jewish elite has a good track record of manufacturing consent. Those of us who don't like it can leave. And we do.

    , @Twinkie
    @William Badwhite

    Moreover, when the Protestant elite became degenerate, the military, the intelligence community, the law enforcement agencies all took in many Catholics into their ranks, because working-class Catholics tended to be patriotic, upright, and clean-living (roles that are now often taken over by the Mormons since many Catholics aren't so traditional anymore).

    Do you know in what important institution Jews are not overrepresented (indeed very underrepresented) in this country?

    The armed forces. Jews are about 2% of the country, but only about 0.2% of the military. Even Jewish officers have written articles about it, asking where fellow Jews are in the military in rather embarrassed tones. Not for nothing does Martin van Creveld, a noted Israeli military historian and theorist, calls diaspora Jews "men without chests."

    The British gentry class might have been haughty sons of bitches looking down on ordinary Brits, but they and their sons volunteered in huge numbers and died at higher rates than ordinary conscripts, leading their countrymen from the front with revolvers in their hands in World War I. A whole generation of British nobility was wiped out at Passchendaele.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @William Badwhite

    , @Thomm
    @William Badwhite

    Ann-O-Mite :

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/25b9ba593f7aec3bf46545cf514f8794eb3d3ebcef64bea1ae41743a12b10c70.jpg?w=800&h=924

  266. @Art Deco
    @Paperback Writer

    Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States.

    Your interlocutor doesn't know sh!t from apple butter. The share of the Ukraine's gross national income accounted for by exports bounces around a set point of 47%, so it is an unusually trade-dependent economy given its dimensions, population, and productive capacity. However, the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics indicates for the most recent year, the destination of exports by value was apportioned about as follows:


    China: 14.3%
    Poland: 6.6%
    Russia: 5.4%
    Turkey: 4.9%
    Germany: 4.2%
    India: 4.0%
    Italy: 3.9%
    Netherlands: 3.6%
    Egypt: 3.2%
    White Russia: 2.7%
    Hungary: 2.5%
    Spain: 2.5%
    Roumania: 2.2%
    United States: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.6%
    Other: 36%


    Sources of imports were apportioned about as follows:

    China: 15.5%
    Germany: 10%
    Russia: 8.5%
    Poland: 7.6%
    United States: 5.5%
    White Russia: 5.4%
    Germany: 4.5%
    Italy: 4%
    France: 2.8%
    Hungary: 2.3%
    Japan: 2.0%
    Czech Republic: 1.8%
    Switzerland: 1.9%
    Slovakia: 1.5%
    Lithuania: 1.5%
    Other: 27%


    And, of course, Pennsylvania does not have its own currency, its own central bank, or its own bourse. It doesn't have a customs inspectorate or an immigration inspectorate either.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @J.Ross

    Your interlocutor doesn’t know sh!t from apple butter.

    It was George Kennan. Would love to see you say this from your own name, in a reputable publication, saying that “Mr X” didn’t “know shit from apple butter.”

    In addition to being a pompous windbag, you don’t even bother to read the cites. He was speaking of Ukraine in 1951.

  267. Art Deco says: