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

 Remember My Information



=>

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

As I mentioned below, there’s a growing myth in 21st Century America that white Southerners sympathized with Hitler. In reality, the South was most anti-Nazi part of the country. Commenter CCZ finds for me the Nicholas Lemann passage I was trying to recall:

You are correct about Nicholas Lemann’s comments. They appeared in his September 26, 2013 NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson (Liveright, 706 pp.):

“As the South was turning away from solidarity with Roosevelt on domestic issues, Roosevelt’s own attention was turning to the coming of World War II—and there, in Katznelson’s telling, the South was completely supportive, far more so than the rest of the country. The dominant strain in the Republican Party in those days was isolationist, and, as Katznelson reminds us, the northern, urban wing of the Democratic Party included many Italian-Americans, German-Americans, and Irish-Americans who were skeptical about the war.

“The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—Adolf Hitler was a big fan of Gone With the Wind, and many prominent Nazis assumed that many in the South would find their racial views sympathetic, but they didn’t. The crucial steps before the Pearl Harbor attack that made the United States as prepared for the war as it was—including large increases in military spending, military aid to Great Britain, and the establishment of a draft—would all have been impossible without the enthusiastic backing of southerners in Congress. In return, the South got some assurances that the militarization of the United States would proceed in ways that did not threaten Jim Crow, such as the maintenance of segregated army units.”

Commenter Anonymouse2 cites an example of Southern bellicosity before Pearl Harbor brought the whole country around:

The Lend-Lease Act passed in March 1941 on a vote of 60-31. Only one Southern senator – Robert Reynolds of North Carolina – voted against it. Every other region of the country was much more divided – 5 of 12 New England senators voted against it, as did 3 of the 6 senators from the Left Coast.

Of course if you read the Wikipedia article on the Act it only discusses partisan differences in support (Democrats were much more supportive of Lend-Lease than Republicans), but makes no mention of regional ones.

Commenter Indiana Jack points to a Gallup Poll:

In January, 1941, almost a year before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question “Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do – to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?”

Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war.

Southerners were the most pro-England / anti-Germany with 76% agreeing that helping England win was more important than staying out of the war, while only 55% of Midwesterners prioritized England winning.

One contributing source to this growing myth of Southern sympathy for Hitler is Philip Roth’s 2004 bestseller The Plot Against America, an alternative history story in which aviator Charles Lindbergh, who was the son of a Swedish-American Republican Congressman, runs against FDR on an isolationist platform in the 1940 presidential election. From Wikipedia:

After making a surprise appearance on the last night of the 1940 Republican National Convention, [Lindbergh] is nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for President. Although criticized from the left, and hated by most Jewish-Americans, Lindbergh musters a strong tide of popular support from the South and Midwest … Lindbergh wins the election over incumbent president Franklin D. Roosevelt in a landslide under the slogan ‘Vote for Lindbergh, or vote for war.’ … With Lindbergh as president, the Roth family begin increasingly to feel like outsiders in American society.

… A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them. Philip’s brother Sandy is one of the boys selected, and after spending time on a farm in Kentucky he comes home showing contempt for his family, calling them ‘ghetto Jews.’ … Philip’s shy and innocent school friend Seldon Wishnow, an only child, is moved to Kentucky with his mother. In protest against the new act, radio broadcaster Walter Winchell openly criticizes the Lindbergh administration and is fired from his station. He then decides to run for President and begins a speaking tour. His candidacy causes anger and antisemitic rioting in southern and Midwestern states, and mobs begin targeting him. Making a speech in Louisville, Kentucky he is shot to death.

Boy, Roth really has it in for Kentucky.

Here’s Roth’s account of how Lindbergh wins:

The November election hadn’t even been close. Lindbergh got fifty-seven percent of the popular vote and, in an electoral sweep, car­ried forty-six states, losing only FDR’s home state of New York and, by a mere two thousand votes, Maryland, where the large population of federal office workers had voted overwhelmingly for Roo­sevelt while the president was able to retain—as he could nowhere else below the Mason-Dixon Line—the loyalty of nearly half the Democrats’ old southern constituency.

Roth’s notion that a Republican Swedish isolationist from Minnesota could have carried the Solid South against FDR in 1940 is just nuts. Here’s what happened in the South in this universe when Republican businessman Wendell Wilkie of Indiana ran against FDR:

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Democratic
Wendell Willkie
Republican
State electoral
votes
# % electoral
votes
# %
Mississippi 9 168,267 95.70 9 7,364 4.19
South Carolina 8 95,470 95.63 8 4,360 4.37
Louisiana 10 319,751 85.88 10 52,446 14.09
Alabama 11 250,726 85.22 11 42,184 14.34
Georgia 12 265,194 84.85 12 46,360 14.83
Texas 23 909,974 80.92 23 212,692 18.91
Arkansas 9 158,622 79.02 9 42,121 20.98
North Carolina 13 609,015 74.03 13 213,633 25.97
Florida 7 359,334 74.01 7 126,158 25.99
Virginia 11 235,961 68.08 11 109,363 31.55
Tennessee 11 351,601 67.25 11 169,153 32.35

FDR won at least two-thirds of the vote in every old Confederate state, with over 95% in hyper-Confederate South Carolina.

Kentucky was a Union state in the Civil War. In any case, FDR carried Kentucky with over 57% of the vote.

My impression is that the South has always been more pro-Semitic on the whole than the WASP North.

Here’s an interview today in the NYT with Roth, who has retired from writing novels but is approaching his 85th birthday in decent health. He has some eloquent things to say about the pleasures of being old but alive.

Not long ago he had a visit from David Simon, the creator of “The Wire,” who is making a six-part mini-series of “The Plot Against America,” and afterward he said he was sure his novel was in good hands.

In discussing his current reading, Roth praises Yuri Slezkine’s fine book:

“Pogrom” led me to find a recent book of interpretive history, Yuri Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century,” which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

 
Hide 504 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

    I’ve seen enough episodes of Welcome Back, Kotter to know that this is probably true.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    James Joyce: The Jewish century is a nightmare from which the goyim are trying to wake.
  2. I’m heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the “relevance” of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville’s “The Confidence-Man”.

    Roth was born in 1933, so he’s no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he’d have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don’t know how reliable I’d be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It’s worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn’t win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    • Replies: @anon
    Roth was born in 1933, so he’s no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he’d have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don’t know how reliable I’d be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    Or if, you know. You were deliberately trying to slander a group of people you considered to be your enemy.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Steven Wiesenburger, in his book on Gravity's Rainbow, suggested that Pynchon was influenced by The Confidence Man too:

    The literary precursors of this design, at least those that come most directly to mind, are Joyce's Ulysses and Melville's great satire, The Confidence Man. Both involve cyclical plots unfolding over exactly three-fourths of a solar year. And like Melville, Pynchon sets the decisive action of his book, the firing of Rocket 00000, on Easter/April Fool's. As in The Confidence Man, this one detail renders hopelessly equivocal any theme of salvation.
     

     
    , @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie's mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there's a line in the movie "Quiz Show" about her having been Wendell Wilkie's mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace's yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.
    , @guest
    Confidence-Man Masquerade may or may not be "relevant" (what politician isn't a confidence man? Is that book therefore perpetually in line with the times?), but it is Melville's second-worst novel. Not as bad as Pierre Ambiguities (though bear in mind I have an acute aversion to incest and incest-adjacent material), but bad.

    The problem with the book is really the way it's structured. The actual confidence man isn't much of a character, so you can't pull much relevance out of him. My guess is Roth thinks contemporary America is like a wild riverboat ride with a trickster running around pulling all of our legs.

    I submit the possibility that America isn't actually like that, and Roth--along with many others--is merely confused himself.
    , @DCThrowback
    If my memory serves, Willkie's campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government's "pump priming" during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called "The Forgotten Man".

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should've been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the "Good" war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html
  3. Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson…

    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.

    • Replies: @whorefinder

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude
     
    Voltaire said something along the lines that Jews have" most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched."

    In other words, long before the Holocaust was blamed on American whites (especially Southern whites), Voltaire noted that Jews tended to hate those who are kindest to them. Not for nothing to Jews constantly comment that Voltaire was anti-Semitic for noticing that.
    , @CCZ
    One of historian Katznelson's other books, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE, An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, presents his interpretation of 1930-1940s American racial history, an interpretation that Ta Neshi Coates invokes with his demand for reparations.

    From the NY Times book review:

    “Ira Katznelson, the Ruggles professor of political science and history at Columbia University, enters this fray with a provocative new book, "When Affirmative Action Was White," which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.”
     
    , @Dave Pinsen

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males
     
    Isn't this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II "the good war" and lionize the "Greatest Generation" that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army, and neither America nor Russia went out of its way to ameliorate the genocide. On the contrary, Russia initially facilitated it, by allying itself with Nazi Germany, and the U.S. closed its borders to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.
    , @Corvinus
    "The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude."

    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.
  4. Good thing they’re misrepresenting basic facts about WWII in the United States, I hear they jail you for that in Europe.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Naah, it's not that bad. They just jail you for asking too many questions.
  5. Roth’s bizarre fantasy is just like The NYT’s diligently “reporting” the Communist propaganda on the Ukraine famine in that it is all lies. Dead goy Durante still has a Pulitzer for this “reporting” and the Sulzbergers have never apologized.

  6. Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good job Snorlax. I was just going to say something--it needed an additional table cell inserted into the beginning of the first row.

    It's one heck of a table. Showing just how strongly partisan identification can bind people. Sorta scary.

    , @Steve Sailer
    Wow, thanks.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Why do you have two identical electoral vote columns?
  7. The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.’s and arguably America’s most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX’s ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.
    , @fnn
    The leading pro-Axis American intellectual of the pre-Pearl Harbor period was the mulatto Lawrence Dennis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Dennis
    , @Twodees Partain
    SOTT has an excerpt from Dave McGowan's book with his photos and text about the Murphy Ranch:

    https://www.sott.net/article/221499-Inside-The-LC-The-Strange-but-Mostly-True-Story-of-Laurel-Canyon-and-the-Birth-of-the-Hippie-Generation-Part-X
    , @Bliss

    The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.’s and arguably America’s most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive.
     
    Very interesting. Didn’t know about Paul R. Williams so googled him. A very creative architect who had a huge impact on his home town Los Angeles:

    https://www.npr.org/2012/06/22/155442524/a-trailblazing-black-architect-who-helped-shape-l-a

    A Trailblazing Black Architect Who Helped Shape L.A.

    Paul Revere Williams began designing homes and commercial buildings in the early 1920s. By the time he died in 1980, he had created some 2,500 buildings, most of them in and around Los Angeles, but also around the globe.

    His granddaughter, Karen E. Hudson, has been chronicling Williams' life and work for the past two decades. Her latest book, Paul R. Williams: Classic Hollywood Style, focuses on some of the homes of his celebrity clients. They feature many characteristics that were innovative when he used them in the 1920s through the '70s and are considered common practice now — like the patio as an extension of the house, and hidden, retractable screens.

    His work has come to signify glamorous Southern California to the rest of the country — and to the world. One of his hallmarks — a luxuriantly curving staircase — has captivated many a potential owner.

    Bret Parsons is head of the architectural division of John Aaroe Group, a Beverly Hills real estate brokerage handling multimillion-dollar properties. He says when Williams homes come up for sale, real estate agents scramble to get the listing. "They're gobbled up in seconds," he says. "They're an absolute pedigree for someone to have in their arsenal." Parsons says Williams homes posses grace, design and elegant proportions, which attracted people with money and taste.
  8. Philip K. Dick’s 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There’s a specific line about “connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else”, or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But I'd hold Roth, who is extremely sane, to a higher standard than Dick, who was a crazy man who accomplished a lot despite his severe troubles.
    , @whorefinder
    To the Jews, every goyim who complains about Jews---or even notices their activities---is deep down a Jew-hater allied with every other Jew-hater in a worldwide conspiracy to bring Auschwitz to every town in America. As a result, they must be brought low in public humiliation/prison time/torture/excommunication, or the Nazis will win!

    Jewish paranoia and sociopathy are a lethal combination....for Jews. Despite their high IQs, their paranoia about being hated and their sociopathic tendencies make them a lot more enemies than they would without it, and also lends them far fewer allies when non-Jews get really pissed at them.
    , @Bugg
    "The Man.." is far and away the most boring cable/Netflix major show ever produced. Plodding, ponderous garbage.But figure Simon working on Roth's alternate is going to top that.

    Robert Harris" "Fatherland" was way more plausible than either. Brits come to an armistice after a long hard losing slog without the US, Churchill gets dumped, the Duke of Windsor gets restored to the throne. And Joseph Kennedy, after his falling out with FDR, becomes president with an isolationist foreign policy.
  9. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    Roth was born in 1933, so he’s no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he’d have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don’t know how reliable I’d be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    Or if, you know. You were deliberately trying to slander a group of people you considered to be your enemy.

  10. @snorlax
    Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    Good job Snorlax. I was just going to say something–it needed an additional table cell inserted into the beginning of the first row.

    It’s one heck of a table. Showing just how strongly partisan identification can bind people. Sorta scary.

  11. Opinion polls from the time also confirm southern sympathy for Britain. Gallup conducted opinion polls on the subject during the early years of the war.

    In January, 1940, almost two years before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question “Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do – to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?”

    Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war. The “help England” position was supported by a majority of respondents in all parts of the country, but southerners were the most enthusiastic about helping the British war effort (people in the midwest were the least enthusiastic). Broken down by region, the percentages who thought that it was more important to help England, even if it risked the U.S. entering the war:

    New England 63%
    Middle Atlantic 63%
    East Central 55%
    West Central 55%
    South 76%
    West 66%

    http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @Barnard
    Gallup's analysis of the election is interesting also. Women were expected to vote for the more conservative candidate and it surprised Gallup they went for Roosevelt. I wonder if this election caused a permanent trend toward the Democrats among women.


    http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/FDR_1940_presidential_gallup_poll_information-pdf
  12. @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    Steven Wiesenburger, in his book on Gravity’s Rainbow, suggested that Pynchon was influenced by The Confidence Man too:

    The literary precursors of this design, at least those that come most directly to mind, are Joyce’s Ulysses and Melville’s great satire, The Confidence Man. Both involve cyclical plots unfolding over exactly three-fourths of a solar year. And like Melville, Pynchon sets the decisive action of his book, the firing of Rocket 00000, on Easter/April Fool’s. As in The Confidence Man, this one detail renders hopelessly equivocal any theme of salvation.

  13. Retconning History

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I hate to defend the odious Kennedy, but "lie" and "falsehood" obviously have very different meanings, as anyone with the most basic grasp of English knows. Obviously what Kennedy said turned out to be false, but his claims cannot honestly be called lies without evidence that Kennedy knew his claims were likely to be proven false. The world in 1965 was very different and it certainly would not have been unreasonable for Kennedy to have truly believed his claims, so to say that his claims were "lies" requires evidence.

    Retconning history is a deplorable practice that is certainly not limited to the left.

    One fact I rarely hear mentioned from immigration-skeptics is that the provisions of the act that encourage chain migration were originally intended in order to maintain the ethnic balance of the nation.
  14. @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie’s mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there’s a line in the movie “Quiz Show” about her having been Wendell Wilkie’s mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace’s yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.
    , @Whitehall
    The progressives tried to dent him with the short story "The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt" about a tryst on a long distance train.

    I still wear Brooks Brothers shirts..

    Wilkie also was a respected executive of a power company subsumed by TVA so he had some recognition in the South.

    Nowadays I wish that the segregationists had been smarter politically. They had a useful analysis of the social issues but only crude tools to cope.
  15. One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly “liberal” and “cosmopolitan,” in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people’s heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It’s always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @Thomas

    When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.
     
    A century of Hollywood movies rotted away most people’s ability to understand life or process complexity.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Apropos your point, is this (actually, pretty good) movie

    The Phenix City Story

    About the crime-busting reformer, John Patterson, who fought the criminal syndicate that controlled Phenix City and had tentacles stretching into the government of Alabama and the state's Democratic political machine.

    He was a good-government boy-scout-type politician that even yankees could be proud of.

    And he ran for governor of Alabama and won on a segregationist platform, defeating George Wallace, whom Patterson painted as soft on the issue.

    , @S. Anonyia
    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.
    , @Antlitz Grollheim
    Spot on.

    I think the major difference was seeing yourself as a historical person, being connected with your elderly and knowing second-hand the complexity of life. Being culturally literate in the morality plays of the Bible, Shakespeare, great literature. Humanist in the best sense.

    Most people today, OTOH, are actively severing themselves from all the ties that bind them to the past. They are totally unmoored in an eternal present, and the Narrative machine provides them with a new context for each issue to push them to precisely the correct conclusion.
    , @Bill

    it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.
     
    The movements for prohibition and suffrage weren't like SJW Twitter mobs?
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    Excellent post; many thanks.

    This is exactly the point of view I'm trying to Daughter C, i.e. that human nature -- in both its created-in-the-image-of-God glory, and its broken, skewed sinfulness -- is both constant and infinitely complex.
    , @Bubba
    Wonderful erudite comment. Thank you.
    , @utu

    people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs
     
    Excellent comment.
    , @JackOH
    Mr. Blank, I'll second the other replies here. Brilliant comment.

    I've heard those dreary, cartoonish, stick-figure views of people and peoples from high and low alike. Seems like education, travel, and so on need not necessarily have any power to modulate the world-as-MTV-video either, nor does lack of education bar many folks from holding generous, genuinely liberal, views of the world.

    Merle H., a West Virginia native and WWII combat veteran who'd served under Patton, had no problem openly saying the Germans under Hitler had genuine grievances, and that he was glad to have contributed to Hitler's defeat. Merle was a neighbor during my growing-up years in the 1960s. Contrariwise, you can find university-educated intersectionality commandos who can't make sense of the complexity many ordinary folks handle easily.
  16. @snorlax
    Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    Wow, thanks.

  17. Anonymous [AKA "Don John of Austria"] says:

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Mother Night" by Kurt Vonnegut contains a scene in which Hitler discusses the merits of Lincoln and ends up expressing concern that Lincoln may have been Jewish due to his first name. It's a little comical.

    One famous Jew in the Confederate cabinet was Judah Benjamin, the Secretary of Treasury. Somehow, the gold of the treasury vanished at the end of the war.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    GWTW depicts Melanie's baby being nursed by Prissie's mother, Dilcey. Nazis would consider this race pollution.
    The racism of the pre-War South was exploitive, but rarely murderous (pace Mrs. Stowe, but slaves were expensive), and often involved considerable mutual affection with house servants.
    , @The Man From K Street

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.
     
    As did every German nationalist at the time from Bismarck on down through the 20th century. The German right has always pretty much seen right through the whole moonlight-and-magnolias BS and deprecated the CSA as opposed to what they saw as the blood-and-iron national-conservative triumph of the Union.
    , @Jeremy Cooper

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.
     
    Where can I find this? I was interested so I got out my Kindle version of Main Kampf and searched for "Lincoln", "confederacy", and "United States" and found nothing on the civil war.
  18. @Indiana Jack
    Opinion polls from the time also confirm southern sympathy for Britain. Gallup conducted opinion polls on the subject during the early years of the war.

    In January, 1940, almost two years before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question "Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do - to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?"

    Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war. The "help England" position was supported by a majority of respondents in all parts of the country, but southerners were the most enthusiastic about helping the British war effort (people in the midwest were the least enthusiastic). Broken down by region, the percentages who thought that it was more important to help England, even if it risked the U.S. entering the war:

    New England 63%
    Middle Atlantic 63%
    East Central 55%
    West Central 55%
    South 76%
    West 66%

    http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

    Thanks.

  19. The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn’t tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    • Replies: @Millennial
    The founding myth of Massachusetts used to be fighting the Indians and the French.

    Pequot War
    King Philips War
    King Williams War
    Queen Anne's War
    Dummer's War
    King George's War
    French and Indian War

    Nearly a full century of either active frontier warfare or a frontier "cold war."

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.

    Of course, after mass immigration, WWII and the 1960s, generations of colonial New England frontier defenders simply became "witch-hunters" and "Nazis" - their battles likened to Einsatzgruppe actions, if remembered at all.

    , @LondonBob
    The North was the region that strongly opposed the War of 1812. Probably most relevant would be to look at the attitudes of oldline WASPs in the North rather than as a region as a whole.
    , @Thomas

    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States... Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.
     
    This was somewhat covered in David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, the coastal South was settled originally by South of England Cavaliers and gentry (and, later, by Northerners and Scots-Irish), while the North got Puritans and Quakers (and, much later, Germans). Also, Britain’s mills were the main customer for King Cotton, and Britain had been an arms supplier to the Confederacy (as much as anything could get past the Union blockade), so the South had a number of reasons to have been relatively pro-British.
    , @Art Deco
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have 'medieval worldviews' in your imagination only.



    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else's).
    , @Anonymous
    Ed Hood from Alabama, the Queen of Harvard Square for many years in the 60s, told me he was an anti-semite (his word) until he fell in love with Peter Wolfe of the Ed Geils band who married Faye Dunaway.

    Anecdote being the singular of data, that anecdote suggests a fair degree of inveterate jew hatred in the south in years past. Thoughtful commenters in these quarters deriving conclusions about how southerners didn't hate jews in the mid 20th century miss the mark because they weren't around then.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.
     
    Really. Can you give any examples? The founders of St. Grottlesex and various hunt clubs likely would have been surprised at your assertion.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English.
     
    Massachusetts, founded by the English, is a bit older than the American Revolution. See Millennial’s comment. The Massachusetts founding event that is most recognized and mythologized is the Plymouth Thanksgiving.

    P.S., For those to whom Yankee claims to Thanksgiving are a perennial perineal sore spot, read this past subthread. (#12… )

    , @peterike

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

     

    The key word there is "claim." What they are doing is lying, making it up. Jews of a certain generation really like playing up persecution fantasies and imaginary health problems (a different kind of persecution fantasy). It's that generation's version of virtue signaling.
    , @S. Anonyia
    Evangelical preachers are far from being medieval. It’s more like a mishmash of modern heresies, like an even less intellectual version of Mormonism. It’s true that they don’t know much about Jews but it’s more in the opposite direction, erring on the side of ridiculous near comical Philosemitism- drive through the rural upper South or Texas and you will see Israeli flags on the outside of churches and even occasionally homes. These people do everything short of worship Jews and Israel. They preach almost exclusively from the Old Testament and Revealations.
    , @Bill

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.
     
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Jews haven't met many Southerners, and the ones they've met are mostly happy to play into Jews' prejudices (c.f. the idiotic fantasies you mention about Southerners).
    , @Wade

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.
     
    I grew up in the south (the benighted Arkansas, no less) and was raised in a conservative Christian home. I can tell you with certainty that I have *never* heard any southerner suggest that, or ask whether or not, Jews have horns whether in jest or in ignorance. If anyone had ever made such a statement I can assure you that it would've been met with stares of disbelief and laughter directed at the speaker who suggested such a preposterous thing.
    , @Mr. Blank
    The handful of Jews I knew growing up in Alabama were culturally indistinguishable from white Protestants. They drove pickup trucks sporting Confederate flag stickers, owned guns, spoke with a drawl, listened to country music, voted Republican. Oh, and they could tell you all about their illustrious Confederate ancestors — they weren't the least bit ashamed of them.

    I didn't meet a classic "New York style" Jewish person until well into my 20s. Up until then, I wasn't sure they really existed outside of movies.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Michelangelo's statue of Moses, which is easily a top ten all time greatest statue, has horns. This probably has to do wit St. Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin. Early Christians understood that "horns" was supposed to be understood metaphorically to depict something like a halo or rays of light shining from Moses's head when he came down from Mt. Sinai, but in the last millennium the word chosen by Jerome started to be taken literally. But it was usually understood to be complimentary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)#Horns
  20. So, american south played an obedient shabbos goy to the international jewry to its own demise. After being literally raped at the instigation of the same, no less.

    If you see their belicosity through this lens, it becomes very clear why they were so anti-Hitler – he succeeded where they have failed.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    If you see their belicosity through this lens, it becomes very clear why they were so anti-Hitler – he succeeded where they have failed.
     
    Hitler failed on a colossal scale.
  21. @ivvenalis
    Philip K. Dick's 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There's a specific line about "connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else", or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    But I’d hold Roth, who is extremely sane, to a higher standard than Dick, who was a crazy man who accomplished a lot despite his severe troubles.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    bored identity always had a feeling that something's really rothen in Kentucky:
    Every. Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. Single.Time.

    Yet, Philip somehow manages not only to ride safely on his paranoia engined, retconquisling log flume aaaaaall the way through Splash Mountain* , but also to softly land his tribal tempered fiction-faction right into the briar's patch of lasting fame & glory - regardless of Slezkine's Confession of The Century.


    *BTW, Maurice Rapf , the same guy that was hired by Disney to niggle and fiddle with "Song of the South" script ( remember that video of fat mouse Gus with Phrygian cap hording shekels shiny, golden kernels of corn - that you censored last week... on a wimp ? ) was uncredited for his work on giving the character of Cinderella a spirit of class struggle.

    If Maurice was still to be among US, he would have a weekly column in any of Mother Washington Forward Globe Slate Wall publications, providing the perfect opportunity for industrious lamenting over the need for Kentuckian Bubba to understand what any Good War is really good for;

    In order to maintain Fake Pax Americana, it is again time for Cletus to voluntarilly get rid of a few budding twigs on his family tree.

    Because nothing screams, by echoes encased patriotism louder than a decent Southerner spilling his guts on Vladivostok's Mean Street while saving Private Gessen...


    ....Every. Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. Single.Time.



    https://youtu.be/6bWyhj7siEY
  22. @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn’t have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    http://blogs.kcrw.com/music/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Frank-Sinatra-reel-to-reel.jpg
    , @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.
    , @Clifford Brown
    On the larger commercial projects, Williams contributed as part of a team at his architectural firm, so again, there is no signature style. There is some debate about how much he contributed to the Theme Building for example.

    Tragically, Williams' business records (letters, drawings and contracts) were stored in Watts and destroyed in the Rodney King Riots.
  23. @J.Ross
    Good thing they're misrepresenting basic facts about WWII in the United States, I hear they jail you for that in Europe.

    Naah, it’s not that bad. They just jail you for asking too many questions.

  24. @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well, one thing leads to another. Any details catch your eye here?

    "Frank Sinatra's living room at Villa Maggio."

    https://wdcassets.blob.core.windows.net/images/content/203e0690-aac3-40ac-b6df-148450e9a7ce/vm_livingroom.jpg

    A later version of this same photo, from the same real-estate agency, replaces the blanket with a somewhat blander alternative.
    , @europeasant
    A rich man man like Sinatra had a lot of fancy and expensive audio/video equipment for his time. These days even the common man has affordable access to that and much more. 7.1 surround systems featuring dual 12" powered sub-woofers. 60 and 70 inch Hi-def screens, blue ray players, amplifiers delivering 100 watts to 7 surround speakers.
    But the high end of audio/video these days is insane.
  25. Roth, who is extremely sane . . .

    There is no such thing as an extremely sane novelist, or at least, not one who’s any good.

  26. When it comes to history, it pays for the left to be as ignorant as possible. Get them to start studying and investigating, and who knows how many leftist bromides might fall?

    For example, one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow to be heard in any medium; neither film nor TV nor debate. If someone raises it they are immediately blackballed and cut off. Then the Left says that all that caused Jim Crow was evil whitey/exploitation by the rich.

    Yet when you look at black violent crime rates and rioting and the actual tales of whites dealing with black misbehavior during the era—all of which sound startlingly familiar to tales today we can watch performed live on World Star Hip-Hop—Jim Crow starts to sound a lot more defensible and appealing and humane than the alternatives of letting whites be terrorized by black crime or having blacks be ethnically cleansed by angry whites.

    • Agree: Bubba, Bill
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    It's interesting to contemplate the origins of Jim Crow, since it was established first in Delaware, due to concerns that freed slaves would behave as badly as they were doing in South Carolina under the rule of the military occupation (euphemistically referred to as "Reconstruction") since Delaware was a slave state that didn't secede.

    Ironically, Delaware was the site of the last of the black riots of the "civil rights era".
    , @Luke Lea
    "one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow "

    I have no wish to defend Jim Crow but this does remind me of a recent article I read about the origins of white flight and the development of inner city ghettos in the north: https://devinhelton.com/why-urban-decay

    The writer argues (and attempts to document, I don't know how successfully) that high rates of black-on-white violence in northern cities preceded and drove the process.

    Separately, I think he also argues (unless I am getting him mixed up with another writer) that the ratio of black-to-white lynchings throughout the nation was roughly the same as the ratio of black to white rates of crime, suggesting that lynching may not have been driven by racial animus or discrimination, as is generally assumed, but rather by actual disparities in criminal behavior (which does not mean there were not miscarriages of vigilante justice, which, given the lack of due process, there must have been).

    I only report this because the information and the arguments are new to me. That said, I emphatically do NOT support legal segregation and would like to see the vote extended even to convicted felons of whatever race who have served their sentences. People who are free to walk on the streets and to work should have the right to vote, in my opinion, which is not the case in many places.

  27. @ivvenalis
    Philip K. Dick's 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There's a specific line about "connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else", or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    To the Jews, every goyim who complains about Jews—or even notices their activities—is deep down a Jew-hater allied with every other Jew-hater in a worldwide conspiracy to bring Auschwitz to every town in America. As a result, they must be brought low in public humiliation/prison time/torture/excommunication, or the Nazis will win!

    Jewish paranoia and sociopathy are a lethal combination….for Jews. Despite their high IQs, their paranoia about being hated and their sociopathic tendencies make them a lot more enemies than they would without it, and also lends them far fewer allies when non-Jews get really pissed at them.

  28. New York Times: Extremely Wealthy Old Jew Says Trump is a Nazi!

  29. @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    Confidence-Man Masquerade may or may not be “relevant” (what politician isn’t a confidence man? Is that book therefore perpetually in line with the times?), but it is Melville’s second-worst novel. Not as bad as Pierre Ambiguities (though bear in mind I have an acute aversion to incest and incest-adjacent material), but bad.

    The problem with the book is really the way it’s structured. The actual confidence man isn’t much of a character, so you can’t pull much relevance out of him. My guess is Roth thinks contemporary America is like a wild riverboat ride with a trickster running around pulling all of our legs.

    I submit the possibility that America isn’t actually like that, and Roth–along with many others–is merely confused himself.

  30. @Anonymous

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson...
     
    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction--Anglo-American White Males--have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.
     

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude

    Voltaire said something along the lines that Jews have” most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”

    In other words, long before the Holocaust was blamed on American whites (especially Southern whites), Voltaire noted that Jews tended to hate those who are kindest to them. Not for nothing to Jews constantly comment that Voltaire was anti-Semitic for noticing that.

  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    James Thompson has poked his head up with 4 new tweets and a retweet:

    He should know better than to try to win an argument with Twitter. Best advice: Shut up and it will blow over in two weeks.

    But he still has his position at University College London to worry about. I wonder if university administrators in the U.K. are as craven as they are in the United States? If so, he’s in trouble.

    There’s also this ominous exchange from last week:

    “Planning to organize a conference this year?” (right-wing English comic)
    “Yes, that’s right.” (Thompson)
    “No, you won’t” (Oberlin alumnus now in London at UCL pursuing degree in philosophy or something)

    I assume that Dr. Thompson is looking for an off-campus venue that can hold a few dozen people, would have reasonable security, and would not be intimidated by wild protestors screaming “Nazis.”

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    http://blogs.kcrw.com/music/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Frank-Sinatra-reel-to-reel.jpg

    Well, one thing leads to another. Any details catch your eye here?

    “Frank Sinatra’s living room at Villa Maggio.”

    A later version of this same photo, from the same real-estate agency, replaces the blanket with a somewhat blander alternative.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe Sinatra was into Judaism and Buddhism.

    I'm wondering if Japanese map makers will replace the reverse swastikas that indicate temples with some other symbol before Tokyo 2020. They're already starting to do away with a bunch of map and signage symbols that are considered insufficiently international, like the onsen hot springs symbol.
  33. Previously, Roth commented on “Plot” and Trump in the January 30, 2017 New Yorker, in the article “Roth on Trump.”

    Many passages in “The Plot Against America” echo feelings voiced today by vulnerable Americans—immigrants and minorities as alarmed by Trump’s election as the Jews of Newark are frightened by Lindbergh’s. The book also chronicles their impulse of denial. Lindbergh’s election makes clear to the seven-year-old “Philip Roth” that “the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything. Turned wrong way around, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as ‘History,’ a harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

    Asked if this warning has come to pass, Roth e-mailed, “My novel wasn’t written as a warning. I was just trying to imagine what it would have been like for a Jewish family like mine, in a Jewish community like Newark, had something even faintly like Nazi anti-Semitism befallen us in 1940, at the end of the most pointedly anti-Semitic decade in world history. I wanted to imagine how we would have fared, which meant I had first to invent an ominous American government that threatened us. As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”

    Maybe Roth’s outlook has been “enhanced” by reading Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter (The History of White People, 2011), and Bruce Springsteen.

    From “Philip Roth calls Trump ‘a massive fraud,’ talks about Springsteen book” in NJ.Com, by Amy Kuperinsky, January 16, 2018:

    “Since he’s not writing, Roth, who currently lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, spends his time reading, seeing friends, going to concerts, watching movies and checking email. Among his recent reads are works by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter, Edmund Morgan, Teju Cole, Stephen Greenblatt, and Bruce Springsteen.”

    Regarding black historian Painter writing about “White People”: “Among the topics Painter discusses are the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life, the racialization of intelligence and of political beliefs, and the relationship between race and conceptions of female beauty.” [Wiki]

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”
     
    It's true you know. Nuclear catastrophes are bad for Jews and other living things.
    , @guest
    I know Trump as Nazi is a Thing, of course, but why are they bothering Philip Roth about it? Has there been an uptick in sales of Plot Against America since the '16 election? Were enough journalists spontaneously reminded of the book? Or are they simply bothering everyone for their opinion, and Roth is next on the list?

    Bush the Younger of course was compared to Hitler, and I recall the Handmaid's Tale coming up in connection with him. Probably because he was born-again in addition to being Hitler. Itt has re-emerged under Trump, but that's a coincidence. The t.v. show had to be in the works while Hilary was still inevitable.

    It Can't Happen Here I remember being brought up under Bush II, but not the Plot Against America. Is there a specific Lindbergh connection, because he and Trump are both from outside politics? Is there a hope abroad that Trump could up and fly away, and we could go back to normal?

    Sales of Atlas Shrugged soared in 2008, not because of Obama specifically but because of the economic meltdown and the bipartisan response to it. Has there been a response to Trump like that anywhere, Plot Against America-related or otherwise?

  34. I find this strange Myth of Southern Anti-Semitism in the case of Leo Frank, which incidentally led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League. Much like BLM launched off of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    There actually was injustice in the Frank case. He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury. But he was also pardoned (on who knows what grounds), and should not have been subsequently lynched. Still, I don’t consider the lynching of a guilty man crime enough to merit endless nonsense about the plight of you-know-who.

    Part of the Frank Mythos is the idea that racists white racist Southern racists went after Frank because racism. Which is borne out by the long history of anti-semitism in the South that actually doesn’t exist. Or at least not in comparison to the rest of the country.

    Southerners have the reputation of being “backwards” and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That’s the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Speaking of that particular minority group, the authorities could’ve pinned the murder on a black janitor. He was the only other suspect. Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury.

    He wasn't. Frank effectively had to demonstrate his innocence by accounting for every minute of his time during the late morning and early afternoon that day, which of course he couldn't do because no one similarly situated could. He was convicted on the testimony of one very disreputable character. (Contradicted many decades later by another factory employee).
    , @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).
  35. I have relatives from both sides of the Mason Dixon, and the Southern ones are much more pro-Jewish than the northern ones. I can’t imagine them being pro-German in the war; Germans were the enemy in WWI and that attitude still carried weight in the South.

    I swear, some people don’t get out and meet enough people.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

  36. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts used to be fighting the Indians and the French.

    Pequot War
    King Philips War
    King Williams War
    Queen Anne’s War
    Dummer’s War
    King George’s War
    French and Indian War

    Nearly a full century of either active frontier warfare or a frontier “cold war.”

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.

    Of course, after mass immigration, WWII and the 1960s, generations of colonial New England frontier defenders simply became “witch-hunters” and “Nazis” – their battles likened to Einsatzgruppe actions, if remembered at all.

  37. @EvolutionistX
    I have relatives from both sides of the Mason Dixon, and the Southern ones are much more pro-Jewish than the northern ones. I can't imagine them being pro-German in the war; Germans were the enemy in WWI and that attitude still carried weight in the South.

    I swear, some people don't get out and meet enough people.

    Philip Roth’s ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn’t fun at all. He’d write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I’m giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy’s Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

     

    Roth might be an expert on all things Jewish in Newark, New Jersey, or the Eastern portion of northern New Jersey, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's an expert on the northern half of New Jersey.

    Northwestern New Jersey is mostly White and mostly Christian. Unfortunately, there is now an Asian and Mestizo invasion underway. New Jersey is one of the states that must be reclaimed by White Core American Patriots when the time comes.

    OFF TOPIC

    FELDSTEIN FORECASTS FLOP FOR STOCKS

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-are-headed-for-a-fall-1516145624
    , @guest
    My experience of Roth is entirely from his second-act: Plot Against America, American Pastoral, Indignation. I tried reading Portnoy but couldn't get into it. It made me feel gross. Indignation was too much about hand-jobs, but at least I didn't feel gross.

    American Pastoral, on the other hand, was to much about the manufacture of gloves. Which I didn't find all that interesting a topic.
    , @Benjaminl

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.
     
    Perhaps in second place, after The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_in_Dedham_for_Apprehending_Horse_Thieves
  38. @Anonymous

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson...
     
    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction--Anglo-American White Males--have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.
     

    One of historian Katznelson’s other books, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE, An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, presents his interpretation of 1930-1940s American racial history, an interpretation that Ta Neshi Coates invokes with his demand for reparations.

    From the NY Times book review:

    “Ira Katznelson, the Ruggles professor of political science and history at Columbia University, enters this fray with a provocative new book, “When Affirmative Action Was White,” which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson’s principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Harry Truman’s Fair Deal in the 1930’s and 1940’s. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans — judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960’s.”

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960′s.”
     
    Let's see, the '60s ended in 1970....and 1970 was 48 years ago.....Which means that we've had 48 years of Black affirmative action, as opposed to only 30 years of White affirmative action.....
    , @Anonymous
    Thank you. There are in fact several such books out lately, explaining how FDR's policies were actually about holding down the Black Man, and need to be compensated for today over and above all the compensation we've been engaged in for fifty years. Each and every one of these books is lauded in the Establishment Media (NPR, NYT etc) and every single one was written by a FWP tribeman. They are busy helping to lay the groundwork for dispossession.

    'Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.'

    Rothstein gives this passage the appearance of a syllogism, but it is actually an assertion.


    https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

  39. From the NYT interview with Roth:

    There is a cameo of Virginia Woolf in all her terrifying genius and there are especially gripping pages about the initial evening meeting in badly bombarded Leningrad in 1945 with the magnificent Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, when she was in her 50s, isolated, lonely, despised and persecuted by the Soviet regime. Berlin writes, “Leningrad after the war was for her nothing but a vast cemetery, the graveyard of her friends. … The account of the unrelieved tragedy of her life went far beyond anything which anyone had ever described to me in spoken words.” They spoke until 3 or 4 in the morning. The scene is as moving as anything in Tolstoy.

    Anna Akhmatova comes up in Antony Beevor’s book about the fall of Berlin:

    • Replies: @Parsifal
    As pointless bloodshed goes Dresden takes the cake. And Ehrenburg is hardly worse than US anti-Japanese propaganda.
    , @inertial
    Beevor has to be taken with a grain of salt. His books are Cold War propaganda (and are banned in modern Russia.) Even that little quote that you give about the Soviets "stoking the desire for vengeance" is full of half truths, omissions, and highly questionable "facts."
  40. @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    I’ve never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    It’s been said that President McKinley leaned slightly Anglophobe, while Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson were undoubtedly Anglophile. Seen in that light, McKinley’s assassination may have been the single most influential event of the 20th century.
    , @Anonymous

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark.
     
    Their best propagandist was Alfred Hitchcock.

    e.g.

    Foreign Correspondent

    The Lady Vanishes (a tad oblique)

    Saboteur

    Shadow of a Doubt (a tad oblique)

    Lifeboat

    The Fighting Generation

    Notorious (even after the war was over....Nazis!)

    , @Barnard
    There were a number of Northern WASP families who had daughters that married into British nobility. Winston Churchill's mother is the most famous example.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    David Niven always got on my nerves when I watched him in a movie. James Mason was better, he checked out of everybody's program; maybe because he was an aloof Yorkshireman.
    , @Luke Lea

    I’ve never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.
     
    Well, there was the English language. Shared history. Literature.
  41. @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    The leading pro-Axis American intellectual of the pre-Pearl Harbor period was the mulatto Lawrence Dennis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Dennis

  42. “Roth really has it in for Kentucky. ”

    A common theme, Al Capp’s Lil Abner takes place in two backward places Dogpatch KY and Lower Slobbovia Eastern Europe Russia.

    The South voted consistently D until Nixon because the Rs burned Atlanta to the ground while singing “Marching through Georgia”. Harding did surprisingly well in the South.

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    re: Al Capp’s Lil Abner

    There's something we haven't talked about! Hilarious stereotypes that you would think would be as un-pc as blackface and minstrel shows. Though I'm glad it isn't.

    Lincoln, America's first stand-up comedian, was once in conversation with his black washerwoman, who was complaining about some indignity or other connected with being a black person in Springfield. He told that he himself had come from what was colloquially known as white trash — adding he had to admit that some of them were "pretty trashy."

    Where would comedy be without stereotypes? I submit there is something wholesomely healthy about stereotypes, even (or perhaps especially) for the groups being satirized. Let's hear it for more Jewish jokes!

    I say this as a Southern white Protestant male (and yes I did go barefoot to school, at least once).

  43. Not surprisingly, the South was the only part of the country without a chapter of the America First Committee.

  44. but Roth is a great man of sorts

    A great man who wrote about whacking his pee pee five times a day.
    Now eats salad three times a day, hoping this pointless exercise gives him two more years until he finally gets bent over and buggered by the barbed baloney of Beelzebub. 🙂

  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Well, one thing leads to another. Any details catch your eye here?

    "Frank Sinatra's living room at Villa Maggio."

    https://wdcassets.blob.core.windows.net/images/content/203e0690-aac3-40ac-b6df-148450e9a7ce/vm_livingroom.jpg

    A later version of this same photo, from the same real-estate agency, replaces the blanket with a somewhat blander alternative.

    Maybe Sinatra was into Judaism and Buddhism.

    I’m wondering if Japanese map makers will replace the reverse swastikas that indicate temples with some other symbol before Tokyo 2020. They’re already starting to do away with a bunch of map and signage symbols that are considered insufficiently international, like the onsen hot springs symbol.

  46. Nothing to do with Jews, the South was still dominated by the original British settler groups, they loved fighting, had an emphasis on honour and felt a strong kinship with Britain.

  47. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The North was the region that strongly opposed the War of 1812. Probably most relevant would be to look at the attitudes of oldline WASPs in the North rather than as a region as a whole.

  48. We also can’t forget the impact of Hollywood causing this.

    Movies and TV are extremely influential on the human mind, more so than print. And Hollywood for years has churned out a steady diet of Nazis-as-bad-guys and Klan-as-bad-guys films because of the various needs of the times:

    Nazi films: Holocaust guilt reasons, celebration of WW2 vets to make money, need of white actors to play villains, etc.

    Klan films: pushing integration, making blacks into saints, explaining black crime away, etc.

    It’s unsurprising that as of today, these two separate histories are being conflated, because the movies/TV shows are so embedded in our culture that they’ve amalgamated in many minds.

    Think of how many people believe Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were innocents wrongly gunned down. Our media effects our minds.

    It’s unsurprising that people would start to seriously conflate the South and the Nazis after they’ve been the go-to bad guys in film since the 1940s.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Behold the results:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcXuafe2y-Y
  49. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    A century of Hollywood movies rotted away most people’s ability to understand life or process complexity.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    True. Some movies do a good job evoking what the past may have been like - at least giving some indication of it. But they are no way to learn history.
  50. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States… Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    This was somewhat covered in David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, the coastal South was settled originally by South of England Cavaliers and gentry (and, later, by Northerners and Scots-Irish), while the North got Puritans and Quakers (and, much later, Germans). Also, Britain’s mills were the main customer for King Cotton, and Britain had been an arms supplier to the Confederacy (as much as anything could get past the Union blockade), so the South had a number of reasons to have been relatively pro-British.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Cavaliers in Virginia and the Carolinas were always pro-British. The Revolution in the South was also a concurrent civil war between the Tory Cavaliers and the Patriot Scots-Irish with the turning point at King's Mountain. If Ferguson hadn't trash-talked the rednecks the Revolution would have failed. After Yorktown, the most fervent Tories became Canadians. If you order iced tea in Toronto it comes sweetened, just like down south.
  51. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    Apropos your point, is this (actually, pretty good) movie

    The Phenix City Story

    About the crime-busting reformer, John Patterson, who fought the criminal syndicate that controlled Phenix City and had tentacles stretching into the government of Alabama and the state’s Democratic political machine.

    He was a good-government boy-scout-type politician that even yankees could be proud of.

    And he ran for governor of Alabama and won on a segregationist platform, defeating George Wallace, whom Patterson painted as soft on the issue.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.
  52. @Thomas

    When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.
     
    A century of Hollywood movies rotted away most people’s ability to understand life or process complexity.

    True. Some movies do a good job evoking what the past may have been like – at least giving some indication of it. But they are no way to learn history.

  53. One contributing source to this growing myth of Southern sympathy for Hitler is Philip Roth’s 2004 bestseller The Plot Against America, an alternative history story in which aviator Charles Lindbergh, who was the son of a Swedish-American Republican Congressman, runs against FDR on an isolationist platform in the 1940 presidential election.

    Imagine the chutzpah involved in that: writing a book about Americans running around being Americans, doing american things, and calling it “The Plot Against America”.

    • LOL: utu
  54. @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie's mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there's a line in the movie "Quiz Show" about her having been Wendell Wilkie's mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace's yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.

    Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.

    • Replies: @prosa123
    "Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie."

    A train trip was Willkie's undoing. In September 1944, while riding a train from Indiana to New York, he suffered a heart attack as it passed through western Pennsylvania. He disregarded the pleas of his companions to get off in Pittsburgh and go to a hospital and instead insisting on going all the way to New York. Although he went straight to the hospital from the train station he died within a few weeks.

  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life

    This observation seems to be considered a big gotcha by the left, but they fail to consider that by “assimilate” it is meant that they married and procreated with the previous white clan such that the admixture became absolutely complete, irreversible, and mostly invisible to most whites. Whatever the older white clan genome was, it no longer is the same. This has never been the case with black Americans.

  56. @Dave Pinsen
    From the NYT interview with Roth:

    There is a cameo of Virginia Woolf in all her terrifying genius and there are especially gripping pages about the initial evening meeting in badly bombarded Leningrad in 1945 with the magnificent Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, when she was in her 50s, isolated, lonely, despised and persecuted by the Soviet regime. Berlin writes, “Leningrad after the war was for her nothing but a vast cemetery, the graveyard of her friends. … The account of the unrelieved tragedy of her life went far beyond anything which anyone had ever described to me in spoken words.” They spoke until 3 or 4 in the morning. The scene is as moving as anything in Tolstoy.
     
    Anna Akhmatova comes up in Antony Beevor's book about the fall of Berlin:

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/953544159616471040

    As pointless bloodshed goes Dresden takes the cake. And Ehrenburg is hardly worse than US anti-Japanese propaganda.

    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    Indeed. I remember right after I got married my new brother-in-law gave me an "inspiring, patriotic" book to read, "God is My Co-pilot" by Robert L. Scott. I indeed found it to be a wonderful, inspiring story, that is until I got to the part where Scott puts in his two-minutes of hate against the Japanese.

    As a boomer raised on the myth of the good war, a myth that at the time I still believed and followed, I still found the anti-Japanese screed in his book rather off-putting, and any time I read about or read quotes from Ehrenburg, I'm reminded of Scott's over the top hate which makes the title of his otherwise inspiring book almost into blasphemy.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Pretty much all the strategic bombing in 1945 was pointless bloodshed.

    As Beevor notes (quoting some astonishing stats from a speech by Speer in January, 1945), the strategic bombing did nothing to stop Germany from producing armaments. It's main impact on the war effort was in wearing down the Luftwaffe, and there wasn't much left of German airpower in 1945.

    There was a book by a German historian, Jörg Friedrich, on the scope of the allied bombing of Germany in World War II, particularly in the last few months: The Fire.


    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/952081937816084480
  57. @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats knew all about Wendell Wilkie's mistress, a bright lady who was the book reviewer for the Republican paper in New York. She was a Van Doren, and there's a line in the movie "Quiz Show" about her having been Wendell Wilkie's mistress.

    The Republicans, however, knew all about Democratic vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace's yogi, so they made a deal not to mention either one.

    The progressives tried to dent him with the short story “The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt” about a tryst on a long distance train.

    I still wear Brooks Brothers shirts..

    Wilkie also was a respected executive of a power company subsumed by TVA so he had some recognition in the South.

    Nowadays I wish that the segregationists had been smarter politically. They had a useful analysis of the social issues but only crude tools to cope.

  58. @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    It’s been said that President McKinley leaned slightly Anglophobe, while Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson were undoubtedly Anglophile. Seen in that light, McKinley’s assassination may have been the single most influential event of the 20th century.

  59. “Pogrom” led me to find a recent book of interpretive history, Yuri Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century,” which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

    I believe this is true. Contrary to the (very powerful) Holocaust-victimology industry, I think it’s more accurate to say that the Jews actually won World War II (despite having an obviously high casualty rate).

    Jews were disproportionately influential in the three countries that defeated the Third Reich — Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. And while their archenemy Hitler failed to achieve his German ethnostate and had his country divided up and occupied by the victors, the Jews finally got their Promised Land after two thousand years of stateless exile, thanks to the Balfour Declaration and the UN ( and the deaths of a lot of Joes, Tommies and Ivans).

    Holocaust casualties aside, the Jews actually ended up doing pretty well for themselves during the 20th century… and they remain firmly in control of the important institutions in the U.S. in the 21st.

  60. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CCZ
    Previously, Roth commented on “Plot” and Trump in the January 30, 2017 New Yorker, in the article “Roth on Trump.”

    Many passages in “The Plot Against America” echo feelings voiced today by vulnerable Americans—immigrants and minorities as alarmed by Trump’s election as the Jews of Newark are frightened by Lindbergh’s. The book also chronicles their impulse of denial. Lindbergh’s election makes clear to the seven-year-old “Philip Roth” that “the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything. Turned wrong way around, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as ‘History,’ a harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

    Asked if this warning has come to pass, Roth e-mailed, “My novel wasn’t written as a warning. I was just trying to imagine what it would have been like for a Jewish family like mine, in a Jewish community like Newark, had something even faintly like Nazi anti-Semitism befallen us in 1940, at the end of the most pointedly anti-Semitic decade in world history. I wanted to imagine how we would have fared, which meant I had first to invent an ominous American government that threatened us. As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”
     
    Maybe Roth's outlook has been “enhanced” by reading Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter (The History of White People, 2011), and Bruce Springsteen.

    From “Philip Roth calls Trump 'a massive fraud,' talks about Springsteen book” in NJ.Com, by Amy Kuperinsky, January 16, 2018:

    “Since he's not writing, Roth, who currently lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, spends his time reading, seeing friends, going to concerts, watching movies and checking email. Among his recent reads are works by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter, Edmund Morgan, Teju Cole, Stephen Greenblatt, and Bruce Springsteen.”
     
    Regarding black historian Painter writing about “White People”: “Among the topics Painter discusses are the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life, the racialization of intelligence and of political beliefs, and the relationship between race and conceptions of female beauty.” [Wiki]

    As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”

    It’s true you know. Nuclear catastrophes are bad for Jews and other living things.

  61. @eah
    Retconning History

    https://twitter.com/westland_will/status/953514951561297920

    I hate to defend the odious Kennedy, but “lie” and “falsehood” obviously have very different meanings, as anyone with the most basic grasp of English knows. Obviously what Kennedy said turned out to be false, but his claims cannot honestly be called lies without evidence that Kennedy knew his claims were likely to be proven false. The world in 1965 was very different and it certainly would not have been unreasonable for Kennedy to have truly believed his claims, so to say that his claims were “lies” requires evidence.

    Retconning history is a deplorable practice that is certainly not limited to the left.

    One fact I rarely hear mentioned from immigration-skeptics is that the provisions of the act that encourage chain migration were originally intended in order to maintain the ethnic balance of the nation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's hard to know anything at all about Teddy Kennedy and believe that the accuracy (or not) of his statement was anything more or less than a political calculation.
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark.

    Their best propagandist was Alfred Hitchcock.

    e.g.

    Foreign Correspondent

    The Lady Vanishes (a tad oblique)

    Saboteur

    Shadow of a Doubt (a tad oblique)

    Lifeboat

    The Fighting Generation

    Notorious (even after the war was over….Nazis!)

  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas

    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States... Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.
     
    This was somewhat covered in David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, the coastal South was settled originally by South of England Cavaliers and gentry (and, later, by Northerners and Scots-Irish), while the North got Puritans and Quakers (and, much later, Germans). Also, Britain’s mills were the main customer for King Cotton, and Britain had been an arms supplier to the Confederacy (as much as anything could get past the Union blockade), so the South had a number of reasons to have been relatively pro-British.

    The Cavaliers in Virginia and the Carolinas were always pro-British. The Revolution in the South was also a concurrent civil war between the Tory Cavaliers and the Patriot Scots-Irish with the turning point at King’s Mountain. If Ferguson hadn’t trash-talked the rednecks the Revolution would have failed. After Yorktown, the most fervent Tories became Canadians. If you order iced tea in Toronto it comes sweetened, just like down south.

  64. My mother was born in segregated South Carolina. To quote her, “we didn’t sit around all day waving Rebel flags …. We were poor and had a life to live. It wasn’t perfect but it was better than today.”

    A few other points about the Old South, Jews, and Hitler’s racial philosophy-

    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis. You’re never going to hear anything about him from any Jewish group or academics. Overwhelming numbers of less prominent Southern Jews put on uniforms and fought as infantrymen alongside their neighbors in the Confederate Army, and at a much higher rate than their Northern cousins percentage of population that joined the Union Army.

    An entire book has been written-
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1570033633/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1570033633

    Southerners are overwhelmingly descendants of English, Scots and Northern Irish. English support helped the Confederate States fight the war, importing weapons and buying Southern cotton, and building Confederate warships in Liverpool. Is it any wonder that 80 years later Southerners would feel more disposed to their ancestral and cultural homeland than others?

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them. Southerners also didn’t consider other white ethnic groups worthy of enslavement, such as the Germans did to Slavic people in Eastern Europe.

    • Replies: @Dr. X

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them.
     
    This is a very important and worthy point. Southerners never believed that Negroes should be eradicated en masse because Southerners they were Christians. Although they believed Negroes were inferior, all they really wanted was to be left alone from the depredations of jungle behavior.

    Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages, European Christians held the same views toward Jews: that Jews were morally corrupt but nonetheless worthy of God's grace, and this forbid the massacre and extermination of the Jews.

    To the contrary, Hitler, as a Darwinist and a neo-pagan, had no such limitations.

    The supposed equivalence between Southern segregationists and Nazis is largely a fantasy perpetrated by Hollywood Jews and the $PLC.
    , @Gringo
    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis.

    Judah Benjamin was also the first US Senator of the Jewish faith. David Yulee, his second cousin, had been a US Senator before Judah Benjamin, but Yulee had converted to Christianity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Benjamin
  65. Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.

    • Replies: @njguy73

    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.
     
    Care to provide a link?
    , @Anonymous
    This adds important context. The British and French empires were indeed quintessential white supremacist organizations. Many African and Asian nationalists in the 1930s and 40s admired Hitler for standing up to both.
  66. “A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them.”

    This is literally the most uninformed thing I’ve ever seen.

    Lessee, let’s rewrite this just for fun:

    “A new government program begins to take black boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them.”

    There’s kind of a point you reach, at least I imagine most people reach.

    And that point is: “These people are supposed to be smart? Really? They’re rich, they get talked about. Everyone says they’re smart. But how did all this happen? I’m not seeing it.”

  67. @snorlax
    Steve: I fixed the formatting on the election results table here.

    Why do you have two identical electoral vote columns?

  68. Does the book mention Dwight Morrow? The former Ambassador to Mexico and US Senator from New Jersey was Lindbergh’s father in law.

    • Replies: @flip
    And JPMorgan partner.
  69. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only.

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else’s).

    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    Thanks for that. Most Southerners haven't met many Jews, it's true, and rarely think about them, in spite of their presence on TV and in the movies. When they do think about Jews, they generally think about Old Testament Jews, and I can attest they think of them as ancestors of sort. 99.9% of Evangelical preachers are Christian Zionists.
    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century, with significant communities in Camden and Charleston. Charleston had the largest Jewish community in the US until abut 1830, when it was finally eclipsed by New York City. Almost all SC Jews are Sephardic, and while they are very well recorded, they are generally quiet. For instance, I was an adult before I discovered that FDR's "Ambassador at Large," Bernhard Baruch, was born and raised in Camden. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and rode with the KKK during Reconstruction. Ben Bernanke is a descendant of Baruch, and also from Camden.
    The Low Country of South Carolina is very, very German. My mother's family is almost entirely German. Charleston itself was settled from Barbados, not Britain. The old blue bloods there are of English and French descent. The Upstate was settled primarily by the Scotch Irish and Welsh, with some Palatine Germans as well. Dr. Walter Edgar identified 38 different ethnicities among the founding stock of SC. I don't think ancestry had anything much to do with Southern support for Britain in the war, so much as a perception of kinship, perhaps.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only

    Medieval is an unfortunate word, you are right. Medieval Christian theologians were often brilliant and insightful. Evangelicals almost never are, although the myth about Jews having horns has a medieval pedigree.
  70. @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    There were a number of Northern WASP families who had daughters that married into British nobility. Winston Churchill’s mother is the most famous example.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    Jerome Avenue is a major thoroughfare in the Bronx and is named for Churchill's grandfather. It takes you to Yankee Stadium.
  71. @TGGP
    I'm heartened that Roth does not follow the usual media routine about the "relevance" of whatever old work is being revisited, instead pointing to Herman Melville's "The Confidence-Man".

    Roth was born in 1933, so he's no Baby Boomer, and one might have hoped he'd have a better recollection of how things were back then. But then I don't know how reliable I'd be on the regional politics of the country when I was seven.

    It's worth noting how close Wendell Wilkie was to FDR, as he later campaigned in support of his foreign policy. I once compared Trump to Wilkie, assuming Trump (as a complete political novice) couldn't win. Wilkie would seem to be a candidate for conspiracy theories about one party being captured by forces loyal to the other, since he was a former Democrat with no real political experience who subsequently sided with his opponent.

    If my memory serves, Willkie’s campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government’s “pump priming” during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called “The Forgotten Man”.

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should’ve been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the “Good” war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html

    • Replies: @guest
    We were a decade into the Depression by the time of that election, the "revolution within the form" had been pulled off by the FDR boys and probably wasn't going anywhere. The war was by far the most important issue. Just look how it dominated the rest of the century. Heck, the rest of our lives. We still talk about it constantly.
    , @David In TN
    Toward the end of the 1940 campaign, Willkie was saying things like "If Roosevelt wins the boys will be on the troop transports."

    After the election Willkie supported FDR's foreign policy and dismissed the above as "campaign oratory."
  72. Anonymous [AKA "Swedish_reader"] says:

    I have no idea why Steve feels obligated to go out of his way to cuck for a a person (Roth) who has demonised Steve’s group of people all his life. Roth is not ‘extremely sane’. He’s a typical neurotic Jew with a massive inferiority complex towards Anglos.

    As someone said, no group did more to help Jews than white Anglo-Americans and how did Jews repay that debt? By demonising them and their people nonstop. And yet Steve can’t shake that habit of constantly turning the other cheek. It’s pathetic to watch.

    • Replies: @David
    It's interesting how often a comment would have been 10 times better if the last sentence were left off. It's true of my comments way too often, so I'm not casting stones.
  73. @Art Deco
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have 'medieval worldviews' in your imagination only.



    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else's).

    Thanks for that. Most Southerners haven’t met many Jews, it’s true, and rarely think about them, in spite of their presence on TV and in the movies. When they do think about Jews, they generally think about Old Testament Jews, and I can attest they think of them as ancestors of sort. 99.9% of Evangelical preachers are Christian Zionists.
    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century, with significant communities in Camden and Charleston. Charleston had the largest Jewish community in the US until abut 1830, when it was finally eclipsed by New York City. Almost all SC Jews are Sephardic, and while they are very well recorded, they are generally quiet. For instance, I was an adult before I discovered that FDR’s “Ambassador at Large,” Bernhard Baruch, was born and raised in Camden. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and rode with the KKK during Reconstruction. Ben Bernanke is a descendant of Baruch, and also from Camden.
    The Low Country of South Carolina is very, very German. My mother’s family is almost entirely German. Charleston itself was settled from Barbados, not Britain. The old blue bloods there are of English and French descent. The Upstate was settled primarily by the Scotch Irish and Welsh, with some Palatine Germans as well. Dr. Walter Edgar identified 38 different ethnicities among the founding stock of SC. I don’t think ancestry had anything much to do with Southern support for Britain in the war, so much as a perception of kinship, perhaps.

    • Replies: @anonomy
    A Jew saying he is Hebrew is like an African claiming to be German.
    , @ben tillman

    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century....
     
    Try the turn of the 18th century.
  74. Southerners were rather philosemitic, as regular isteve readers should know.

    edit: Second Art Deco. Whatever Gospodin Akuleyev’s informants were smoking, it must have been a good batch.

  75. Yeah many Southerners have always been eager to fight the US empire’s wars. Often to our detriment.

    And even despite being the most hated region of the country by that very empire.

  76. Helping the Jews in WWII has left us with the intractable results of Hart Cellar, a Supreme Court that hates Ameticans and our values, a media and academia with White men in their crosshairs. And nasty slanderous books like this.

    It’s such a mystery why these people get kicked out of countries every so often.

  77. Another example of why the jews are always shocked when the peasants arrive with the torches.

  78. Part of the reason for the retconning is that slavery is the new American Holocaust, whereas before it was the Indian Wars (and the Indian-killing perpetrators were usually Yankees).

    Take, for example, the Zorro movies. In the 1998 film the racist villain was a blond Yankee cavalry officer, and the victims were indigenous peasants. In the 2005 sequel, the racist villain was a redneck sidekick to some European exile Confederate agent.

  79. My impression is that the South has always been more pro-Semitic on the whole than the WASP North.

    It is very much a class thing. The upper class, plantation owners, bankers, businessmen, Episcopalians were quite well disposed towards Jews, the farmers and workers who shopped in their stores on credit – not so much.

    I was raised Episcopalian, but have deep roots North and South. One did not say “Jew”, one said “Jewish”, describing ones religious affiliation, not ethnicity. Intermarriage was quite common.

    Most people do not know, but MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was addressed to the religious leaders of major organizations in Birmingham, 5 Christian Churches (IIRC) and one Synagogue.

  80. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Ed Hood from Alabama, the Queen of Harvard Square for many years in the 60s, told me he was an anti-semite (his word) until he fell in love with Peter Wolfe of the Ed Geils band who married Faye Dunaway.

    Anecdote being the singular of data, that anecdote suggests a fair degree of inveterate jew hatred in the south in years past. Thoughtful commenters in these quarters deriving conclusions about how southerners didn’t hate jews in the mid 20th century miss the mark because they weren’t around then.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    That would have been J. Geils. In the context of this thread, it's interesting to note that John Geils was of German ancestry and most of the rest of the band (Peter Wolf, Seth Justman, Richard "Magic Dick" Salwitz) were Jews.
  81. 1. Wendell Wilkie was as much pro-war as FDR, and in fact, openly praised FDR for instituting the “peacetime” (i.e. war time predication) military draft. Therefore, the 1940 election was straight up on economic and fiscal policy, and of course the South wasn’t going to go for FDR bigly.

    2. The only two states where the John Birch Society has ever had its national headquarters: Massachusetts and Wisconsin.

  82. WWII really isn’t aging well.

  83. @Indiana Jack
    Opinion polls from the time also confirm southern sympathy for Britain. Gallup conducted opinion polls on the subject during the early years of the war.

    In January, 1940, almost two years before America entered the war, Gallup conducted an opinion poll with the question "Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do - to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?"

    Nationally, 60% of those surveyed said that it was more important to help England win, while 40% said that it was more important to keep out of the war. The "help England" position was supported by a majority of respondents in all parts of the country, but southerners were the most enthusiastic about helping the British war effort (people in the midwest were the least enthusiastic). Broken down by region, the percentages who thought that it was more important to help England, even if it risked the U.S. entering the war:

    New England 63%
    Middle Atlantic 63%
    East Central 55%
    West Central 55%
    South 76%
    West 66%

    http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm

    Gallup’s analysis of the election is interesting also. Women were expected to vote for the more conservative candidate and it surprised Gallup they went for Roosevelt. I wonder if this election caused a permanent trend toward the Democrats among women.

    http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/FDR_1940_presidential_gallup_poll_information-pdf

  84. @guest
    I find this strange Myth of Southern Anti-Semitism in the case of Leo Frank, which incidentally led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League. Much like BLM launched off of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    There actually was injustice in the Frank case. He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury. But he was also pardoned (on who knows what grounds), and should not have been subsequently lynched. Still, I don't consider the lynching of a guilty man crime enough to merit endless nonsense about the plight of you-know-who.

    Part of the Frank Mythos is the idea that racists white racist Southern racists went after Frank because racism. Which is borne out by the long history of anti-semitism in the South that actually doesn't exist. Or at least not in comparison to the rest of the country.

    Southerners have the reputation of being "backwards" and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That's the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Speaking of that particular minority group, the authorities could've pinned the murder on a black janitor. He was the only other suspect. Why isn't this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury.

    He wasn’t. Frank effectively had to demonstrate his innocence by accounting for every minute of his time during the late morning and early afternoon that day, which of course he couldn’t do because no one similarly situated could. He was convicted on the testimony of one very disreputable character. (Contradicted many decades later by another factory employee).

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.
  85. “Roth’s notion that a Republican Swedish isolationist from Minnesota could have carried the Solid South against FDR in 1940 is just nuts.”

    Of course it is, but not nearly as nuts as the idea that a twice-divorced former Democrat occasional liberal billionaire from New York, with a lot of big government ideas and quite shaky Christian faith, would carry the South in both the primaries and general election. Yet this has apparently happened.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    2016 was not 1940 and vice versa.
  86. @Art Deco
    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views.

    Evangelical preachers have 'medieval worldviews' in your imagination only.



    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    Let go of my leg (and everyone else's).

    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only

    Medieval is an unfortunate word, you are right. Medieval Christian theologians were often brilliant and insightful. Evangelicals almost never are, although the myth about Jews having horns has a medieval pedigree.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Evangelicals almost never are,

    You spend time reading how much work by Evangelical academics?
  87. I always find it silly when these alternate histories where the Nazis won the war have the South passively or actively supporting them. These guys didn’t want to stop fighting the North and they were mostly English speaking Anglos. If any anti-Nazi rebellion is gonna happen, it would be largely hillbilly.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    My grandfather (hailed from Tennessee) joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in early 1940 because he was both pro-England and because he still held a grudge against the Germans from his service in WW1. When the US joined the war most (maybe all, I'm not sure) Americans in other countries' services were called into the US services and he rejoined the US Navy.

    For the rest of his life he disliked the Germans and even gave my father a hard time for buying a Volkswagen in the mid 1960's. He'd say that yeah the Japanese were as bad, but he expected savagery from savages, the Germans should have known better.

    On racial issues he was a segregationist. I never heard him say anything about Jews one way or the other.
  88. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/308839/

    Tragedy begins with a forceful denial of perpetual peace in favor of perpetual struggle, with great powers primed for offense, because they can never be sure how much military capacity they will need in order to survive over the long run. Because every state is forever insecure, Mearsheimer counsels, the internal nature of a state is less important as a factor in its international behavior than we think. “Great powers are like billiard balls that vary only in size,” he intones. In other words, Mearsheimer is not one to be especially impressed by a state simply because it is a democracy. As he asserts early on, “Whether China is democratic and deeply enmeshed in the global economy or autocratic and autarkic will have little effect on its behavior, because democracies care about security as much as non-democracies do.”

    If America had gone Nazi in the 30’s it would still have gone to war with Hitler’s Germany, which could not be allowed to win and become a world island superpower. There was never any doubt that the US would come in (again) if it looked like Germany was going to win (again).

    The ADL was founded in the aftermath of the Leo Franks case. I suppose Kentucky is where the Roth thinks the supidest white Americans come from, or maybe it is payback a la Roth ‘s novel in which he had a right go at ex wife Claire Bloom.

  89. there’s a growing myth in 21st Century America that white Southerners sympathized with Hitler.

    Citation(s)?

  90. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Pogrom” led me to find a recent book of interpretive history, Yuri Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century,” which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”

    World War I and II, Stalin, Mao, Vietnam and endless empirical wars, black riots in Detroit – sounds like the Jewish Century all right.

  91. Southerners have the reputation of being “backwards” and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That’s the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Superb! May I appropriate (due credit given, of course, if shared publicly on the “Net; but I’ll definitely use it in private with my left of center acquaintances at the right time, heh)?

  92. Philip Roth is both anti-White and anti-Christian. Roth is the kind of Jew who gives reasonable people a very clear idea why Jews have been expelled from many kingdoms, nations and regions over the last 2 thousand years. A. Scott Berg is an honest and reasonable Jew who wrote a fine biography of Charles Lindbergh.

    Roth does bring to mind the White government worker problem Alt-Right electoral strategists are struggling with. White government workers and White women voters must be fought over or neutralized, to be blunt. Roth, in an imaginary election between Lindbergh and Roosevelt, says the government workers in Maryland stayed loyal to the Democrat Roosevelt, presumably to protect their jobs.

    Roth’s imagined government worker cohort in Maryland:

    …Maryland, where the large population of federal office workers had voted overwhelmingly for Roo­sevelt…

    The Alt-Right brain trust needs to get their frigging heads out of the clouds and figure out what to do with the millions upon millions of White government workers who vote Democrat to protect their jobs. The GOP response is to spend trillions on wars, armaments and other war-related items to gather in their own loyal government worker cohort to match the Democrats’ government worker cohort.

  93. Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it’s understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you’ll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don’t know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong – a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson's 'Invisible Empire'. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.
    , @anon
    After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it’s understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it.

    A very good point.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don’t know.

    Yes you do.

    The nicest possible way to answer this question is to ask, where are all the major book reviewers and publishing companies not from?

    The real answer is to ask, who do guys like Philip Roth consider to be their enemies, and who do they want to trash the most?

    , @Sean
    Hitler could have won WW2, and had an atomic bomb by 1945, and did not only because he made two mistakes. The first, against every military professional's advice, was halting before Smolensk for almost two months in 1941, (see the writings of Stolfi for the detailed arguments). The second was in demoralising his main scientific adviser with lack of resources for multiple top priorities to such an extent that he didn't tell Hitler how feasible an atomic bomb was out of fear he would demand a crash program.

    The Confederacy was quite different, even if they had won Gettysburg (as they easily could have) there was never any chance of them achieving final victory over the North. They never had a chance of being allowed to break away, irrespective of their political reasons for wanting to do so.
    , @Desiderius
    You don't have to be German to consider the Monroe Doctrine sound policy.
  94. Some people have said that if you want to understand the Jewish-American mind you just have to read Philip Roth novels, ‘The Plot Against America’ was published during the height of the Iraq War, where America was (and still is) in firm Jewish control and their biggest fear is someone who doesn’t like them gets into power in the US.

  95. @Peter Akuleyev
    Evangelical preachers have ‘medieval worldviews’ in your imagination only

    Medieval is an unfortunate word, you are right. Medieval Christian theologians were often brilliant and insightful. Evangelicals almost never are, although the myth about Jews having horns has a medieval pedigree.

    Evangelicals almost never are,

    You spend time reading how much work by Evangelical academics?

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    Evangelical academics?

    That is an oxymoron.
  96. @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson’s ‘Invisible Empire’. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Sure, and probably half of the members were undercover FBI informers. It's in the interest of some people (SPLC cough cough) to make the KKK/American Nazis seem like a bigger threat than they actually are. If they didn't exist then the SPLC would have to hire guys to play the part. The Globetrotters need the Washington Generals - you can't play against no-one even after you have won the last 3,000 consecutive games.

    And yet we know that the support for Jim Crow in the South was (at least until the '70s with George Wallace) deep rooted and not just confined to a few dozen trailer trash play acting with robes and swastikas and tiki torches. Maybe there's a generational change but some of the old attitudes must linger. When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally. Just as antifas represent the pointy end of the leftist spectrum with millions more behind them who are somewhat in sympathy but not to the extent that they will put on masks and club people, the KKK/Nazis represent the pointy end of a somewhat larger group.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina

     

    ...


    Greensboro massacre
    when members of the Communist Workers' Party and others demonstrated in a "Death to the Klan" march

     

  97. The South was pro-Britain.

    The harsh behavior of British troops in the South during the Revolutionary war, which had driven Southern anti-British sentiment in the early 19th century, was forgotten after Sherman and Sheridan behaved much worse during the Civil War.

    The South was the most old-stock, which is to say the most Anglo-Saxon (English/ Anglo-Irish/ Lowland Scot/ Scotch-Irish), part of America. Images of English cities being bombed evoked a pang of racial sympathy.

    Also, young White men raised on tales of the ancestor’s Civil War heroism wanted a chance to prove themselves, and at some level everyone knew that wartime spending was bound to disproportionately benefit the relatively poor South.

    Furthermore, Sephardic Jewish slave traders and the planter elites of the South and the Caribbean had been partners in crime, together exploiting the Blacks. Antisemitism was slower to take hold among the Southern elite than among the elite Northern WASP descendants of the abolitionists, despite the outrageous behavior of the ADL during the Leo Frank case.

  98. @Art Deco
    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson's 'Invisible Empire'. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.

    Sure, and probably half of the members were undercover FBI informers. It’s in the interest of some people (SPLC cough cough) to make the KKK/American Nazis seem like a bigger threat than they actually are. If they didn’t exist then the SPLC would have to hire guys to play the part. The Globetrotters need the Washington Generals – you can’t play against no-one even after you have won the last 3,000 consecutive games.

    And yet we know that the support for Jim Crow in the South was (at least until the ’70s with George Wallace) deep rooted and not just confined to a few dozen trailer trash play acting with robes and swastikas and tiki torches. Maybe there’s a generational change but some of the old attitudes must linger. When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally. Just as antifas represent the pointy end of the leftist spectrum with millions more behind them who are somewhat in sympathy but not to the extent that they will put on masks and club people, the KKK/Nazis represent the pointy end of a somewhat larger group.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally.

    This year, HRC received ~23% of the votes of white Southerners, so, no, not totally. Local Democrats will do somewhat better. Re federal politics, the partisan realignment took about 40-odd years (1952-94) and longer re state legislatures. There aren't many white Democrats in Congress representing constituencies in the South that are fully Southern (about six in the House and 1 in the Senate, IIRC), but you still have a bloc of white voters who cast ballots for Democrats. Democrats do better among white Southern Democrats than Republicans did among certain white ethnics sixty years ago.

    Interpolating a bit, it looks like Trump collared about 20% of the white vote in the core municipality of the county where I grew up, give or take. (The Republican County Executive candidate the year before did vastly better).
  99. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.

    Really. Can you give any examples? The founders of St. Grottlesex and various hunt clubs likely would have been surprised at your assertion.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English.

    Massachusetts, founded by the English, is a bit older than the American Revolution. See Millennial’s comment. The Massachusetts founding event that is most recognized and mythologized is the Plymouth Thanksgiving.

    P.S., For those to whom Yankee claims to Thanksgiving are a perennial perineal sore spot, read this past subthread. (#12… )

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.

    Really. Can you give any examples?
     
    Sure. The Louise Woodard case in 1997--the UK press surveyed tons of New Englanders during the trial and were astounded at the results--they called Boston the most historically Anglophobic city in North America. They felt it was all but impossible for an English au pair to get a fair trial.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case
    , @Millennial
    Re: Plymouth/Thanksgiving - it's interesting to compare the three "first-born children" of the three founding English colonies:

    1. Virginia Dare of Roanoke disappeared. If she has descendants, they're most likely part of some Indian tribe.

    2. Virgina Laydon of Jamestown- virtually nothing is known of her. Did she even make it to adulthood?

    3. Peregrine White of Plymouth - grew to manhood, sired a large family, was a soldier and civic leader, and lived into the next century.

    Unsurprisingly, squared-away Plymouth just worked better as a founding symbol.
  100. The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—

    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

     

    Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors. The Germans came into the colonies on wooden boats through the colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and others. New England was the most homogenous part of colonial America.

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.
    , @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).
    , @Twodees Partain
    The Carolinas have quite a few descendants of German families who arrived there in the 18th century, mine included. The branch of my family that originated in Germany fought on the American side in the revolutionary war and on the Confederate side in the war over secession.

    "[A]lmost no one" is grossly inaccurate.
  101. @Art Deco
    He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury.

    He wasn't. Frank effectively had to demonstrate his innocence by accounting for every minute of his time during the late morning and early afternoon that day, which of course he couldn't do because no one similarly situated could. He was convicted on the testimony of one very disreputable character. (Contradicted many decades later by another factory employee).

    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    You don't understand. Art Deco knows these things. Art Deco knows all things.

    He's smarter than everyone because he has a degree in library science.
    , @David In TN
    Frank was believed to be guilty. No way would Southerners in 1913 allow a Negro (or a white man for that matter) to get away with killing a white girl while framing a Jew. Wouldn't happen.
  102. @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch
  103. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it’s understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it.

    A very good point.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don’t know.

    Yes you do.

    The nicest possible way to answer this question is to ask, where are all the major book reviewers and publishing companies not from?

    The real answer is to ask, who do guys like Philip Roth consider to be their enemies, and who do they want to trash the most?

  104. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

    The key word there is “claim.” What they are doing is lying, making it up. Jews of a certain generation really like playing up persecution fantasies and imaginary health problems (a different kind of persecution fantasy). It’s that generation’s version of virtue signaling.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    The key word there is “claim.”

    Maybe. It is a pretty widespread "urban legend" among Jews.

    E.g. this thread from 2005 - https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jews-have-horns.1880259/

    During the recent Roy Moore debacle, I saw many similar stories on Facebook, usually from people claiming it happened to them.

  105. @Anonymous
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln's side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    “Mother Night” by Kurt Vonnegut contains a scene in which Hitler discusses the merits of Lincoln and ends up expressing concern that Lincoln may have been Jewish due to his first name. It’s a little comical.

    One famous Jew in the Confederate cabinet was Judah Benjamin, the Secretary of Treasury. Somehow, the gold of the treasury vanished at the end of the war.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Judah Benjamin became a very hardworking lawyer in England, handling many cases and writing a textbook on the law of sales. A successor version of Benjamin on Sales is still in use.

    Far from being welcomed with open arms, Benjamin had to requalify as an attorney in England.
  106. @guest
    I find this strange Myth of Southern Anti-Semitism in the case of Leo Frank, which incidentally led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League. Much like BLM launched off of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    There actually was injustice in the Frank case. He was almost certainly guilty of murdering little Mary Phagan, and was found guilty by a jury. But he was also pardoned (on who knows what grounds), and should not have been subsequently lynched. Still, I don't consider the lynching of a guilty man crime enough to merit endless nonsense about the plight of you-know-who.

    Part of the Frank Mythos is the idea that racists white racist Southern racists went after Frank because racism. Which is borne out by the long history of anti-semitism in the South that actually doesn't exist. Or at least not in comparison to the rest of the country.

    Southerners have the reputation of being "backwards" and unfriendly to certain minority groups, one in particular. Therefore, they must be backwards and especially racist on the issue of Jews, right? That's the transverse property of racism. QED.

    Speaking of that particular minority group, the authorities could've pinned the murder on a black janitor. He was the only other suspect. Why isn't this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won’t throw in the towel to this day – you’ll hear from some of them here – they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with “their” murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of “their own” (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the “outsider” Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don’t really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.

    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases – Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    • Replies: @anon
    Apparently this was not good enough for the mob.

    Well, he was convicted of raping and murdering a little girl, you know.

    Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with “their” murdered girl) was more important than mere facts.

    Sounds kind of like some of the more bizarre "confessions" from the Nuremberg trial, amirite?

    Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity.

    Kind of like how the Anti-Defamation League is still calling those anti-goyim blood libel hoaxes against Jewish Community Centers "hate crimes".

    For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of “their own” (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the “outsider” Yankee Jew Frank.

    Here is how he was portrayed by Leo Frank's defense attorney, Reuben Arnold:


    The thing that arises in this case to fatigue my indignation is that men born of such parents should believe the statement of Conley against the statement of Frank. Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying n*gger. Black knows that. Starnes knows that. Chief Beavers knows it.
     

    Who was it that made this dirty n*gger come up here looking so slick?
     
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-of-hooper-arnold-and-rosser/

    Weird how the Anti-Defamation League didn't seem to have a problem with that.

    , @Sean
    You might want to read Albert S. Lindemann on the Frank case. The main prejudice against Frank was that he looked like a pervert to observers. If anything being Jewish helped his defence.

    As Lindemann commented, Jewish or not, anyone with the objective evidence against him that Frank had would be very likely to find himself on trial. Whether there was reasonable doubt by contemporaneous or present day standards is a matter of opinion.

    , @Mr. Anon

    Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won’t throw in the towel to this day – you’ll hear from some of them here – they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.
     
    And what defines "respectable historian" in this context? Someone who believes that Frank was innocent? Name these respectable historians. Maybe they have a certain common trait.

    And - of course - the only possible explanation for believing that Frank is guilty is being an anti-semite. Because Jews never commit murder, I suppose.

    There is indeed somebody here acting like the OJ apologists. And it isn't "anti-semites".
    , @guest
    "His sentence had been commuted"

    Sorry, yes. That's what I meant.
    , @guest
    "This was more like the Trayvon trial...Or the O.J. case. Communal solidarity (with the whites of the South in sympathy with 'their' murdered girl)"

    Gimme a break. If they were so blinded by communal wagon-circling, why didn't they pick the black guy? Wouldn't that have been easier? If Frank was an "Other," he wasn't all that Other, relatively speaking. (Though, as another poster pointed out, he had a vibe about him people picked up on, which probably accounted for antipathy as well as his Jewishness.)

    There's nothing wrong with communal solidarity in the face of a slain young girl, in my opinion. So long as it remains within the law. Which it did, until after outside intervention robbed them of what people thought was a just sentence.

    Finally, it's quite obvious Zimmerman was innocent, and pretty inarguable O.J. was guilty. Funny you should pick those two cases. There have to be plenty of cases where black people were fundamentally right yet went overboard. Much like whites with Frank.

    We don't know with absolute certainty that he did it. But there was enough evidence to convince a jury at a fair trial, and neither you nor the ADL can point to any clear and convincing exculpatory evidence as with Zimmerman.

    Frank was consumed by the fire of inordinate hatred and misguided revenge AFTER the commutation. Prior to commutation, he would have been executed by the state in a just matter. Yet, in popular memory it's as if a trial didn't take place, and Frank was plucked out of his life to be killed because anti-semitism.
    , @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.
  107. @Anonymous
    Love this photo of him and his best friend

    http://blogs.kcrw.com/music/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Frank-Sinatra-reel-to-reel.jpg

    A rich man man like Sinatra had a lot of fancy and expensive audio/video equipment for his time. These days even the common man has affordable access to that and much more. 7.1 surround systems featuring dual 12″ powered sub-woofers. 60 and 70 inch Hi-def screens, blue ray players, amplifiers delivering 100 watts to 7 surround speakers.
    But the high end of audio/video these days is insane.

  108. @whorefinder
    When it comes to history, it pays for the left to be as ignorant as possible. Get them to start studying and investigating, and who knows how many leftist bromides might fall?

    For example, one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow to be heard in any medium; neither film nor TV nor debate. If someone raises it they are immediately blackballed and cut off. Then the Left says that all that caused Jim Crow was evil whitey/exploitation by the rich.

    Yet when you look at black violent crime rates and rioting and the actual tales of whites dealing with black misbehavior during the era---all of which sound startlingly familiar to tales today we can watch performed live on World Star Hip-Hop---Jim Crow starts to sound a lot more defensible and appealing and humane than the alternatives of letting whites be terrorized by black crime or having blacks be ethnically cleansed by angry whites.

    It’s interesting to contemplate the origins of Jim Crow, since it was established first in Delaware, due to concerns that freed slaves would behave as badly as they were doing in South Carolina under the rule of the military occupation (euphemistically referred to as “Reconstruction”) since Delaware was a slave state that didn’t secede.

    Ironically, Delaware was the site of the last of the black riots of the “civil rights era”.

  109. A reasonable explanation for Roth’s apocalyptic novel is that he conflated his own childhood experience of WWII with the early 2000s political environment that produced Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    If you know anything about the South, the idea that Lindbergh or the Germans would have been popular there is kind of nutty, but most people, probably especially the kind of people who buy the novels that Roth writes, do not know anything relevant about that. It is probably more important for an author who wants to sell a lot of books to write something that seems plausible even if wrong, and the idea that the South would have been anti-Semitic and pro-German in WWII conforms to current prejudices.

    • Agree: David In TN
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it's true, I've seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake "Roman" statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even "art experts" couldn't see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed - in the '60s films the actors have '60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing "Roman" costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.
  110. @ben tillman

    The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—
     
    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors. The Germans came into the colonies on wooden boats through the colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and others. New England was the most homogenous part of colonial America.

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

    • Replies: @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.
  111. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    Apparently this was not good enough for the mob.

    Well, he was convicted of raping and murdering a little girl, you know.

    Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with “their” murdered girl) was more important than mere facts.

    Sounds kind of like some of the more bizarre “confessions” from the Nuremberg trial, amirite?

    Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity.

    Kind of like how the Anti-Defamation League is still calling those anti-goyim blood libel hoaxes against Jewish Community Centers “hate crimes”.

    For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of “their own” (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the “outsider” Yankee Jew Frank.

    Here is how he was portrayed by Leo Frank’s defense attorney, Reuben Arnold:

    The thing that arises in this case to fatigue my indignation is that men born of such parents should believe the statement of Conley against the statement of Frank. Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying n*gger. Black knows that. Starnes knows that. Chief Beavers knows it.

    Who was it that made this dirty n*gger come up here looking so slick?

    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-of-hooper-arnold-and-rosser/

    Weird how the Anti-Defamation League didn’t seem to have a problem with that.

  112. “A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living on a farm in Kentucky”

    Roth may have been imagining an America where such laws were extended to ‘German’ Jews like him. So it is not too far fetched.

    Starting with the run up to WWI there were programs to assimilate Americans into one culture. These usually took the form of making English the only acceptable language of instruction in all elementary schools, public and private. Standardization of public school activities. ect James Cox ran for President as a D under an anti Germanic platform in 1920 losing to Warren G Harding.

    http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Ake_Law
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Cox
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_League#Beliefs_and_program

    Southern Whites and the not rich in general (including blacks and Northern White Catholics) are easy to pick on.

  113. @ben tillman

    The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—
     
    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South “philo-Semitic”. It’s true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the “white” side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had – although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    • Replies: @anon
    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” –

    The Leo Frank trial is the story of one (1) sleazy Jewish guy getting lynched by a mob.

    You know that that happened a bunch of times, right? To lots of black and white people. You would never have even heard of his story if he hadn't been Jewish.

    There were over a thousand white people who were lynched in the south back then, and can you name a single one? No. You can only name the Jewish one.

    There was nothing even particularly unusual about the Frank case, except that a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to make it into the story of the century.

    Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    Gosh, well, maybe you ought to leave then? I mean, you have a country in the Middle East that was built just for you, don't you?
    , @S. Anonyia
    Southerners never strongly disliked Italians or Jews. A bunch of Lebanese immigrated the MS delta and Gulf Coast around 1900 and they are no longer a community today because intermarriage rates were so high, yet their last names are everywhere. In fact I’d wager the wealthy families of my city are more likely to have some ancestors who immigrated after the Civil War than the poor ones.

    I think you are confusing the Appalachian region (moonshine in hollows region) for the Deep South (moss dripping from oaks region). There was never serious antagonism towards immigrants or minority religions in the Deep South because people of the early 20th century tended to see social divisions solely in terms of black vs. white. Also historically there was more acceptance towards Catholics pre-1920 even if there weren’t that many of them relative to the Eastern seaboard cities, because Catholicism was associated with the French and their historical presence in the region, and it was not necessarily seen as some sudden, dramatically growing import to the U.S.

    As for the upper South they disliked outsiders, sure. But that meant everyone including people from 50 miles up the road who didn’t belong there.
    , @istevefan
    There was a documentary film from the late 90's called The Delta Jews. It covered the life of Southern Jews. If I remember correctly one of the people interviewed in the film stated that Southerners liked Jews. It was just that they disliked the Northern ones who came down to the South and agitated during the civil rights era of the '50s and '60s.

    Today, however, people conflate Southerners' attitudes towards those specific Northern Jews with Jews in general.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    murder of the Jewish civil rights workers

     

    ...


    he said: “Those boys were Communists who went to a Communist training school...."

     

    , @AnotherDad
    In other words, they were fine with folks who behaved properly and fit in with the basic mores of their culture, but don't particularly like being lectured (or demeaned) by tedious outsiders.

    Jews on the other hand are well known for how much they love and appreciate outsiders.
    , @Jimi

    "the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers"

     

    A lot of leftwing gentiles go out to the occupied territories to agitate for Civil Rights. They don't end up doing too well wither.
    , @Anon
    "But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual)."

    There is no evidence for that whatsoever. Cite some if you can.
    , @Luke Lea

    stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards
     
    That's true. But if Paul Johnson's History of the Jews is to be believed they did pioneer the use of slave labor on sugar plantations in Brazil in the aftermath of their expulsion from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

    There are no innocent groups in history. Everybody was exploiting and being exploited in a fallen world that was based on exploitation. The miracle is that we have escaped that world, for which every group can take some credit. No pointing fingers!
  114. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Evangelical preachers are far from being medieval. It’s more like a mishmash of modern heresies, like an even less intellectual version of Mormonism. It’s true that they don’t know much about Jews but it’s more in the opposite direction, erring on the side of ridiculous near comical Philosemitism- drive through the rural upper South or Texas and you will see Israeli flags on the outside of churches and even occasionally homes. These people do everything short of worship Jews and Israel. They preach almost exclusively from the Old Testament and Revealations.

    • Agree: Peter Akuleyev
  115. OT:

    Canadian Economics prof demonstrates that Canada’a immigration system that “screens immigrants to a large degree on merit”, selects immigrants from “shithole” countries who fare slightly better than immigrants from “Norway-like countries”

    Conclusion:

    “Trump’s perception of the differences in the average immigrant from countries like Haiti and Norway is at the very least a consequence ignorance, or as many have suggested, racism.”

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-admits-many-immigrants-from-trumps-shithole-countries-and-they-fare-better-than-those-from-norway

  116. @ben tillman

    The South has always had a more martial culture than the country as a whole. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—
     
    What planet does this guy live on?

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

    The Carolinas have quite a few descendants of German families who arrived there in the 18th century, mine included. The branch of my family that originated in Germany fought on the American side in the revolutionary war and on the Confederate side in the war over secession.

    “[A]lmost no one” is grossly inaccurate.

    • Agree: Charles Pewitt
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Sure, years later I actually met one of those much ballyhooed Germans from the Orangeburg area out here in Dallas. It was amusing to hear her pronounce my last name with her drawl. It was even funnier ten years later when I learned of her maiden name, which rhymes with my surname both in German and in her drawl. So there are a few.

    But 1 or 2 percent is "virtually none" in my book when it's 20% nationwide.

  117. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” –

    The Leo Frank trial is the story of one (1) sleazy Jewish guy getting lynched by a mob.

    You know that that happened a bunch of times, right? To lots of black and white people. You would never have even heard of his story if he hadn’t been Jewish.

    There were over a thousand white people who were lynched in the south back then, and can you name a single one? No. You can only name the Jewish one.

    There was nothing even particularly unusual about the Frank case, except that a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to make it into the story of the century.

    Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    Gosh, well, maybe you ought to leave then? I mean, you have a country in the Middle East that was built just for you, don’t you?

  118. @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    Hitler could have won WW2, and had an atomic bomb by 1945, and did not only because he made two mistakes. The first, against every military professional’s advice, was halting before Smolensk for almost two months in 1941, (see the writings of Stolfi for the detailed arguments). The second was in demoralising his main scientific adviser with lack of resources for multiple top priorities to such an extent that he didn’t tell Hitler how feasible an atomic bomb was out of fear he would demand a crash program.

    The Confederacy was quite different, even if they had won Gettysburg (as they easily could have) there was never any chance of them achieving final victory over the North. They never had a chance of being allowed to break away, irrespective of their political reasons for wanting to do so.

    • Replies: @Flip
    The South didn't have to achieve military victory, they just needed to persuade the Union that it wasn't worth fighting to keep them from leaving. I bet the South could have ultimately gotten its independence if they were willing to do an Algerian type of guerilla warfare but Lee told everyone to lay down their arms.
  119. @Benjamin I. Espen
    A reasonable explanation for Roth's apocalyptic novel is that he conflated his own childhood experience of WWII with the early 2000s political environment that produced Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    If you know anything about the South, the idea that Lindbergh or the Germans would have been popular there is kind of nutty, but most people, probably especially the kind of people who buy the novels that Roth writes, do not know anything relevant about that. It is probably more important for an author who wants to sell a lot of books to write something that seems plausible even if wrong, and the idea that the South would have been anti-Semitic and pro-German in WWII conforms to current prejudices.

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it’s true, I’ve seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake “Roman” statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even “art experts” couldn’t see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed – in the ’60s films the actors have ’60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing “Roman” costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Abe

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year.
     
    Yes, which is why it's strange and a little sad how Roth's mind became more and more CURRENT YEAR-occluded over time. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT (1969, I think) is a fairly accurate ethnological portrait of its time. The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP's with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle. By the time of AMERICAN PASTORAL, though, this truth is forgotten in favor of post-SCHINDLER'S LIST retconning. In that later novel, perhaps Roth's least naturalistic/most parablistic one, the main character is nicknamed 'the Swede' because of his anomalously ultra-Nordic good lucks. Thematically the point was to make him as all-American and America-blessed as possible in order to heighten the tragedy of his later fall, and what better way to do that than make him a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Max von Sydow-clone? Except that only in Himmler's fantasies were Swedes considered Americans par excellence. I'm not nearly as old as Roth, but even I remember how Swedes used to come in for their fair share of ethnic humor drubbing, mostly along the lines of 'big dumb Swede' jokes.
    , @peterike

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

     

    You really don't need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth's motives. It's quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth's novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn't have over-rated novelists, they wouldn't have any at all.
  120. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    Southerners never strongly disliked Italians or Jews. A bunch of Lebanese immigrated the MS delta and Gulf Coast around 1900 and they are no longer a community today because intermarriage rates were so high, yet their last names are everywhere. In fact I’d wager the wealthy families of my city are more likely to have some ancestors who immigrated after the Civil War than the poor ones.

    I think you are confusing the Appalachian region (moonshine in hollows region) for the Deep South (moss dripping from oaks region). There was never serious antagonism towards immigrants or minority religions in the Deep South because people of the early 20th century tended to see social divisions solely in terms of black vs. white. Also historically there was more acceptance towards Catholics pre-1920 even if there weren’t that many of them relative to the Eastern seaboard cities, because Catholicism was associated with the French and their historical presence in the region, and it was not necessarily seen as some sudden, dramatically growing import to the U.S.

    As for the upper South they disliked outsiders, sure. But that meant everyone including people from 50 miles up the road who didn’t belong there.

  121. anon • Disclaimer says:

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    Which is it, Jack? Are Jews forever stuck in the Nazi era, or can they not remember the Nazi era at all, and are stuck in the current year?

    Because yesterday, when a Jewish guy freaked out over a southern plumber, it was all because of his uncle Natan back in Poland. But today, when Philip Roth goes after southerners, it’s because he can’t remember the 1940s at all, and is stuck in 2004.

    So which is it? And why does it always end up with Jews playing the victim card against those hateful goyim who made the mistake of going off to fight the actual Nazis, no matter which era they’re stuck in?

    And why does it seem like nothing is ever, ever a Jewish person just making the decision to be a prick?

    • Agree: utu
  122. @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    You might want to read Albert S. Lindemann on the Frank case. The main prejudice against Frank was that he looked like a pervert to observers. If anything being Jewish helped his defence.

    As Lindemann commented, Jewish or not, anyone with the objective evidence against him that Frank had would be very likely to find himself on trial. Whether there was reasonable doubt by contemporaneous or present day standards is a matter of opinion.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.
  123. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.

    • Replies: @Altai
    Hmm, it's almost like having a particular opinion about an ethnicity comes along with exposure to conflicts with that group. Thus the South which didn't have the massive Jewish immigration during the late 19th/20th century had little particular antagonism towards Jews (Though it has to be said the novel effects of evangelical obsessions with the Old Testament and later viewing Zionism as necessary to trigger the second coming seem to be a factor in a lot of boomer gentile-zionists, millenial gentile-zionists seem to come almost uniformly from this background) and the presence of large amounts of blacks triggered segregation, with the North having less antagonism towards blacks until the great migrations.

    That and the much lower number of German immigrants (Whose anti-semitism was itself triggered by the same causes, a massive inflow of Russian Jews just 2 or 3 generations prior) in the South with it also being still essentially British ethnically lead to it supporting the war against Germany in alliance with Britain much more vigorously than the North East.
    , @Mr. Blank
    It's often occurred to me that the eclectic mix of views held by my grandparents would be positively baffling to the know-it-all dorks at sites like Slate and Vox. Yet from every indication I've seen, my grandparents were pretty much the norm for their time. It's amazing how many "smart" people have no clue how limited our current range of political opinion is, compared to other eras.

    I suspect, but can't prove, that it's related to greater ethnic diversity. In a multicultural society, most of the political energy is concentrated on first-order questions: Whose tribe gets which goodies? Paradoxically(?), in a more ethnically monocultural society, the first-order questions can be disposed of quickly by establishing a basic framework that everybody more or less agrees to, giving people the freedom to think about second- or third-order questions — which leads to a broader array of responses.
  124. anon • Disclaimer says:

    OT, but Breaking News!

    Jewish leaders occupy Capitol rotunda building to demand that we let the Dreamers stay.

    https://www.hashtagsmania.com/trend/LetMyPeopleStay

    This is why we should have let more of them in back in the 1940s. There just aren’t enough people in this country calling us Nazis and making ridiculous demands of us.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Desiderius
    Wow, how pathetically white. Doesn't look much like America, does it?
  125. @whorefinder
    We also can't forget the impact of Hollywood causing this.

    Movies and TV are extremely influential on the human mind, more so than print. And Hollywood for years has churned out a steady diet of Nazis-as-bad-guys and Klan-as-bad-guys films because of the various needs of the times:

    Nazi films: Holocaust guilt reasons, celebration of WW2 vets to make money, need of white actors to play villains, etc.

    Klan films: pushing integration, making blacks into saints, explaining black crime away, etc.

    It's unsurprising that as of today, these two separate histories are being conflated, because the movies/TV shows are so embedded in our culture that they've amalgamated in many minds.

    Think of how many people believe Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were innocents wrongly gunned down. Our media effects our minds.

    It's unsurprising that people would start to seriously conflate the South and the Nazis after they've been the go-to bad guys in film since the 1940s.

    Behold the results:

    • Replies: @Altai
    But Wolfenstein II is so OTT (Particularly with it's sassy black woman and slightly neurotic nebbish looking New York Jew sidekicks) that it's easy to look at it the same way people look at Reefer Madness. It becomes impossible to tell what ratio of the massive team of people who put it together are true believers, are themselves wrong-thinkers or people in the middle who think Twitter politics is hilarious. The layers of irony and seriousness blend to nothing.
  126. “As I mentioned below, there’s a growing myth in 21st Century America that white Southerners sympathized with Hitler”

    There’s a growing myth that Jewish people who have recently moved down south sympathize with Moslems and blacks and not with the locals.

    OT; Steve I know that you are interested in the topic of “The Gap”. Well a resident of Oak Park will finally tackle that subject in his recently released documentary “America To me” by Steve James.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7768836/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_2
    Steve James is most famous for his documentary “Hoop Dreams”. Well he will finally tackle the GAP subject which has had the United States citizens most perplexed for the last 50/60 years or so.
    The good citizens of Oak Park (Home of the nuclear free zone) have a treat in store for them. After many complaints from blacks and do-gooders, Steve James will do a mini series a la Ken Burns style into that problem which will not go away even after millions upon millions have been spent to remedy that most unjust situation that nature/man has sprung on us. For anyone interested in the local high school ; http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2017&code=0601620000001_e.pdf
    Apparently Illinois no longer uses the ACT test they use the SAT. The Gap lives on. I’ll be waiting for Mr James current explanation for the GAP.
    He currently has a Netflix documentary out by the name of “Abacus” which I haden’t seen yet but plan to.

  127. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    Spot on.

    I think the major difference was seeing yourself as a historical person, being connected with your elderly and knowing second-hand the complexity of life. Being culturally literate in the morality plays of the Bible, Shakespeare, great literature. Humanist in the best sense.

    Most people today, OTOH, are actively severing themselves from all the ties that bind them to the past. They are totally unmoored in an eternal present, and the Narrative machine provides them with a new context for each issue to push them to precisely the correct conclusion.

  128. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    The movements for prohibition and suffrage weren’t like SJW Twitter mobs?

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    Not precisely. I meant that it's hard to imagine people in 1925 taking one single quote or one single fragment of a quote, or one single screw-up, or one badly-phrased joke, and then blowing it up to apocalyptic proportions. They were far too sophisticated for that.

    Every age has its progressive reformist nutjobs. But in the past, they were mostly house-trained.
  129. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven’t met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Jews haven’t met many Southerners, and the ones they’ve met are mostly happy to play into Jews’ prejudices (c.f. the idiotic fantasies you mention about Southerners).

  130. @ben tillman
    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.

    You don’t understand. Art Deco knows these things. Art Deco knows all things.

    He’s smarter than everyone because he has a degree in library science.

  131. One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    • Replies: @Corn
    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.
    , @Bliss
    FYI:

    Homosexuals were holocausted by the nazis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

    Nazi Germany was a christian, carnivorous nation not a pagan, vegetarian hippie commune...regardless of the personal preferences of Hitler (vegetarianism) and Himmler (occultism).

    , @unpc downunder
    The Italian fascists were a lot more ideologically coherent than the Nazis, who veered all over the place. The main theme of Italian fascism was trying to find an inspiring middle path between modernism and traditionalism. Hence, they had policies like promoting women's sports to discourage masculine women from becoming fifth columnists, and promoting visual art which fused traditional and modern ideas. Ideologically speaking, Italian fascism was a much more serious threat to Anglo-Saxon liberalism than Nazism, but the Italians lacked the industrial muscle and social cohesion to have much historical impact.
  132. @ivvenalis
    Philip K. Dick's 1962 alt-history novel The Man in the High Castle portrays the American South as willing allies to the occupying Nazis, to include participation in an extended Final Solution. There's a specific line about "connections racial, ideological, and God knows what else", or something like that, between the South and the victorious Third Reich.

    “The Man..” is far and away the most boring cable/Netflix major show ever produced. Plodding, ponderous garbage.But figure Simon working on Roth’s alternate is going to top that.

    Robert Harris” “Fatherland” was way more plausible than either. Brits come to an armistice after a long hard losing slog without the US, Churchill gets dumped, the Duke of Windsor gets restored to the throne. And Joseph Kennedy, after his falling out with FDR, becomes president with an isolationist foreign policy.

  133. @anon
    OT, but Breaking News!

    Jewish leaders occupy Capitol rotunda building to demand that we let the Dreamers stay.

    https://www.hashtagsmania.com/trend/LetMyPeopleStay

    https://twitter.com/jufj/status/953647600128884736

    This is why we should have let more of them in back in the 1940s. There just aren't enough people in this country calling us Nazis and making ridiculous demands of us.
  134. @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won’t throw in the towel to this day – you’ll hear from some of them here – they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    And what defines “respectable historian” in this context? Someone who believes that Frank was innocent? Name these respectable historians. Maybe they have a certain common trait.

    And – of course – the only possible explanation for believing that Frank is guilty is being an anti-semite. Because Jews never commit murder, I suppose.

    There is indeed somebody here acting like the OJ apologists. And it isn’t “anti-semites”.

  135. Intimating that people are inimical to Jews is something Roth doesn’t think twice about. His novel about his (Jewish) ex wife Clair Bloom was like that.

  136. @Charles Pewitt

    The U.S. South was extremely philo-Semitic, and it had almost no one of German or Italian descent.

     

    Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors. The Germans came into the colonies on wooden boats through the colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and others. New England was the most homogenous part of colonial America.

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

    “Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors.”

    No they didn’t. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    I think if you unpack it, you'll discover ethnic Germans down South are commonly drawn from 18th century anabaptist immigration. Brethren, Mennonite, etc, who wanted no part of the Civil War. Never heard of any resentment of same, though.
    , @istevefan

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War.
     
    I think this plays a part in the historical animosity between Kansas City and St. Louis. A lot of 1848 German immigrants settled in St. Louis and helped the Union. KC on the other hand was in a part of the state more aligned with the South. I doubt many modern residents even know this since many don't have roots to that time. But it probably helped lay the foundation for the odd feelings that persist between these cities.

    Here is an excerpt from the Camp Jackson Affair:

    The Camp Jackson affair, also known as the Camp Jackson massacre, was an incident during the American Civil War that occurred on May 10, 1861, when a volunteer Union Army regiment captured a unit of secessionists at Camp Jackson, outside the city of St. Louis, in the divided slave state of Missouri.

    The newly-appointed Union commander in Missouri, Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon, had learned that the ostensibly neutral state militia training in Camp Jackson was planning to raid the federal arsenal in St. Louis. After capturing the entire unit, Lyon marched the captives into town in order to parole them. En route, hostile secessionist crowds gathered, and after an accidental gunshot, Lyon's men fired into the mob, killing at least 28 civilians and injuring dozens of others. Several days of rioting throughout St. Louis followed. Pro-slavery locals were also particularly angered by the presence in Lyon’s force of many German abolitionists who had fled the failed revolutions of 1848. The violence ended only after martial law was imposed and Union regulars were dispatched to the city.
     
    , @Charles Pewitt
    I am half old stocker Southerner. I have Andes, Rader and Reinhard surnames in my ancestry. They came to the colonies before the Secessionary War from the British Empire. I love Krauts!
    , @Charles Pewitt

    “Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors.”

     


    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

     

    Anne Gillespie Mitchell:

    Around 1670 the first significant group of Germans came to the colonies, mostly settling in Pennsylvania and New York. In 1709 a group known as the Palatines made the journey from the Palatinate region of Germany. Many died on the way over on crowded ships, but around 2,100 survived and settled in New York.

     


    Soon after that, multiple waves of Germans arrived in the Southeast and settled in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Another wave came and settled in New England.

     

    https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/10/13/migration-to-america-in-the-1700s/
    , @IBC
    The CSA's Secretary of the Treasury was actually born in Germany:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Memminger

    And one of the Lincoln assassination conspirators was also German-born:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Atzerodt

    And the commander of the infamous Andersonville prison camp was a Swiss-German.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz

    But yes, there would have been more Germans on the Northern side, if only for immigration reasons.

  137. @Anonymous
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln's side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    GWTW depicts Melanie’s baby being nursed by Prissie’s mother, Dilcey. Nazis would consider this race pollution.
    The racism of the pre-War South was exploitive, but rarely murderous (pace Mrs. Stowe, but slaves were expensive), and often involved considerable mutual affection with house servants.

  138. @Gunner
    I always find it silly when these alternate histories where the Nazis won the war have the South passively or actively supporting them. These guys didn’t want to stop fighting the North and they were mostly English speaking Anglos. If any anti-Nazi rebellion is gonna happen, it would be largely hillbilly.

    My grandfather (hailed from Tennessee) joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in early 1940 because he was both pro-England and because he still held a grudge against the Germans from his service in WW1. When the US joined the war most (maybe all, I’m not sure) Americans in other countries’ services were called into the US services and he rejoined the US Navy.

    For the rest of his life he disliked the Germans and even gave my father a hard time for buying a Volkswagen in the mid 1960’s. He’d say that yeah the Japanese were as bad, but he expected savagery from savages, the Germans should have known better.

    On racial issues he was a segregationist. I never heard him say anything about Jews one way or the other.

  139. Excuse this old chestnut of mine; I’ve brought it up several times over the years here, but given the current discussion I think it’s worth bringing up again. From Roth’s cowardly, paranoid fantasizing about what an imagined Lindbergh Administration would possibly do:

    … A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them

    And now, what the real, historical, FDR was hoping to do (hat-tip to commenter “franktremb”):
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/democratic-norway-v-authoritarian-sweden/#comment-702514

    FDR didn’t like “Hyphenate Americans” either. Here’s an extract from a letter to the Prime minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, on the 18th of May 1942. To him, French Canadians and “Hyphenate Americans” are a problem to North America. But he believed in assimilation:

    “When I was a boy in the «nineties», I used to see many deal French Canadians who had rather recently come into the New Bedford area, near the old Delano place, at Fair Haven. They seemed very much out of place in what was still an old New England community. They segregated themselves in the mill towns and had little to do with their neighbours. I can still remember that the old generation shook their heads and used to say, «this is a new element which will never be assimilated. We are assimilating the Irish but these Quebec people won’t even speak English. Their bodies are here, but their hearts and minds are in Quebec».
    Today, forty or fifty years later, the French-Canadian elements in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are at last becoming a part of the American melting pot. They no longer vote as their churches and their societies tell them to. They are inter-marrying with the original Anglo Saxon stock; they are good, peaceful citizens, and most of them are speaking English in their homes.

    All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning – perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy – by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada’s French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.

    In other words, after nearly two hundred years with you and after seventy-five years with us, there would seem to be no good reason for great differentials between the French population elements and the rest of the racial stocks.

    It is on the same basis that I am trying to work out post-war plans for the encouragement of the distribution of certain other nationalities in our large congested centers. There ought not to be such a concentration of Italians and of Jews, and even of Germans as we have today in New York City. I have started my National Resources Planning Commission to work on a survey of this kind.“

    • Replies: @flip
    "many deal French Canadians"

    What does he mean by "deal?"
  140. I grew up in Louisville, KY, and while I don’t remember being politically aware then, now it seems like it is way to liberal/democrat for a deplorable like me.

  141. @Anonymous
    Behold the results:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcXuafe2y-Y

    But Wolfenstein II is so OTT (Particularly with it’s sassy black woman and slightly neurotic nebbish looking New York Jew sidekicks) that it’s easy to look at it the same way people look at Reefer Madness. It becomes impossible to tell what ratio of the massive team of people who put it together are true believers, are themselves wrong-thinkers or people in the middle who think Twitter politics is hilarious. The layers of irony and seriousness blend to nothing.

  142. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    I grew up in the south (the benighted Arkansas, no less) and was raised in a conservative Christian home. I can tell you with certainty that I have *never* heard any southerner suggest that, or ask whether or not, Jews have horns whether in jest or in ignorance. If anyone had ever made such a statement I can assure you that it would’ve been met with stares of disbelief and laughter directed at the speaker who suggested such a preposterous thing.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.
    , @Anonymous
    It's a BS story like human lampshades or soap. Why nazis would want to bathe with soap made from jews was never quite explained. Soap is supposed to be cleansing, and cleanliness was one of the nazi obsessions most vilified by jews. Sort of like the poop swastika. Why nazis would use poop to paint their treasured symbol was never quite explained. But then again, it never happened. Not that that matters much. Veracity and accuracy fall by the wayside when there's cultural hay to be baled.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Borat thought Jews have horns.
  143. @Doug
    One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.

    • Replies: @Benjamin I. Espen
    I think Reilly did say something to that effect once, but I don't have the post to hand.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Hitler didn't seem to care much about religion. He didn't care much about domestic policies (other than persecuting Jews) or economics. Hitler really only cared about War. He wanted to be a great warlord and conqueror. He wanted to succeed where Napoleon had failed and succeed where Alexander the Great had succeeded.
  144. I recall these lines from Flannery O’Connor:

    “The old lady said that in her opinion Europe was entirely to blame for the way things were now.
    She said the way Europe acted you would think we were made of money and Red Sam said it was no use talking about it, she was exactly right.”

    And: “Always fighting amongst each other. Disputing. And then get us into it. Ain’t they got us into it twict already and we ain’t got no more sense than to go over there and settle it for them…”

    I assume O’Connor was poking fun at these people, but still it looks like the South had some buyer’s remorse for coming to Britain’s aid.

    • Replies: @black sea
    O'Connor is well worth the time, but I wouldn't infer too much politically from the quotations above. The grandmother and "Red Sammy" were more likely to have been passing the time, saying something to say something while waiting for the "Co'-Colas" to arrive at the table. An alternative to discussing the weather.

    O'Connor had a sharp tongue, which she went to some pains to conceal in her social dealings. On the topic of the grotesque in fiction:


    When we look at a good deal of serious modern fiction, and particularly Southern fiction, we find this quality about it that is generally described, in a pejorative sense, as grotesque. Of course, I have found that anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the Northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.
     
    , @Anonymous
    There's something almost breathtaking about how readily you extrapolate from a sample size of one to an entire region of your own country. Not to mention that the sample in question is fictional. But don't let me get in your way.
  145. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    There was a documentary film from the late 90’s called The Delta Jews. It covered the life of Southern Jews. If I remember correctly one of the people interviewed in the film stated that Southerners liked Jews. It was just that they disliked the Northern ones who came down to the South and agitated during the civil rights era of the ’50s and ’60s.

    Today, however, people conflate Southerners’ attitudes towards those specific Northern Jews with Jews in general.

  146. bored identity always knew that something’s rothen in Kentucky.

    btw, Sailer that Disney Cinderella ( remember that video of rothen fat mouse with Phrygian cap hording shekels shiny, golden corn kernels- that you censored last week with a whimp ? ) was uncredited work

  147. @Dave Pinsen
    From the NYT interview with Roth:

    There is a cameo of Virginia Woolf in all her terrifying genius and there are especially gripping pages about the initial evening meeting in badly bombarded Leningrad in 1945 with the magnificent Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, when she was in her 50s, isolated, lonely, despised and persecuted by the Soviet regime. Berlin writes, “Leningrad after the war was for her nothing but a vast cemetery, the graveyard of her friends. … The account of the unrelieved tragedy of her life went far beyond anything which anyone had ever described to me in spoken words.” They spoke until 3 or 4 in the morning. The scene is as moving as anything in Tolstoy.
     
    Anna Akhmatova comes up in Antony Beevor's book about the fall of Berlin:

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/953544159616471040

    Beevor has to be taken with a grain of salt. His books are Cold War propaganda (and are banned in modern Russia.) Even that little quote that you give about the Soviets “stoking the desire for vengeance” is full of half truths, omissions, and highly questionable “facts.”

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Please. Beevor was given access to Russian archives as well as Western and German ones, and his books are copiously documented. The "stoking the desire for revenge" was accurate, as was the Soviets' late reversal from that, in order to facilitate peaceful postwar occupation of East Germany.
  148. @Parsifal
    As pointless bloodshed goes Dresden takes the cake. And Ehrenburg is hardly worse than US anti-Japanese propaganda.

    Indeed. I remember right after I got married my new brother-in-law gave me an “inspiring, patriotic” book to read, “God is My Co-pilot” by Robert L. Scott. I indeed found it to be a wonderful, inspiring story, that is until I got to the part where Scott puts in his two-minutes of hate against the Japanese.

    As a boomer raised on the myth of the good war, a myth that at the time I still believed and followed, I still found the anti-Japanese screed in his book rather off-putting, and any time I read about or read quotes from Ehrenburg, I’m reminded of Scott’s over the top hate which makes the title of his otherwise inspiring book almost into blasphemy.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    A good war is a war you win.

    http://madefrom.com/history/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/08/54224730168b90426825170e6ebf5efb.jpg

    http://j387mediahistory.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/2/2/6422481/9340407_orig.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/9a/c2/5e9ac25b20e9850eeda9fa9867edc219--ww-propaganda-ww-posters.jpg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    The agony of defeat:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qCWf9_V5Cz8

  149. @Jack D
    Sure, and probably half of the members were undercover FBI informers. It's in the interest of some people (SPLC cough cough) to make the KKK/American Nazis seem like a bigger threat than they actually are. If they didn't exist then the SPLC would have to hire guys to play the part. The Globetrotters need the Washington Generals - you can't play against no-one even after you have won the last 3,000 consecutive games.

    And yet we know that the support for Jim Crow in the South was (at least until the '70s with George Wallace) deep rooted and not just confined to a few dozen trailer trash play acting with robes and swastikas and tiki torches. Maybe there's a generational change but some of the old attitudes must linger. When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally. Just as antifas represent the pointy end of the leftist spectrum with millions more behind them who are somewhat in sympathy but not to the extent that they will put on masks and club people, the KKK/Nazis represent the pointy end of a somewhat larger group.

    When the Democrats became the Black Party, whites in the South abandoned it almost totally.

    This year, HRC received ~23% of the votes of white Southerners, so, no, not totally. Local Democrats will do somewhat better. Re federal politics, the partisan realignment took about 40-odd years (1952-94) and longer re state legislatures. There aren’t many white Democrats in Congress representing constituencies in the South that are fully Southern (about six in the House and 1 in the Senate, IIRC), but you still have a bloc of white voters who cast ballots for Democrats. Democrats do better among white Southern Democrats than Republicans did among certain white ethnics sixty years ago.

    Interpolating a bit, it looks like Trump collared about 20% of the white vote in the core municipality of the county where I grew up, give or take. (The Republican County Executive candidate the year before did vastly better).

  150. @Clifford Brown
    The Nazi sympathetic German Bund was much more popular in New York City than in the South. They even had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.

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

    In LA, there were the ever fascinating Silver Shirts, who built a commune in the Pacific Palisades at Murphy Ranch. Mere miles from Hollywood. Since they were located in the hills above LA, the Silver Shirts dabbled in the occult/ mystical side of things. The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.'s and arguably America's most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive. When he was not designing Nazi luxury encampments to survive the Apocalypse, Paul R. Williams also designed the home of Desi Arnaz and LAX's ever intriguing THEME building.

    https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/24/10043624/what-really-happened-at-rustic-canyons-rumored-nazi-ranch

    The Murphy Ranch Nazi compound was designed in part by Paul R. Williams, L.A.’s and arguably America’s most prominent Black architect. In LA, even the Nazis are kind of progressive.

    Very interesting. Didn’t know about Paul R. Williams so googled him. A very creative architect who had a huge impact on his home town Los Angeles:

    https://www.npr.org/2012/06/22/155442524/a-trailblazing-black-architect-who-helped-shape-l-a

    A Trailblazing Black Architect Who Helped Shape L.A.

    Paul Revere Williams began designing homes and commercial buildings in the early 1920s. By the time he died in 1980, he had created some 2,500 buildings, most of them in and around Los Angeles, but also around the globe.

    His granddaughter, Karen E. Hudson, has been chronicling Williams’ life and work for the past two decades. Her latest book, Paul R. Williams: Classic Hollywood Style, focuses on some of the homes of his celebrity clients. They feature many characteristics that were innovative when he used them in the 1920s through the ’70s and are considered common practice now — like the patio as an extension of the house, and hidden, retractable screens.

    His work has come to signify glamorous Southern California to the rest of the country — and to the world. One of his hallmarks — a luxuriantly curving staircase — has captivated many a potential owner.

    Bret Parsons is head of the architectural division of John Aaroe Group, a Beverly Hills real estate brokerage handling multimillion-dollar properties. He says when Williams homes come up for sale, real estate agents scramble to get the listing. “They’re gobbled up in seconds,” he says. “They’re an absolute pedigree for someone to have in their arsenal.” Parsons says Williams homes posses grace, design and elegant proportions, which attracted people with money and taste.

  151. @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    I think if you unpack it, you’ll discover ethnic Germans down South are commonly drawn from 18th century anabaptist immigration. Brethren, Mennonite, etc, who wanted no part of the Civil War. Never heard of any resentment of same, though.

    • Replies: @Sean
    On Friday a friend of Mary Phagan friend asked Frank for Phagan's paypacket, but Frank refused and that is why she had to come in to get it herself on Saturday. Phagan was seen approaching the factory and she must have arrived by 12.05.

    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/

    11. Leo Frank claimed that he was in his office continuously from noon to 12:35 on the day of the murder, but a witness friendly to Frank, 14-year-old Monteen Stover, said Frank’s office was totally empty from 12:05 to 12:10 while she waited for him there before giving up and leaving. This was approximately the same time as Mary Phagan’s visit to Frank’s office and the time she was murdered. On Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank told police that Mary Phagan came into his office at 12:03 PM. The next day, Frank made a deposition to the police, with his lawyers present, in which he said he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office between 12:05 and 12:10. Frank would later change his story again, stating on the stand that Mary Phagan came into his office a full five minutes later than that.

    12. Leo Frank contradicted his own testimony when he finally admitted on the stand that he had possibly “unconsciously” gone to the Metal Room bathroom between 12:05 and 12:10 PM on the day of the murder.
     

    Franks defence was that Phagan had went to the second floor office got her pay from Frank, came down the stairs, and was nearing the main door when Jim Conley attacked her and put her down a trapdoor to the basement, but her hair and blood were found in the metal room room near Frank's office on the second floor. Conley (a floor sweeper who was paid more than skilled workers) was not working and just sitting around near the entrance; he said he was asked to come in that day by Frank and he was regularly a lookout while Frank had his way with female workers. Conley was never mentioned by Frank, until after the police eliminated Newt Lee the original black suspect. One last thing, if Conley did it why would he tie a piece of cloth around the neck of Phagan that concealed the strangulation marks? Frank had a motive to do that, because he told Conley that Phagan's death had happened by accident
  152. I believe Albert Lindemann discusses the low level of anti-Semitism in the South traditionally in his study of the Leo Frank case: https://goo.gl/Jm5Qms

    For one thing, the Jews were relatively few, and for another they played a needed role as merchants in a largely agricultural (plantation) economy. Nor were they cultural rebels.

    • Replies: @anon
    Yeah, but that's not true, though. Here's the real reason:

    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases – Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).
     
    Listen to that. Can you write as convincingly as that? I can't! That sounds like it came from a really good PBS documentary. Maybe not Ken Burns good, but almost.

    Or at least like someone read it in a magazine article and memorized it.

    Either way, it's hard for me to doubt someone who writes lines like "This was a time when the South was being transformed.".
  153. @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    Roth might be an expert on all things Jewish in Newark, New Jersey, or the Eastern portion of northern New Jersey, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s an expert on the northern half of New Jersey.

    Northwestern New Jersey is mostly White and mostly Christian. Unfortunately, there is now an Asian and Mestizo invasion underway. New Jersey is one of the states that must be reclaimed by White Core American Patriots when the time comes.

    OFF TOPIC

    FELDSTEIN FORECASTS FLOP FOR STOCKS

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-are-headed-for-a-fall-1516145624

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    You are being pedantic. Steve is referring to part of NJ that is inside 287. No one cares about Sussex and Warren Counties.
  154. @Art Deco
    a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day.

    IIRC, the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (and who actually did subscribe to Nazi gibberish) belonged to a local klavern with no affiliation to any other organization. Such klaverns typically had about 30-odd members. The klan at the time with the largest census was Bill Wilkinson's 'Invisible Empire'. The Invisible Empire filed a bankruptcy petition in 1983 and listed its dues-paying membership at 1,800.

    the characters who shot up Greensboro, North Carolina

    Greensboro massacre
    when members of the Communist Workers’ Party and others demonstrated in a “Death to the Klan” march

  155. Still, it isn’t entirely clear why the South was so militantly anti-Nazi—Adolf Hitler was a big fan of Gone With the Wind,

    What a moronic comment. Everybody liked Gone With The Wind. Indeed, until SJWs took over, it was hailed as the crown jewel of Hollywood’s annus mirabilis, 1939. Nowadays, though, it is the film-that-must-not-be-named.

    RE: Roth’s weird obsession with crypto-Nazi Southerners,

    There’s a pro-Lindbergh rabbi in it. Naturally, he’s a Southerner:

    Perhaps the most striking similarity between the reality of Trump and the fiction of Roth can be found in the character of Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf, a Southern-born radio sermonizer supportive of Lindbergh: “I am here,” the rabbi says, “to crush all doubt of the unadulterated loyalty of American Jews to the United States of America. I offer my support to the candidacy of Colonel Lindbergh because the political objectives of my people are identical with his. America is our beloved homeland. America is our only homeland.”

    http://theweek.com/articles/670634/donald-trump-plot-against-america

  156. @Sean
    You might want to read Albert S. Lindemann on the Frank case. The main prejudice against Frank was that he looked like a pervert to observers. If anything being Jewish helped his defence.

    As Lindemann commented, Jewish or not, anyone with the objective evidence against him that Frank had would be very likely to find himself on trial. Whether there was reasonable doubt by contemporaneous or present day standards is a matter of opinion.

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.

    • Replies: @anon
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.

    So, if you lived in a Southern town, and there was a Jewish pervert going around molesting thirteen-year-old girls (You know. Like they do.), and a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to descend on your town and defend this child-molesting Jew just because he was a Jew, and called you and everyone in your town all kinds of horrible names just for being mad about this child-molesting Jew...

    Do you think that would make you more fond of Jews, or less?

    , @Sean
    But what people think happened is due to things that blacks don't control, so we are treated to poor little Mary as tits and ass jiggling slut in They Won't Forget; yes, the original Hollywood sweater girl character was a child who became a murder victim.

    A hundred reasons Frank was very far from innocent, in which number 28 shows a photo of 13 years old Mary the prostitute on the autopsy slab. That was her punishment for refusing to have cunnilingus performed on her by Frank (who was indeed willing to pay as several girls testified).
  157. @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War.

    I think this plays a part in the historical animosity between Kansas City and St. Louis. A lot of 1848 German immigrants settled in St. Louis and helped the Union. KC on the other hand was in a part of the state more aligned with the South. I doubt many modern residents even know this since many don’t have roots to that time. But it probably helped lay the foundation for the odd feelings that persist between these cities.

    Here is an excerpt from the Camp Jackson Affair:

    The Camp Jackson affair, also known as the Camp Jackson massacre, was an incident during the American Civil War that occurred on May 10, 1861, when a volunteer Union Army regiment captured a unit of secessionists at Camp Jackson, outside the city of St. Louis, in the divided slave state of Missouri.

    The newly-appointed Union commander in Missouri, Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon, had learned that the ostensibly neutral state militia training in Camp Jackson was planning to raid the federal arsenal in St. Louis. After capturing the entire unit, Lyon marched the captives into town in order to parole them. En route, hostile secessionist crowds gathered, and after an accidental gunshot, Lyon’s men fired into the mob, killing at least 28 civilians and injuring dozens of others. Several days of rioting throughout St. Louis followed. Pro-slavery locals were also particularly angered by the presence in Lyon’s force of many German abolitionists who had fled the failed revolutions of 1848. The violence ended only after martial law was imposed and Union regulars were dispatched to the city.

    • Replies: @Flip
    The "Damned Dutch" they were called. (Dutch meaning Deutsch). One of my great grandfathers was a German immigrant who served in the Union Army in St. Louis during the Civil War.
  158. Southerners in the Memphis, TN area loved the NAZI’s so much that they changed the name of neighboring Germantown to the vaguely Hebrew sounding Neshoba during WWII. German’s were more prevalent West of the Mississippi, so there may have been different sympathies in places like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Not so much in the areas settled by the Scots-Irish.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    A lot of Germans settled in the Hill Country of Texas which includes the site of the LBJ ranch.
  159. Mainstream liberal-leaning Canadian Jungian academic Jordan Petersen, forced out of Toronto’s York University for refusing to pretend that gender is what you make of it, on Channel Four.

    (As the Doctor of Common Sense is wont to say, was that not an asskicking?)
    This is on ongoing problem: apart from head fakes like Macron and his Words, the establishment is still the most quarantined of echo chambers. They clearly did no research and assumed that Petersen (who in less decadent times would be a thoroughly mainstream guy praised by these types, and who besides studied at Harvard) was interchangeable with Richard Spencer or RamZPaul (themselves not interchangeable, I know, but that’s the point).

    • Replies: @res
    Looks like YouTube has answered in the way that is done when there are no real counterarguments--i.e. by taking the video down (for copyright violation). Is there a summary or alternative video anywhere?
  160. Kentucky was a Union state in the Civil War.

    Kentucky started the war by declaring itself neutral. The General Assembly was pro Union. The Governor at the start of the war was neutral. A group of Kentuckians did vote to secede and petitioned to join the Confederacy. Kentucky was accepted into the Confederacy on December 10, 1861 and was represented by the center star on the Battle Flag. The Yankees did have to institute a military government during the later years of the war.

  161. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    murder of the Jewish civil rights workers

    he said: “Those boys were Communists who went to a Communist training school….”

  162. One explanation for Roth’s novel is that he accepted and was aware of all the Communists and Stalinist around him, then projected the love of Socialism, Nazism, and Hitler on his enemies. In some circles, taking one’s own stupidity and flaws but putting them on to the lives of others is called imagination.

  163. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea
    I believe Albert Lindemann discusses the low level of anti-Semitism in the South traditionally in his study of the Leo Frank case: https://goo.gl/Jm5Qms

    For one thing, the Jews were relatively few, and for another they played a needed role as merchants in a largely agricultural (plantation) economy. Nor were they cultural rebels.

    Yeah, but that’s not true, though. Here’s the real reason:

    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases – Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    Listen to that. Can you write as convincingly as that? I can’t! That sounds like it came from a really good PBS documentary. Maybe not Ken Burns good, but almost.

    Or at least like someone read it in a magazine article and memorized it.

    Either way, it’s hard for me to doubt someone who writes lines like “This was a time when the South was being transformed.”.

  164. @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    I am half old stocker Southerner. I have Andes, Rader and Reinhard surnames in my ancestry. They came to the colonies before the Secessionary War from the British Empire. I love Krauts!

  165. @Art Deco
    Evangelicals almost never are,

    You spend time reading how much work by Evangelical academics?

    Evangelical academics?

    That is an oxymoron.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That is an oxymoron.

    That you're completely ignorant of something doesn't render it non-existent.
  166. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.

    So, if you lived in a Southern town, and there was a Jewish pervert going around molesting thirteen-year-old girls (You know. Like they do.), and a bunch of Jewish journalists decided to descend on your town and defend this child-molesting Jew just because he was a Jew, and called you and everyone in your town all kinds of horrible names just for being mad about this child-molesting Jew…

    Do you think that would make you more fond of Jews, or less?

  167. @peterike

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example).

     

    The key word there is "claim." What they are doing is lying, making it up. Jews of a certain generation really like playing up persecution fantasies and imaginary health problems (a different kind of persecution fantasy). It's that generation's version of virtue signaling.

    The key word there is “claim.”

    Maybe. It is a pretty widespread “urban legend” among Jews.

    E.g. this thread from 2005 – https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jews-have-horns.1880259/

    During the recent Roy Moore debacle, I saw many similar stories on Facebook, usually from people claiming it happened to them.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    The Klezmer band Klezmatics can't be content to leave the name of their third album Jews With Horns by itself or connect it to the middle ages, they have to make up a ridiculous story about having once been asked about their head horns in the modern era. This was described on NPR but is not on the wiki or the band site.
    Stories about modern goyim looking for horns represent a level of supremacist bigotry that is completely tolerated and has no equivalent in other major cultures. This is part of an inevitable problem when people are negotiating in bad faith to serve tribalist rivalry: give them an inch, and next time they need something, they will have an even worse story. They will repay your service to them with slander, as we see in the Southern Retcon or in Kosinski's Painted Bird.
  168. @Wade

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.
     
    I grew up in the south (the benighted Arkansas, no less) and was raised in a conservative Christian home. I can tell you with certainty that I have *never* heard any southerner suggest that, or ask whether or not, Jews have horns whether in jest or in ignorance. If anyone had ever made such a statement I can assure you that it would've been met with stares of disbelief and laughter directed at the speaker who suggested such a preposterous thing.

    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn’t always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 – I assume you are much younger.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Possibly something else was meant: http://www.strangehistory.net/2014/05/16/cuckolds-horns/
    , @Anonymous
    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.
    , @anon
    When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns.

    World War II was well into the era of film...
    , @Johann Ricke

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.
     
    I'd say it's not out of character for men. Or women.
    , @Johann Ricke

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).
     
    I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn't eligible, but this was the subtext. Given the significant amount of support Cruz got in the South, a good chunk of the electorate obviously held no truck with those traditional views. But enough did to torpedo his run.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I frankly don't believe that. Perhaps you misheard her. I've known lots of southerners, including relations, and of that era, and I have never heard of such a thing.
  169. OT, but important:
    Trump just took the MoCA mental aptitude test and scored 30/30. Liberals say the test is too easy and doesn’t count.

    I found a study from Arizona performed on senior citizens that includes a racial breakdown:
    http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/537658/2/Parsons%2C+Christine+Poster.pdf

    Average age: 72
    Mean, std
    overall: 23.7, 4.4
    whites: 24.5, 3.7
    blacks: 20.7, 5.4

    83% of blacks failed the test. (threshold = 26)

    Cognitive impairment was more prevalent in certain races, however it is unclear if other variables such as cultural factors necessitate score adjustment or adjustment in the test itself.

    Muh cultural factors. LOL

    Trump is 1.43 std above the mean which would translate to an IQ of 121,47.
    The Arizona study is likely not representative and the MoCA test score distribution is negatively skewed (to the left). So take with a large grain of salt.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The general feeling is that some people lose a few IQ points as they age. If you are the average billionaire, like Trump, chances are that you started out as a pretty sharp guy. So even if you lose a few points due to aging, you still have a lot left, just like Jack Nicklaus could probably play better golf than you can even at age 70. OTOH if you are a black that starts out at IQ85, losing a few points to old age could easily put you below the threshold. Hell, you might have been below the MOCA threshold at 25.
    , @res
    26 or above is considered "normal" per https://www.bmc.org/sites/default/files/For_Medical_Professionals/Pediatric_Resources/Pediatrics__MA_Center_for_Sudden_Infant_Death_Syndrome__SIDS_/Montreal-cognitive-assessment-MoCA.pdf

    The study you cited was about cognitive impairment so I don't think you can equate the score SDs from the study with IQ as you do. Then there is the ceiling issue. In fairness, your last paragraph makes clear you understand this.

    Whether or not the test is too easy depends on what it is being used for. Trump's score is a good argument that he is not impaired, but that he chose that (relatively low ceiling) test result to advertise makes me think he is less smart (in an IQ sense) than I thought before.
  170. @whorefinder
    When it comes to history, it pays for the left to be as ignorant as possible. Get them to start studying and investigating, and who knows how many leftist bromides might fall?

    For example, one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow to be heard in any medium; neither film nor TV nor debate. If someone raises it they are immediately blackballed and cut off. Then the Left says that all that caused Jim Crow was evil whitey/exploitation by the rich.

    Yet when you look at black violent crime rates and rioting and the actual tales of whites dealing with black misbehavior during the era---all of which sound startlingly familiar to tales today we can watch performed live on World Star Hip-Hop---Jim Crow starts to sound a lot more defensible and appealing and humane than the alternatives of letting whites be terrorized by black crime or having blacks be ethnically cleansed by angry whites.

    “one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow ”

    I have no wish to defend Jim Crow but this does remind me of a recent article I read about the origins of white flight and the development of inner city ghettos in the north: https://devinhelton.com/why-urban-decay

    The writer argues (and attempts to document, I don’t know how successfully) that high rates of black-on-white violence in northern cities preceded and drove the process.

    Separately, I think he also argues (unless I am getting him mixed up with another writer) that the ratio of black-to-white lynchings throughout the nation was roughly the same as the ratio of black to white rates of crime, suggesting that lynching may not have been driven by racial animus or discrimination, as is generally assumed, but rather by actual disparities in criminal behavior (which does not mean there were not miscarriages of vigilante justice, which, given the lack of due process, there must have been).

    I only report this because the information and the arguments are new to me. That said, I emphatically do NOT support legal segregation and would like to see the vote extended even to convicted felons of whatever race who have served their sentences. People who are free to walk on the streets and to work should have the right to vote, in my opinion, which is not the case in many places.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Civil rights are a cynical plot to gradually end constitutional rights and everything about it was probably a lie. Fourth amendment went out right away, Zimmerman shows the plan for the Second, they're working industriously on the First through hate speech laws and an end run by way of social media, and the Third is coming once a Ninth Circuit judge agrees that whites are so inherently dangerous that we need to be supervised. Go down the line of what the racists warned and what the anti-racists promised, the racists have largely been proven inarguably correct, and nothing the anti-racists claimed has come to pass. Individual incidents were often probably Alinskyite stunts although some happened as claimed, but even the true incidents became subject to media massaging. The fact that Hollywood tried to get away with a major film starring Denzel Washington long after the Dylan song "Hurricane" was proven to be wildly dishonest tells us everything. Some lies need to be prohibited by the government and by restricting freedom of the press, and some lies are not a big deal.
  171. @CCZ
    Previously, Roth commented on “Plot” and Trump in the January 30, 2017 New Yorker, in the article “Roth on Trump.”

    Many passages in “The Plot Against America” echo feelings voiced today by vulnerable Americans—immigrants and minorities as alarmed by Trump’s election as the Jews of Newark are frightened by Lindbergh’s. The book also chronicles their impulse of denial. Lindbergh’s election makes clear to the seven-year-old “Philip Roth” that “the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything. Turned wrong way around, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as ‘History,’ a harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

    Asked if this warning has come to pass, Roth e-mailed, “My novel wasn’t written as a warning. I was just trying to imagine what it would have been like for a Jewish family like mine, in a Jewish community like Newark, had something even faintly like Nazi anti-Semitism befallen us in 1940, at the end of the most pointedly anti-Semitic decade in world history. I wanted to imagine how we would have fared, which meant I had first to invent an ominous American government that threatened us. As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.”
     
    Maybe Roth's outlook has been “enhanced” by reading Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter (The History of White People, 2011), and Bruce Springsteen.

    From “Philip Roth calls Trump 'a massive fraud,' talks about Springsteen book” in NJ.Com, by Amy Kuperinsky, January 16, 2018:

    “Since he's not writing, Roth, who currently lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, spends his time reading, seeing friends, going to concerts, watching movies and checking email. Among his recent reads are works by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nell Irvin Painter, Edmund Morgan, Teju Cole, Stephen Greenblatt, and Bruce Springsteen.”
     
    Regarding black historian Painter writing about “White People”: “Among the topics Painter discusses are the way in which formerly non-white groups were designated as white as they assimilated into American life, the racialization of intelligence and of political beliefs, and the relationship between race and conceptions of female beauty.” [Wiki]

    I know Trump as Nazi is a Thing, of course, but why are they bothering Philip Roth about it? Has there been an uptick in sales of Plot Against America since the ’16 election? Were enough journalists spontaneously reminded of the book? Or are they simply bothering everyone for their opinion, and Roth is next on the list?

    Bush the Younger of course was compared to Hitler, and I recall the Handmaid’s Tale coming up in connection with him. Probably because he was born-again in addition to being Hitler. Itt has re-emerged under Trump, but that’s a coincidence. The t.v. show had to be in the works while Hilary was still inevitable.

    It Can’t Happen Here I remember being brought up under Bush II, but not the Plot Against America. Is there a specific Lindbergh connection, because he and Trump are both from outside politics? Is there a hope abroad that Trump could up and fly away, and we could go back to normal?

    Sales of Atlas Shrugged soared in 2008, not because of Obama specifically but because of the economic meltdown and the bipartisan response to it. Has there been a response to Trump like that anywhere, Plot Against America-related or otherwise?

  172. @anon

    which argues that “the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the 20th century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”
     
    I've seen enough episodes of Welcome Back, Kotter to know that this is probably true.

    James Joyce: The Jewish century is a nightmare from which the goyim are trying to wake.

  173. @S. Anonyia
    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.

    Hmm, it’s almost like having a particular opinion about an ethnicity comes along with exposure to conflicts with that group. Thus the South which didn’t have the massive Jewish immigration during the late 19th/20th century had little particular antagonism towards Jews (Though it has to be said the novel effects of evangelical obsessions with the Old Testament and later viewing Zionism as necessary to trigger the second coming seem to be a factor in a lot of boomer gentile-zionists, millenial gentile-zionists seem to come almost uniformly from this background) and the presence of large amounts of blacks triggered segregation, with the North having less antagonism towards blacks until the great migrations.

    That and the much lower number of German immigrants (Whose anti-semitism was itself triggered by the same causes, a massive inflow of Russian Jews just 2 or 3 generations prior) in the South with it also being still essentially British ethnically lead to it supporting the war against Germany in alliance with Britain much more vigorously than the North East.

  174. The Plot Against America, an alternative history story in which aviator Charles Lindbergh, who was the son of a Swedish-American Republican Congressman, runs against FDR…

    Not long ago he had a visit from David Simon, the creator of “The Wire,” who is making a six-part mini-series of “The Plot Against America,” and afterward he said he was sure his novel was in good hands.

    A Charles Lindbergh inspired evil character has already made it to the screen, in the form of Charles F. Muntz, the hateful aviator who piloted a dirigible called The Spirit of Adventure in the animated Up. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, my high school aged kids have never heard about Lindbergh in any of their American history classes. It’s very likely these two things are related.

    Also, a dirigible crossed the Atlantic before Lindbergh did in his airplane. Probably an additional subtle jab at Lindbergh.

  175. @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    My experience of Roth is entirely from his second-act: Plot Against America, American Pastoral, Indignation. I tried reading Portnoy but couldn’t get into it. It made me feel gross. Indignation was too much about hand-jobs, but at least I didn’t feel gross.

    American Pastoral, on the other hand, was to much about the manufacture of gloves. Which I didn’t find all that interesting a topic.

  176. @Doug
    One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    FYI:

    Homosexuals were holocausted by the nazis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

    Nazi Germany was a christian, carnivorous nation not a pagan, vegetarian hippie commune…regardless of the personal preferences of Hitler (vegetarianism) and Himmler (occultism).

    • Replies: @Doug
    The Nazis didn't persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute. Locking up gays was more about cementing Himmler's position in the party. (Similar story holds true for labor unions and the Strasserites)

    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, a significant fraction of the Nazi party was openly gay. More than half of the SA, up to and including Ernst Rohm, openly engaged in gay sex. There's zero record of Hitler having any moral objection to this. In fact this group was much more militantly radical than Himmler and Goring's conciliatory faction.

    Rohm and the gays weren't purged for being gay, or even bad Nazis. They were purged because Hindenburg insisted on it as a pre-condition to have over power. As much as a snake in the grass can, Hitler was actually quite conflicted about killing Rohm and the other gay Nazis.

  177. @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    David Niven always got on my nerves when I watched him in a movie. James Mason was better, he checked out of everybody’s program; maybe because he was an aloof Yorkshireman.

    • Replies: @MarcB.
    I understand he was different in real life, but on screen David Niven was cast as the prissy, fussy Twentieth Century archetype of the pampered gentlemen. It was inversion of the 1800's urbane savage variant.
  178. @Corn
    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.

    I think Reilly did say something to that effect once, but I don’t have the post to hand.

  179. @Jack D
    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it's true, I've seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake "Roman" statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even "art experts" couldn't see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed - in the '60s films the actors have '60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing "Roman" costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year.

    Yes, which is why it’s strange and a little sad how Roth’s mind became more and more CURRENT YEAR-occluded over time. PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT (1969, I think) is a fairly accurate ethnological portrait of its time. The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP’s with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle. By the time of AMERICAN PASTORAL, though, this truth is forgotten in favor of post-SCHINDLER’S LIST retconning. In that later novel, perhaps Roth’s least naturalistic/most parablistic one, the main character is nicknamed ‘the Swede’ because of his anomalously ultra-Nordic good lucks. Thematically the point was to make him as all-American and America-blessed as possible in order to heighten the tragedy of his later fall, and what better way to do that than make him a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Max von Sydow-clone? Except that only in Himmler’s fantasies were Swedes considered Americans par excellence. I’m not nearly as old as Roth, but even I remember how Swedes used to come in for their fair share of ethnic humor drubbing, mostly along the lines of ‘big dumb Swede’ jokes.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP’s with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle.
     
    Doyle is hardly a WASP name; it's irish.
  180. @Corn
    Great post. Nazis weren’t just evil. They were weird. The late blogger John J. Reilly noted once Hitler was willing to leave the Lutheran and Catholic churches largely alone so long as they didn’t challenge his power. Himmler would have set up a neopagan state religion if he wasn’t hemmed in.

    One very disturbing thing about the Nazis short but violent history is that in some ways Hitler was a moderate Nazi.

    Hitler didn’t seem to care much about religion. He didn’t care much about domestic policies (other than persecuting Jews) or economics. Hitler really only cared about War. He wanted to be a great warlord and conqueror. He wanted to succeed where Napoleon had failed and succeed where Alexander the Great had succeeded.

  181. @DCThrowback
    If my memory serves, Willkie's campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government's "pump priming" during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called "The Forgotten Man".

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should've been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the "Good" war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html

    We were a decade into the Depression by the time of that election, the “revolution within the form” had been pulled off by the FDR boys and probably wasn’t going anywhere. The war was by far the most important issue. Just look how it dominated the rest of the century. Heck, the rest of our lives. We still talk about it constantly.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    We still talk about it constantly.
     
    The transition from Republic to Empire is always of (tragic) interest.
  182. @Abe

    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year.
     
    Yes, which is why it's strange and a little sad how Roth's mind became more and more CURRENT YEAR-occluded over time. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT (1969, I think) is a fairly accurate ethnological portrait of its time. The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP's with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle. By the time of AMERICAN PASTORAL, though, this truth is forgotten in favor of post-SCHINDLER'S LIST retconning. In that later novel, perhaps Roth's least naturalistic/most parablistic one, the main character is nicknamed 'the Swede' because of his anomalously ultra-Nordic good lucks. Thematically the point was to make him as all-American and America-blessed as possible in order to heighten the tragedy of his later fall, and what better way to do that than make him a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Max von Sydow-clone? Except that only in Himmler's fantasies were Swedes considered Americans par excellence. I'm not nearly as old as Roth, but even I remember how Swedes used to come in for their fair share of ethnic humor drubbing, mostly along the lines of 'big dumb Swede' jokes.

    The most American of Americans then were old stock WASP’s with names like Loudenberry(sp?) or Doyle.

    Doyle is hardly a WASP name; it’s irish.

  183. @Jack D
    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men. (Nor was it out of character for poor Southern girls to perhaps enhance their pay packet a little. ) Murder OTOH, is more of a black thing.

    But what people think happened is due to things that blacks don’t control, so we are treated to poor little Mary as tits and ass jiggling slut in They Won’t Forget; yes, the original Hollywood sweater girl character was a child who became a murder victim.

    A hundred reasons Frank was very far from innocent, in which number 28 shows a photo of 13 years old Mary the prostitute on the autopsy slab. That was her punishment for refusing to have cunnilingus performed on her by Frank (who was indeed willing to pay as several girls testified).

  184. @Mr. Anon
    Apropos your point, is this (actually, pretty good) movie

    The Phenix City Story

    About the crime-busting reformer, John Patterson, who fought the criminal syndicate that controlled Phenix City and had tentacles stretching into the government of Alabama and the state's Democratic political machine.

    He was a good-government boy-scout-type politician that even yankees could be proud of.

    And he ran for governor of Alabama and won on a segregationist platform, defeating George Wallace, whom Patterson painted as soft on the issue.

    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.
     
    Yes, apparently he did. Also in 2003, he presided over the special court that removed Roy Moore as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
  185. @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    “His sentence had been commuted”

    Sorry, yes. That’s what I meant.

  186. @DCThrowback
    If my memory serves, Willkie's campaign was based on the (correct) analysis that the government's "pump priming" during the Great Recession was hindering recovery, not helping it. I believe Amity Shales wrote a fine book about this topic called "The Forgotten Man".

    He was correct and still lost. Maybe he should've been against his foreign policy too. Most citizens wanted to avoid war.

    Of course, we had help leading us to into WW2, the "Good" war.

    https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070401.html

    Toward the end of the 1940 campaign, Willkie was saying things like “If Roosevelt wins the boys will be on the troop transports.”

    After the election Willkie supported FDR’s foreign policy and dismissed the above as “campaign oratory.”

  187. @Peter Akuleyev
    The key word there is “claim.”

    Maybe. It is a pretty widespread "urban legend" among Jews.

    E.g. this thread from 2005 - https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jews-have-horns.1880259/

    During the recent Roy Moore debacle, I saw many similar stories on Facebook, usually from people claiming it happened to them.

    The Klezmer band Klezmatics can’t be content to leave the name of their third album Jews With Horns by itself or connect it to the middle ages, they have to make up a ridiculous story about having once been asked about their head horns in the modern era. This was described on NPR but is not on the wiki or the band site.
    Stories about modern goyim looking for horns represent a level of supremacist bigotry that is completely tolerated and has no equivalent in other major cultures. This is part of an inevitable problem when people are negotiating in bad faith to serve tribalist rivalry: give them an inch, and next time they need something, they will have an even worse story. They will repay your service to them with slander, as we see in the Southern Retcon or in Kosinski’s Painted Bird.

    • Replies: @anonomy
    I would attribute horns not to Jews but a God that was dropped from popular worship. Scrubbed out erased. Follow the link to see image.

    "glibôl was a lunar deity in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. His name means "Calf of Bel" ("Calf of the Lord").

    Aglibôl is depicted with a lunar halo decorating his head and sometimes his shoulders, and one of his attributes is the sickle moon.

    Aglibôl is linked with the sun god Yarḥibôl in a famous trinity. He is also associated with the Syrian versions of Astarte "Venus" and with Arṣu "Evening Star".

    Aglibôl's cult continued into Hellenic times and was later extended to Rome."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aglibol


    But of course there is always warriors but who would believe Jews were doing anything but chipping out sarcasm at their enemies on clay tablets from the safe space behind the pharaohs throne.

    " bronze statuettes dated to the early 12th century BC, the so-called "horned god" and "ingot god", wearing horned helmets, found in Enkomi, Cyprus. In Sardinia dozens of warriors with horned helmets are depicted in bronze figures and in the monte prama gigantic statues, similar to those of the Shardana warriors (and possibly belonging to the same people) depicted by the Egyptians."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_helmet
  188. @Beene
    "Roth’s notion that a Republican Swedish isolationist from Minnesota could have carried the Solid South against FDR in 1940 is just nuts."

    Of course it is, but not nearly as nuts as the idea that a twice-divorced former Democrat occasional liberal billionaire from New York, with a lot of big government ideas and quite shaky Christian faith, would carry the South in both the primaries and general election. Yet this has apparently happened.

    2016 was not 1940 and vice versa.

  189. @Doug
    One thing that gets lost in hindsight is just how weird Nazi culture was. From the strange tendencies to dabble in the occult to convoluted theories of ancient history to bizarre alternative religions to its BDSM, gay, and asexual sub-cultures. A lot of Nazis were just run-in-the-mill thugs or die-hard military men, but a lot also were just plain screwy.

    Avoiding politics, the typical Nazi, with their militant anti-smoking, vegetarianism and Atlantis healing crystlas, would have more in common with a California hippie than a Southern redneck. How do you think Joe Bob would react when Himmler goes off on the historical merits of Wicca? Or when Hitler talks about the importance of a raw food diet?

    The Italian fascists were a lot more ideologically coherent than the Nazis, who veered all over the place. The main theme of Italian fascism was trying to find an inspiring middle path between modernism and traditionalism. Hence, they had policies like promoting women’s sports to discourage masculine women from becoming fifth columnists, and promoting visual art which fused traditional and modern ideas. Ideologically speaking, Italian fascism was a much more serious threat to Anglo-Saxon liberalism than Nazism, but the Italians lacked the industrial muscle and social cohesion to have much historical impact.

  190. @Jack D
    Roth was wrong about Southern support for Lindbergh, but the Lindbergh depicted in the novel was not far from the position of the real Lindbergh. After the war started, Lindbergh went around giving speeches to the effect that, while it's understandable that the British and Jews have a beef against Hitler, what with the bombing of London and Dachau and so on, this is not our problem and we should just stay out of it. His base was more the upper Midwest (where he was from) than the South. Lots of people of German descent from Cincinnati all the way to Minneapolis, with Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. in between. Just think of where they used to brew beer and you'll find the Germans. At that time, a lot of Scandinavians (like Lindbergh) were sympathetic to the Germans also.

    Why Roth put the South in his imaginary pro-Lindbergh universe I don't know. He could have put Missouri in there because of St. Louis. Kentucky is just across the river from German influenced Cincinnati. Texas has German in the hill country. But the deep South was not on board with this Hitler guy. I think the confusion comes from the post WWII era where KKK/American Nazi/Confederate became sort of synonymous. This was not entirely wrong - a lot of the luzers who identify with one identify with the other, to this day. The Confederacy and the Nazis are both Lost Causes that were built around racial supremacy.

    You don’t have to be German to consider the Monroe Doctrine sound policy.

  191. @Luke Lea
    "one of the keys to defeating Jim Crow and getting affirmative action in for blacks and all that is that Left-wingers never allow any honest defense of Jim Crow "

    I have no wish to defend Jim Crow but this does remind me of a recent article I read about the origins of white flight and the development of inner city ghettos in the north: https://devinhelton.com/why-urban-decay

    The writer argues (and attempts to document, I don't know how successfully) that high rates of black-on-white violence in northern cities preceded and drove the process.

    Separately, I think he also argues (unless I am getting him mixed up with another writer) that the ratio of black-to-white lynchings throughout the nation was roughly the same as the ratio of black to white rates of crime, suggesting that lynching may not have been driven by racial animus or discrimination, as is generally assumed, but rather by actual disparities in criminal behavior (which does not mean there were not miscarriages of vigilante justice, which, given the lack of due process, there must have been).

    I only report this because the information and the arguments are new to me. That said, I emphatically do NOT support legal segregation and would like to see the vote extended even to convicted felons of whatever race who have served their sentences. People who are free to walk on the streets and to work should have the right to vote, in my opinion, which is not the case in many places.

    Civil rights are a cynical plot to gradually end constitutional rights and everything about it was probably a lie. Fourth amendment went out right away, Zimmerman shows the plan for the Second, they’re working industriously on the First through hate speech laws and an end run by way of social media, and the Third is coming once a Ninth Circuit judge agrees that whites are so inherently dangerous that we need to be supervised. Go down the line of what the racists warned and what the anti-racists promised, the racists have largely been proven inarguably correct, and nothing the anti-racists claimed has come to pass. Individual incidents were often probably Alinskyite stunts although some happened as claimed, but even the true incidents became subject to media massaging. The fact that Hollywood tried to get away with a major film starring Denzel Washington long after the Dylan song “Hurricane” was proven to be wildly dishonest tells us everything. Some lies need to be prohibited by the government and by restricting freedom of the press, and some lies are not a big deal.

  192. @guest
    We were a decade into the Depression by the time of that election, the "revolution within the form" had been pulled off by the FDR boys and probably wasn't going anywhere. The war was by far the most important issue. Just look how it dominated the rest of the century. Heck, the rest of our lives. We still talk about it constantly.

    We still talk about it constantly.

    The transition from Republic to Empire is always of (tragic) interest.

  193. @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    “This was more like the Trayvon trial…Or the O.J. case. Communal solidarity (with the whites of the South in sympathy with ‘their’ murdered girl)”

    Gimme a break. If they were so blinded by communal wagon-circling, why didn’t they pick the black guy? Wouldn’t that have been easier? If Frank was an “Other,” he wasn’t all that Other, relatively speaking. (Though, as another poster pointed out, he had a vibe about him people picked up on, which probably accounted for antipathy as well as his Jewishness.)

    There’s nothing wrong with communal solidarity in the face of a slain young girl, in my opinion. So long as it remains within the law. Which it did, until after outside intervention robbed them of what people thought was a just sentence.

    Finally, it’s quite obvious Zimmerman was innocent, and pretty inarguable O.J. was guilty. Funny you should pick those two cases. There have to be plenty of cases where black people were fundamentally right yet went overboard. Much like whites with Frank.

    We don’t know with absolute certainty that he did it. But there was enough evidence to convince a jury at a fair trial, and neither you nor the ADL can point to any clear and convincing exculpatory evidence as with Zimmerman.

    Frank was consumed by the fire of inordinate hatred and misguided revenge AFTER the commutation. Prior to commutation, he would have been executed by the state in a just matter. Yet, in popular memory it’s as if a trial didn’t take place, and Frank was plucked out of his life to be killed because anti-semitism.

  194. @ben tillman
    He was convicted on the basis of his own contradictory testimony plus loads of other evidence. He was guilty.

    Frank was believed to be guilty. No way would Southerners in 1913 allow a Negro (or a white man for that matter) to get away with killing a white girl while framing a Jew. Wouldn’t happen.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It's very instructive that when the ur-ADL arrived and set up shop, they decided to not talk about the facts of the case, preferring to generally defame the South as a lawless and bigoted wasteland, and to prepare emotional character studies about Leo Frank being a likeable sort of guy.
  195. @Jack D
    I completely agree. Most people, even important novelists, are captives of their time. You may think you are writing about the 1940s, or about Roman times or whatever, but you are seeing in thru the filter of the Current Year. They say that (and it's true, I've seen some of these things) art forgeries from a different era are usually easy to see thru for people in a later era, but at the time they seem perfectly accurate. You look at a fake "Roman" statue from the 1920s and it looks more Art Deco than Roman, but the people at the time, even "art experts" couldn't see it. If you watch a costume drama movie from an earlier era, you can usually figure out when it was filmed - in the '60s films the actors have '60s influenced hair and makeup and clothes, even though they are wearing "Roman" costumes, and so on.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

    You really don’t need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth’s motives. It’s quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth’s novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn’t have over-rated novelists, they wouldn’t have any at all.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Anon
    Roth takes some good strong pokes at Jews too, though.
    , @J.Ross
    This is true of overhyped establishmentarians but is not true of Jewish writers categorically. Joseph Heller really is a good writer. Dan Gabriel and Martin van Creveld are not novelists but they are objectively top-of-category military history writers. There is one unbelievably lazy and inept airhead I had to read for a class, Aharon Appelfeld, and his number one fan and advocate in the English language happens to be Phillip Roth. Appelfeld has to be read to be believed. Him, Seth Rogen and Jonah Goldberg having careers are pretty much the case for mass media being owned by a small nepotistic group, because, without that, these guys wouldn't be washing dishes.
  196. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.
  197. JFK had Charles Lindbergh at WH overnight and at the state dinner for French writer Malraux in April 1962.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    JFK had identical views to Lindbergh on WWII, so no real surprise.
  198. @Sean
    Hitler could have won WW2, and had an atomic bomb by 1945, and did not only because he made two mistakes. The first, against every military professional's advice, was halting before Smolensk for almost two months in 1941, (see the writings of Stolfi for the detailed arguments). The second was in demoralising his main scientific adviser with lack of resources for multiple top priorities to such an extent that he didn't tell Hitler how feasible an atomic bomb was out of fear he would demand a crash program.

    The Confederacy was quite different, even if they had won Gettysburg (as they easily could have) there was never any chance of them achieving final victory over the North. They never had a chance of being allowed to break away, irrespective of their political reasons for wanting to do so.

    The South didn’t have to achieve military victory, they just needed to persuade the Union that it wasn’t worth fighting to keep them from leaving. I bet the South could have ultimately gotten its independence if they were willing to do an Algerian type of guerilla warfare but Lee told everyone to lay down their arms.

    • Replies: @Sean
    That was tried and failed in the latter Boer war, but the British crushed support for the Boer guerrillas by regular army sweep, destroying homes and also unleashing 20, 000 armed black scouts which the civilians (especially women) were helpless against.

    Everybody fit to fight that Lee told to lay down their arms was not, relatively speaking, a lot, because so many Southerners willing to fight were already dead of severely wounded by then. But if Lee had ordered guerrilla warfare, the North would never have given up, and unlike the South, the North had manpower. The ranks of the Union army were increasingly filled with low class Irish and German immigrants (paid a generous bounty for joining) by later stages of the war, while many students at the top universities in the North never even joined up. The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people's houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

  199. @Jack D
    Frank had not been pardoned at the time of his lynching. His sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment by the state governor. Apparently this was not good enough for the mob. No one from the lynch mob was ever prosecuted. Most respectable historians today (aside from die hard anti-Semites who won't throw in the towel to this day - you'll hear from some of them here - they are the white equivalent of the blacks who STILL think OJ is innocent) believe that Conley (the chief witness against Frank) was the actual murderer.

    Why isn’t this case remembered as the time upright Atlantian progressives stood firm against racism by holding a white man (Jews are certainly white compared to blacks) responsible?

     

    This was more like the Trayvon trial (with whites playing the BLM role) or the OJ case. Communal solidarity (the whites of the South in sympathy with "their" murdered girl) was more important than mere facts. Mere guilt or innocence was beside the real point, which was racial solidarity. For purposes of the trial, Conley (though black) was one of "their own" (he was portrayed as a good, Uncle Tom type Southern Negro) against the "outsider" Yankee Jew Frank. Conley was helping their team win. There must be a lot of football fans in the South who don't really like blacks in general but they love the blacks who play for their favorite team.


    This was a time when the South was being transformed. Instead of farm girls like Mary staying on the farm, they were moving to big cities and working in Yankee, even Jew, owned mills and factories and outside the moral control of their families. This leads to conflicted feelings that people can't quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases - Frank was made the scapegoat for the overall unhappiness of the South at losing their old way of life (yet once again).

    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That’s a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn’t any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Exactly. The whole point is to abandon truth in favor of emotion, to seize power rather than to sort out facts. Cf the Glenn Ford movie Trial. It's a the Dalrymple explanation of propaganda extended into action.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue

     

    I would be utterly fascinated to know the details, if you could provide them.
    , @Jack D
    You don't necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn't make Frank's lynching OK but it really doesn't have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn't going to anyway.
  200. @Bill

    it’s hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.
     
    The movements for prohibition and suffrage weren't like SJW Twitter mobs?

    Not precisely. I meant that it’s hard to imagine people in 1925 taking one single quote or one single fragment of a quote, or one single screw-up, or one badly-phrased joke, and then blowing it up to apocalyptic proportions. They were far too sophisticated for that.

    Every age has its progressive reformist nutjobs. But in the past, they were mostly house-trained.

  201. @peterike

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

     

    You really don't need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth's motives. It's quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth's novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn't have over-rated novelists, they wouldn't have any at all.

    Roth takes some good strong pokes at Jews too, though.

  202. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.
     
    Just like everyone knows that slavery never existed, because blacks are obviously privileged over whites today.
    , @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.
    , @ben tillman
    I'm more inclined to think Grandma made it up for fun. And she put one over on you.

    Or, conceivably, a Southerner put one over on her in the course of seeing whether she was so gullible that she would believe someone actually believed that.

  203. OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues. Seeing as their coverage was so anti-Israel before and lacking in such perspective with only Pollak and Solov off the top of my head, it’s good to see that Bannon and McHugh can find such worthy substitutes, overrun with white gentiles as they were. It just stirs my heart to see those such as Kassam argue our case for us! MAGA!

    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/01/17/jerusalem-post-columnist-caroline-glick-joins-breitbart-news/

    • Replies: @3g4me
    @ 197 Anonym: "OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues."

    I pretty much stopped reading there after Charlottesville, although I still scanned their headlines, but even that became too much. Pretty dramatic shift from the election coverage (even if they started as Cruz supporters) to the present. It's totally standard normie news plus half a dozen daily stories about Jews, Israel, a purported Holocaust survivor, and "European" anti-semitism. And, as you note, that great White Christian nationalist Raheem Kassam remaining stalwart for traditional England, America, and western civilization Because That's Who We Are.

    Caroline Glick is a really worthy addition to their diverse crew.

    , @Old Jew
    Re: "The oyveyification of Broytbaht".

    Assume the purpose of the above phrase is sarcasm.

    Then:

    "Oyvey-ification" is chosen well.
    but
    "Broytbaht" is unfortunate.

    Breitbart would be in Yiddish "Breyter Burt" (Wide Beard)

    "Broyt " in Yiddish stands for Bread not for Wide.

    thus "Broytbaht" means perhaps Bread Beard.

    Is that what you expected?
  204. @ScarletNumber
    Does the book mention Dwight Morrow? The former Ambassador to Mexico and US Senator from New Jersey was Lindbergh's father in law.

    And JPMorgan partner.

  205. @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    Exactly. The whole point is to abandon truth in favor of emotion, to seize power rather than to sort out facts. Cf the Glenn Ford movie Trial. It’s a the Dalrymple explanation of propaganda extended into action.

  206. @RebelWriter
    Thanks for that. Most Southerners haven't met many Jews, it's true, and rarely think about them, in spite of their presence on TV and in the movies. When they do think about Jews, they generally think about Old Testament Jews, and I can attest they think of them as ancestors of sort. 99.9% of Evangelical preachers are Christian Zionists.
    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century, with significant communities in Camden and Charleston. Charleston had the largest Jewish community in the US until abut 1830, when it was finally eclipsed by New York City. Almost all SC Jews are Sephardic, and while they are very well recorded, they are generally quiet. For instance, I was an adult before I discovered that FDR's "Ambassador at Large," Bernhard Baruch, was born and raised in Camden. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and rode with the KKK during Reconstruction. Ben Bernanke is a descendant of Baruch, and also from Camden.
    The Low Country of South Carolina is very, very German. My mother's family is almost entirely German. Charleston itself was settled from Barbados, not Britain. The old blue bloods there are of English and French descent. The Upstate was settled primarily by the Scotch Irish and Welsh, with some Palatine Germans as well. Dr. Walter Edgar identified 38 different ethnicities among the founding stock of SC. I don't think ancestry had anything much to do with Southern support for Britain in the war, so much as a perception of kinship, perhaps.

    A Jew saying he is Hebrew is like an African claiming to be German.

  207. @S. Anonyia
    This is one of the best comments I’ve seen recently. People assume that if a society was repressive or closed in one way then it must have been repressive or closed in all ways. Modern people have a far more moralistic and sort of sentimental way of looking at history than our predecessors. They think all societies or ideologies can be neatly categorized in terms of good vs bad. It blows their mind when you talk about vegetarian Nazis and Nazis being nice to visiting blacks, or when you bring up how much nicer the antebellum South was to Catholics and Jews than the abolitionist North.

    It’s often occurred to me that the eclectic mix of views held by my grandparents would be positively baffling to the know-it-all dorks at sites like Slate and Vox. Yet from every indication I’ve seen, my grandparents were pretty much the norm for their time. It’s amazing how many “smart” people have no clue how limited our current range of political opinion is, compared to other eras.

    I suspect, but can’t prove, that it’s related to greater ethnic diversity. In a multicultural society, most of the political energy is concentrated on first-order questions: Whose tribe gets which goodies? Paradoxically(?), in a more ethnically monocultural society, the first-order questions can be disposed of quickly by establishing a basic framework that everybody more or less agrees to, giving people the freedom to think about second- or third-order questions — which leads to a broader array of responses.

    • Agree: Bubba
  208. @Abe
    Excuse this old chestnut of mine; I've brought it up several times over the years here, but given the current discussion I think it's worth bringing up again. From Roth's cowardly, paranoid fantasizing about what an imagined Lindbergh Administration would possibly do:

    … A new government program begins to take Jewish boys to spend a period of time living with exchange families in the South and Midwest in order to ‘Americanize’ them
     
    And now, what the real, historical, FDR was hoping to do (hat-tip to commenter "franktremb"):
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/democratic-norway-v-authoritarian-sweden/#comment-702514

    FDR didn’t like “Hyphenate Americans” either. Here’s an extract from a letter to the Prime minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, on the 18th of May 1942. To him, French Canadians and “Hyphenate Americans” are a problem to North America. But he believed in assimilation:

    “When I was a boy in the «nineties», I used to see many deal French Canadians who had rather recently come into the New Bedford area, near the old Delano place, at Fair Haven. They seemed very much out of place in what was still an old New England community. They segregated themselves in the mill towns and had little to do with their neighbours. I can still remember that the old generation shook their heads and used to say, «this is a new element which will never be assimilated. We are assimilating the Irish but these Quebec people won’t even speak English. Their bodies are here, but their hearts and minds are in Quebec».
    Today, forty or fifty years later, the French-Canadian elements in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are at last becoming a part of the American melting pot. They no longer vote as their churches and their societies tell them to. They are inter-marrying with the original Anglo Saxon stock; they are good, peaceful citizens, and most of them are speaking English in their homes.

    All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning – perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy – by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada’s French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.

    In other words, after nearly two hundred years with you and after seventy-five years with us, there would seem to be no good reason for great differentials between the French population elements and the rest of the racial stocks.

    It is on the same basis that I am trying to work out post-war plans for the encouragement of the distribution of certain other nationalities in our large congested centers. There ought not to be such a concentration of Italians and of Jews, and even of Germans as we have today in New York City. I have started my National Resources Planning Commission to work on a survey of this kind.“
     


     

    “many deal French Canadians”

    What does he mean by “deal?”

  209. @peterike

    So Roth, consciously or unconsciously, even though he set the story (as he often does) in his childhood Newark of the 1940s, was really writing about the concerns that were in the air in the America of 2004.

     

    You really don't need to be so circuitous in trying to decipher Roth's motives. It's quite simple: Roth uses fiction as a weapon. He uses it to settle political and ethnic scores. That has the pleasant, for him, knock-on effect of helping sell lots and lots of books to fellow Jews who settle those scores vicariously through the books, and also to get rave reviews from Jewish book reviewers, who vastly over-rate Mr. Roth's novels. In fact, much Jewish fiction is tedious and tendentious precisely because Jewish fiction is used as a weapon. If Jews didn't have over-rated novelists, they wouldn't have any at all.

    This is true of overhyped establishmentarians but is not true of Jewish writers categorically. Joseph Heller really is a good writer. Dan Gabriel and Martin van Creveld are not novelists but they are objectively top-of-category military history writers. There is one unbelievably lazy and inept airhead I had to read for a class, Aharon Appelfeld, and his number one fan and advocate in the English language happens to be Phillip Roth. Appelfeld has to be read to be believed. Him, Seth Rogen and Jonah Goldberg having careers are pretty much the case for mass media being owned by a small nepotistic group, because, without that, these guys wouldn’t be washing dishes.

  210. @istevefan

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War.
     
    I think this plays a part in the historical animosity between Kansas City and St. Louis. A lot of 1848 German immigrants settled in St. Louis and helped the Union. KC on the other hand was in a part of the state more aligned with the South. I doubt many modern residents even know this since many don't have roots to that time. But it probably helped lay the foundation for the odd feelings that persist between these cities.

    Here is an excerpt from the Camp Jackson Affair:

    The Camp Jackson affair, also known as the Camp Jackson massacre, was an incident during the American Civil War that occurred on May 10, 1861, when a volunteer Union Army regiment captured a unit of secessionists at Camp Jackson, outside the city of St. Louis, in the divided slave state of Missouri.

    The newly-appointed Union commander in Missouri, Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon, had learned that the ostensibly neutral state militia training in Camp Jackson was planning to raid the federal arsenal in St. Louis. After capturing the entire unit, Lyon marched the captives into town in order to parole them. En route, hostile secessionist crowds gathered, and after an accidental gunshot, Lyon's men fired into the mob, killing at least 28 civilians and injuring dozens of others. Several days of rioting throughout St. Louis followed. Pro-slavery locals were also particularly angered by the presence in Lyon’s force of many German abolitionists who had fled the failed revolutions of 1848. The violence ended only after martial law was imposed and Union regulars were dispatched to the city.
     

    The “Damned Dutch” they were called. (Dutch meaning Deutsch). One of my great grandfathers was a German immigrant who served in the Union Army in St. Louis during the Civil War.

  211. @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    “Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors.”

    Many of the settlers of Southern trans-Appalachian America had some German ancestry, aside from the Anglo-Saxon ancestry they got from England.

    Anne Gillespie Mitchell:

    Around 1670 the first significant group of Germans came to the colonies, mostly settling in Pennsylvania and New York. In 1709 a group known as the Palatines made the journey from the Palatinate region of Germany. Many died on the way over on crowded ships, but around 2,100 survived and settled in New York.

    Soon after that, multiple waves of Germans arrived in the Southeast and settled in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Another wave came and settled in New England.

    https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/10/13/migration-to-america-in-the-1700s/

  212. @David In TN
    Frank was believed to be guilty. No way would Southerners in 1913 allow a Negro (or a white man for that matter) to get away with killing a white girl while framing a Jew. Wouldn't happen.

    It’s very instructive that when the ur-ADL arrived and set up shop, they decided to not talk about the facts of the case, preferring to generally defame the South as a lawless and bigoted wasteland, and to prepare emotional character studies about Leo Frank being a likeable sort of guy.

  213. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    The handful of Jews I knew growing up in Alabama were culturally indistinguishable from white Protestants. They drove pickup trucks sporting Confederate flag stickers, owned guns, spoke with a drawl, listened to country music, voted Republican. Oh, and they could tell you all about their illustrious Confederate ancestors — they weren’t the least bit ashamed of them.

    I didn’t meet a classic “New York style” Jewish person until well into my 20s. Up until then, I wasn’t sure they really existed outside of movies.

  214. @Anonymouse
    Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.

    “Mary MacCarthy wrote a short story, The Man in the Brooks Brothers Shirt, about a young girl meeting and succumbing to the charms of a politician on a cross-country train trip. It is said that the politician was Wendell L. Willkie.”

    A train trip was Willkie’s undoing. In September 1944, while riding a train from Indiana to New York, he suffered a heart attack as it passed through western Pennsylvania. He disregarded the pleas of his companions to get off in Pittsburgh and go to a hospital and instead insisting on going all the way to New York. Although he went straight to the hospital from the train station he died within a few weeks.

  215. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    In other words, they were fine with folks who behaved properly and fit in with the basic mores of their culture, but don’t particularly like being lectured (or demeaned) by tedious outsiders.

    Jews on the other hand are well known for how much they love and appreciate outsiders.

  216. How much of this disparity is because in 1930s the non-Southern US was filled with Irish, German, Italian immigrants and their offspring had not fully assimilated into American culture and felt a deeper connection to their homelands which were at odds with United Kingdom.

    At that time the South was still predominantly filled with people of British descent.

  217. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns.

    World War II was well into the era of film…

  218. Many of the comments are based on the absurd premise that Philip Roth is in some way significant. He is/was nothing more than a highly partisan polemicist. One’s time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "One’s time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel."

    I vaguely recall that my dad may have mowed Zane Grey's lawn in the early 1930s. He lived next door to Zane Grey's brother when he was a teenager and mowed the brother's lawn for money. I think he may have mowed the cowboy novelist's lawn too at some point.

  219. @Anonymous
    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    Just like everyone knows that slavery never existed, because blacks are obviously privileged over whites today.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Just like everyone knows the blood libel was absolutely false in every reported instance because Nazis killed a lot of Jews, so none of them could, like, ever have done something wrong.
  220. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    It would not surprise me if Frank was a Harvey Weinstein type and engaged in hanky-panky with the help, including Mary. This is, unfortunately, not out of character for some Jewish men.

    I’d say it’s not out of character for men. Or women.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The difference is that it's not considered adultery, according to traditional Jewish law, for a Jewish man to have sexual relations with non-Jewish women. There is no guilt attached to these relationships.
  221. @utu
    JFK had Charles Lindbergh at WH overnight and at the state dinner for French writer Malraux in April 1962.

    JFK had identical views to Lindbergh on WWII, so no real surprise.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    In 1962, Charles Lindbergh was still high on the pantheon of American heroes. He had flown missions in the Pacific in 1944 and gave valuable advice on increasing the range of the P-38 fighter.
  222. In discussing his current reading, Roth praises Yuri Slezkine’s fine book:

    Whenever I’ve seen gentiles praise Slezkine’s book – in the sense of saying that they read it and found it illuminating – they are condemned as anti-semites. Quoting Slezkine is liable to bring the by-now familiar charge “why would you know that?”

    The list of what gentiles are and are not supposed to know is getting increasingly bewildering. Perhaps a list could be provided for us. Or, as a simpler measure, maybe the books we shouldn’t read could simply be piled up in a courtyard and burned.

  223. @Flip
    The South didn't have to achieve military victory, they just needed to persuade the Union that it wasn't worth fighting to keep them from leaving. I bet the South could have ultimately gotten its independence if they were willing to do an Algerian type of guerilla warfare but Lee told everyone to lay down their arms.

    That was tried and failed in the latter Boer war, but the British crushed support for the Boer guerrillas by regular army sweep, destroying homes and also unleashing 20, 000 armed black scouts which the civilians (especially women) were helpless against.

    Everybody fit to fight that Lee told to lay down their arms was not, relatively speaking, a lot, because so many Southerners willing to fight were already dead of severely wounded by then. But if Lee had ordered guerrilla warfare, the North would never have given up, and unlike the South, the North had manpower. The ranks of the Union army were increasingly filled with low class Irish and German immigrants (paid a generous bounty for joining) by later stages of the war, while many students at the top universities in the North never even joined up. The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people’s houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people’s houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.
     
    If what you say is true, it's a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government.
  224. @Peter Akuleyev
    The South has also historically been more Anglophile than the rest of the United States. In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution. The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English. The Southern colonies were initially not very enthusiastic about Independence, and if the British hadn't tried to restrict expansion westward they probably could have persuaded most of the South to stay loyal. Even in the 1930s Southern culture, with its hierarchies and attention to manners, share more with English culture than either shared with the North.

    Jews tend to think the South is anti-Semitic because a lot of Southerners haven't met many Jews and apparently get their information from Evangelical preachers with medieval world views. (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really "have horns", for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.

    Michelangelo’s statue of Moses, which is easily a top ten all time greatest statue, has horns. This probably has to do wit St. Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin. Early Christians understood that “horns” was supposed to be understood metaphorically to depict something like a halo or rays of light shining from Moses’s head when he came down from Mt. Sinai, but in the last millennium the word chosen by Jerome started to be taken literally. But it was usually understood to be complimentary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)#Horns

    • Replies: @syonredux
    The "horns" passage in Exodus is something of a crux for hebraists:

    "In reality, the more compelling of the two explanations is simply that it’s a sloppy translation. Not Michelangelo’s sloppiness of course, but the sloppiness of St. Jerome, who translated the Pentateuch into Latin in the 5th century. When Jerome came across Exodus 34:29 (and, though slightly differently, verses 30 and 35), he rendered it as “cornuta esset facies sua“. That is to say, “his face became hornéd“. Everybody knows, of course, that that’s not what the Hebrew says. Or is it?

    Exodus 34:29, according to the JPS Tanakh, reads as follows: “as Moses came down from the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, Moses was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant“. This is more or less what the King James version has as well, when they translate “the skin of his face shone“. It would seem that Jerome was way off! Where did he derive this nonsense about horns?

    Truth be told, both the King James version and the JPS are relying very heavily upon the earliest translation of this passage that was ever made: the translation into Greek. The Greek Septuagint (which was, of course, a Jewish translation) makes it very clear that Moses’ face was shining, and it is this translation that became standard in later Jewish interpretation. In fact, the Midrash goes even further by suggesting that Moses was radiant even at birth; and images of holy people with light emanating from their skin, so popular in the artworks of Renaissance painters, have their source in similar declarations. The Hebrew itself is not quite so easy to understand.

    The problem is that of the three Hebrew words employed in the collocation, one of them doesn’t make much sense. The words are קָ֛רַן‭ ‬ע֥וֹר‭ ‬פָּנָ֖יו, and I include them with the vocalisation and accentuation that the masoretes gave them. For the benefit of those who don’t read Hebrew, the words read as qaran ohr panav and the first word (קרן, qaran) is vocalised as a verb. This is the first problem with the passage, because there are only four instances in the whole Tanakh when this word is a verb and of those four instances, three of them concern Moses’ face. The fourth instance is found in Psalms 69:32 and means… “to have horns”.

    Okay, but surelyקרן‭ ‬ can also mean shine, right? I mean, this is the way the word is used in Israel today! Let’s have a look. As a noun, rather than a verb, the word turns up 90 times in the Bible, in 79 different verses. In every one of those instances, bar one, it either means “horn”, or it refers to something that is the shape of a horn, like the protuberances on the side of the altar. The one exception is Habbakuk 3:4, in which it appears to mean “ray of light”, although the context is non-literal. As if to complicate matters, the following verse (Hab 3:5) makes reference to two Near Eastern gods known as “plague” and “pestilence” (דבר and רשף) both being subservient to the god of Israel. It is therefore possible that the reference to “concealment” in verse 4 (חביון) might be also be an allusion to the hornéd demon known as Hebyon, and that the word קרן might therefore being implying “horns”, rather than “rays of light”.

    Whether or not that is the case, the word does most certainly come to mean “ray of light” in post-Biblical Hebrew, but the corresponding verbal form (“to shine”) isn’t actually attested at all until the liturgical poetry of the mediaeval period! What is more, the usages of the verb with that meaning might have been back-formations, based upon the classical understanding of the verses that describe Moses.

    The problems, unfortunately, don’t end there. If the passage simply seemed to be saying that Moses grew horns, then there would be a thousand better ways of saying so than “the flesh of Moses’ face horned.” What some scholars have suggested is that the passage was originally intended to have the meaning, “his face became a horn of flesh” – like the nightmarish vision that Daniel has in Daniel 7:8.

    Feeling that this was possibly disrespectful, the Alexandrian Jewish community favoured an alternative reading tradition that they then reflected in their Greek translation. Following this tradition, the Tiberian masoretes vocalised the word as a verb, and punctuated it with their accent marks in such a fashion that, even though it’s an awkward reading, it favours the Greek translation over any other possible interpretation. Jerome, who sought a fresh translation from the Hebrew with little assistance from the Greek, hit upon an alternative, although equally viable reading of the text."

    http://galusaustralis.com/2009/09/1608/horny-jew-whats-the-deal-with-michelangelos-moses/
  225. @Anonymous
    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.

    Look, I wasn’t there. I wasn’t even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.
     
    Yes, that would be the only possible reason - general anti-semitism. The fact that one might be familiar with wartime southern society (by virtue of being related to people who were of that society, or having close friends whose parents came from that society) - much more intimately familiar with it than a foreign-born war-bride - the fact that one may have never ever read any such contention, either in current or contemporaneous accounts of the era - that couldn't enter into our consideration at all.

    Astroturf?! You know whose responsible for that, don't ya? The Anti-Semites!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5n_YUBQIYQ
    , @anon
    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Well, I suppose there's the fact that it's kind of a ridiculous story, what with it happening at a time when people generally had a pretty good understanding of human anatomy, and could see all different kinds of people on film...

    But you're right. It's anti-Semitism. Just like everything else is.

    Can I suggest an alternate hypothesis, though? If this actually happened, are you sure the southern people who asked her that were being serious? Do you think maybe it was some kind of joke that she just decided to take literally?

    Like, if I saw a really short black guy in a basketball jersey, I might ask him which basketball team he played for, just to be a smartass. Depending on his sense of humor, he might think I was being serious.

    , @Anon
    "I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism."

    What a piece of work this guy is. Can't win an argument, so...must be anti-Semitism! That tends to happen when you assume anecdotes suffice for actual evidence, which you had absolutely zero before making a pretty bold claim. Making unsupported assertions against a group based on zero evidence but merely anecdote and stereotype could be construed as anti-Gentilism.

    "I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism."

    Prove my grandmother didn't see aliens kidnap Michael Jackson. Think she's lying? You're not some kind of racist, are you? Hate old people, too? Sad.
    , @Anonymous

    I suppose general anti-Semitism
     
    This appears to be your answer to nearly everything. No, we know that it's a lie because 1) it comports too neatly with approved narratives 2) it's an extremely tired cliché 3) it assaults your tribal enemies in a ludicrous fashion and 4) it provides fodder for your treasured victim fables. That's just off the top of my head. And if yours weren't firmly up your rear you'd see the story for the preposterous nonsense that it is.
    , @anonguy
    Maybe they were kidding her and she didn't get the joke?

    But even if sincere, one question from one idiot is pretty scant evidence from which to make any generalizations about the people of a region.
  226. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    “the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers”

    A lot of leftwing gentiles go out to the occupied territories to agitate for Civil Rights. They don’t end up doing too well wither.

  227. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn’t eligible, but this was the subtext. Given the significant amount of support Cruz got in the South, a good chunk of the electorate obviously held no truck with those traditional views. But enough did to torpedo his run.

    • Replies: @Anon
    "I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn’t eligible, but this was the subtext."

    The JackD quote you cited had precisely zero to do with Cruz losing. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what he's talking about or needs to ask his doctor to check his memory. Trump ran as an economic populist who opposed free trade and immigration while Cruz ran to the border with Glenn Beck to hand out stuffed animals to illegals and had a long history of supporting unpopular economic policies, like a national sales tax to replace the income tax on the rich. Republican economic dogma isn't as popular as the GOP elite would have you believe - even in the South - and the GOP had a significant faction of war weary types that didn't want Cruz's foreign policy. Trump was also personally charismatic and gave the crowds lots of red meat by attacking and being attacked by the establishment, proving to a lot of people that he was their guy.

    By the way, the left tried making the same argument against Trump to zero effect and no one cared about his foreign wife. Pretty strong counter-example, wouldn't you say?

    Don't turn to JackD for political analysis. He'll have you believing that making Americans sign loyalty oaths to Israel (boycott pledges), having the government crack down on completely legal boycotts of Israel by private citizens, and moving our embassy to Jerusalem against the wishes of most Americans is A-okay.

    , @Whitehall
    I was intending to vote Cruz in the Florida primary but the Chicago violence happened at a Trump rally.

    I saw the Cruz press conference immediately afterwards and when Cruz claimed Trump shared the blame for the violence due to his intemperate language, that's when I changed my vote to Trump.
  228. @Kam Phlodius
    Many of the comments are based on the absurd premise that Philip Roth is in some way significant. He is/was nothing more than a highly partisan polemicist. One's time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel.

    “One’s time would be better spent mowing the lawn, or reading a Zane Grey novel.”

    I vaguely recall that my dad may have mowed Zane Grey’s lawn in the early 1930s. He lived next door to Zane Grey’s brother when he was a teenager and mowed the brother’s lawn for money. I think he may have mowed the cowboy novelist’s lawn too at some point.

  229. @Jack D
    We live in an interconnected and multicultural world now, but it wasn't always that way. When my MIL followed her GI husband to the South during WWII, she was indeed asked about horns. She is 95 - I assume you are much younger.

    I frankly don’t believe that. Perhaps you misheard her. I’ve known lots of southerners, including relations, and of that era, and I have never heard of such a thing.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Believe her or don't believe her - I don't care. She is, God bless her, clear and lucid and recently repeated this story to me (she has mentioned it before - not frequently but once or twice when relating her wartime experiences) without any ambiguity or doubt. She is not a liar to my knowledge and had nothing to gain from inventing this story. She is not prone to tall tales. I am clearly never going to convince you but personally I have no doubt that the woman is telling the truth.
  230. @Anonym
    OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues. Seeing as their coverage was so anti-Israel before and lacking in such perspective with only Pollak and Solov off the top of my head, it's good to see that Bannon and McHugh can find such worthy substitutes, overrun with white gentiles as they were. It just stirs my heart to see those such as Kassam argue our case for us! MAGA!

    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/01/17/jerusalem-post-columnist-caroline-glick-joins-breitbart-news/

    @ 197 Anonym: “OT: The oyveyification of Broytbaht continues.”

    I pretty much stopped reading there after Charlottesville, although I still scanned their headlines, but even that became too much. Pretty dramatic shift from the election coverage (even if they started as Cruz supporters) to the present. It’s totally standard normie news plus half a dozen daily stories about Jews, Israel, a purported Holocaust survivor, and “European” anti-semitism. And, as you note, that great White Christian nationalist Raheem Kassam remaining stalwart for traditional England, America, and western civilization Because That’s Who We Are.

    Caroline Glick is a really worthy addition to their diverse crew.

  231. @Steve Sailer
    Philip Roth's ex-wife Claire Bloom complained that being married to a famous novelist wasn't fun at all. He'd write for 8 to 10 hours per day and then read great literature for 4 or 5 hours every evening.

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

    I'm giving him a hard time, but Roth is a great man of sorts. F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life (i.e., no comebacks). But Roth got off to a good start with Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, then somehow or other frittered away what should have been his prime, but then came back with a long string of strong novels in his 60s.

    The most prestigious New England lineage society used to be the General Society of Colonial Wars.

    Perhaps in second place, after The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_in_Dedham_for_Apprehending_Horse_Thieves

    • LOL: Charles Pewitt
  232. @Austrian
    OT, but important:
    Trump just took the MoCA mental aptitude test and scored 30/30. Liberals say the test is too easy and doesn't count.

    I found a study from Arizona performed on senior citizens that includes a racial breakdown:
    http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/537658/2/Parsons%2C+Christine+Poster.pdf

    Average age: 72
    Mean, std
    overall: 23.7, 4.4
    whites: 24.5, 3.7
    blacks: 20.7, 5.4

    83% of blacks failed the test. (threshold = 26)

    Cognitive impairment was more prevalent in certain races, however it is unclear if other variables such as cultural factors necessitate score adjustment or adjustment in the test itself.
     
    Muh cultural factors. LOL

    Trump is 1.43 std above the mean which would translate to an IQ of 121,47.
    The Arizona study is likely not representative and the MoCA test score distribution is negatively skewed (to the left). So take with a large grain of salt.

    The general feeling is that some people lose a few IQ points as they age. If you are the average billionaire, like Trump, chances are that you started out as a pretty sharp guy. So even if you lose a few points due to aging, you still have a lot left, just like Jack Nicklaus could probably play better golf than you can even at age 70. OTOH if you are a black that starts out at IQ85, losing a few points to old age could easily put you below the threshold. Hell, you might have been below the MOCA threshold at 25.

  233. @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue

    I would be utterly fascinated to know the details, if you could provide them.

    • Replies: @guest
    Lots of people shoot lots of people all the time. It must have happened, I'm guessing.

    Not that it could compare to the number of blacks who shoot eachother over such vital concerns as shoes and jackets.
  234. @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Yes, that would be the only possible reason – general anti-semitism. The fact that one might be familiar with wartime southern society (by virtue of being related to people who were of that society, or having close friends whose parents came from that society) – much more intimately familiar with it than a foreign-born war-bride – the fact that one may have never ever read any such contention, either in current or contemporaneous accounts of the era – that couldn’t enter into our consideration at all.

    Astroturf?! You know whose responsible for that, don’t ya? The Anti-Semites!

  235. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Well, I suppose there’s the fact that it’s kind of a ridiculous story, what with it happening at a time when people generally had a pretty good understanding of human anatomy, and could see all different kinds of people on film…

    But you’re right. It’s anti-Semitism. Just like everything else is.

    Can I suggest an alternate hypothesis, though? If this actually happened, are you sure the southern people who asked her that were being serious? Do you think maybe it was some kind of joke that she just decided to take literally?

    Like, if I saw a really short black guy in a basketball jersey, I might ask him which basketball team he played for, just to be a smartass. Depending on his sense of humor, he might think I was being serious.

  236. @CCZ
    One of historian Katznelson's other books, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE, An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, presents his interpretation of 1930-1940s American racial history, an interpretation that Ta Neshi Coates invokes with his demand for reparations.

    From the NY Times book review:

    “Ira Katznelson, the Ruggles professor of political science and history at Columbia University, enters this fray with a provocative new book, "When Affirmative Action Was White," which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.”
     

    Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960′s.”

    Let’s see, the ’60s ended in 1970….and 1970 was 48 years ago…..Which means that we’ve had 48 years of Black affirmative action, as opposed to only 30 years of White affirmative action…..

  237. @Mr. Anon
    I frankly don't believe that. Perhaps you misheard her. I've known lots of southerners, including relations, and of that era, and I have never heard of such a thing.

    Believe her or don’t believe her – I don’t care. She is, God bless her, clear and lucid and recently repeated this story to me (she has mentioned it before – not frequently but once or twice when relating her wartime experiences) without any ambiguity or doubt. She is not a liar to my knowledge and had nothing to gain from inventing this story. She is not prone to tall tales. I am clearly never going to convince you but personally I have no doubt that the woman is telling the truth.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Reminds me of the other guy whose father saw a sign reading "No dogs or Jews allowed"-- at a hotel which admitted dogs. You sure you remember everything in your life accurately and never embellish a story?
  238. @Steve Sailer
    Michelangelo's statue of Moses, which is easily a top ten all time greatest statue, has horns. This probably has to do wit St. Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin. Early Christians understood that "horns" was supposed to be understood metaphorically to depict something like a halo or rays of light shining from Moses's head when he came down from Mt. Sinai, but in the last millennium the word chosen by Jerome started to be taken literally. But it was usually understood to be complimentary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)#Horns

    The “horns” passage in Exodus is something of a crux for hebraists:

    “In reality, the more compelling of the two explanations is simply that it’s a sloppy translation. Not Michelangelo’s sloppiness of course, but the sloppiness of St. Jerome, who translated the Pentateuch into Latin in the 5th century. When Jerome came across Exodus 34:29 (and, though slightly differently, verses 30 and 35), he rendered it as “cornuta esset facies sua“. That is to say, “his face became hornéd“. Everybody knows, of course, that that’s not what the Hebrew says. Or is it?

    Exodus 34:29, according to the JPS Tanakh, reads as follows: “as Moses came down from the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, Moses was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant“. This is more or less what the King James version has as well, when they translate “the skin of his face shone“. It would seem that Jerome was way off! Where did he derive this nonsense about horns?

    Truth be told, both the King James version and the JPS are relying very heavily upon the earliest translation of this passage that was ever made: the translation into Greek. The Greek Septuagint (which was, of course, a Jewish translation) makes it very clear that Moses’ face was shining, and it is this translation that became standard in later Jewish interpretation. In fact, the Midrash goes even further by suggesting that Moses was radiant even at birth; and images of holy people with light emanating from their skin, so popular in the artworks of Renaissance painters, have their source in similar declarations. The Hebrew itself is not quite so easy to understand.

    The problem is that of the three Hebrew words employed in the collocation, one of them doesn’t make much sense. The words are קָ֛רַן‭ ‬ע֥וֹר‭ ‬פָּנָ֖יו, and I include them with the vocalisation and accentuation that the masoretes gave them. For the benefit of those who don’t read Hebrew, the words read as qaran ohr panav and the first word (קרן, qaran) is vocalised as a verb. This is the first problem with the passage, because there are only four instances in the whole Tanakh when this word is a verb and of those four instances, three of them concern Moses’ face. The fourth instance is found in Psalms 69:32 and means… “to have horns”.

    Okay, but surelyקרן‭ ‬ can also mean shine, right? I mean, this is the way the word is used in Israel today! Let’s have a look. As a noun, rather than a verb, the word turns up 90 times in the Bible, in 79 different verses. In every one of those instances, bar one, it either means “horn”, or it refers to something that is the shape of a horn, like the protuberances on the side of the altar. The one exception is Habbakuk 3:4, in which it appears to mean “ray of light”, although the context is non-literal. As if to complicate matters, the following verse (Hab 3:5) makes reference to two Near Eastern gods known as “plague” and “pestilence” (דבר and רשף) both being subservient to the god of Israel. It is therefore possible that the reference to “concealment” in verse 4 (חביון) might be also be an allusion to the hornéd demon known as Hebyon, and that the word קרן might therefore being implying “horns”, rather than “rays of light”.

    Whether or not that is the case, the word does most certainly come to mean “ray of light” in post-Biblical Hebrew, but the corresponding verbal form (“to shine”) isn’t actually attested at all until the liturgical poetry of the mediaeval period! What is more, the usages of the verb with that meaning might have been back-formations, based upon the classical understanding of the verses that describe Moses.

    The problems, unfortunately, don’t end there. If the passage simply seemed to be saying that Moses grew horns, then there would be a thousand better ways of saying so than “the flesh of Moses’ face horned.” What some scholars have suggested is that the passage was originally intended to have the meaning, “his face became a horn of flesh” – like the nightmarish vision that Daniel has in Daniel 7:8.

    Feeling that this was possibly disrespectful, the Alexandrian Jewish community favoured an alternative reading tradition that they then reflected in their Greek translation. Following this tradition, the Tiberian masoretes vocalised the word as a verb, and punctuated it with their accent marks in such a fashion that, even though it’s an awkward reading, it favours the Greek translation over any other possible interpretation. Jerome, who sought a fresh translation from the Hebrew with little assistance from the Greek, hit upon an alternative, although equally viable reading of the text.”

    http://galusaustralis.com/2009/09/1608/horny-jew-whats-the-deal-with-michelangelos-moses/

    • Replies: @Jack D
    This is much too convoluted. If you read the original Hebrew and apply common sense, it makes sense that they were saying Moses's face was glowing. It's a common and easily understandable image that being in the presence of God would cause your face to light up. As is said above, it's a common image in art. The alternatives all fail the common sense test. The Greek Septuagint, done by Jews at a much earlier time (3rd century BC) when Hebrew was still a living language, translates it as glowing. According to the legend at least, the King of Egypt had 72 guys independently translate the Bible and they all came up the same.

    The bottom line is that Jerome didn't really know Hebrew that well and he made an understandable F-up as anyone might when trying to translate a dead language that you really don't know all by yourself. He did a good job with what he had available but it was inevitable that he was going to make mistakes like this. It was just a mistake, that's all.
    , @Anonymous
    Jerome was a Roman, and in Greek/Roman culture gods were frequently depicted with horns. Greek depictions of Zeus/Amon/Jupiter usually portrayed him with horns. This was probably just a cultural misunderstanding by Jerome. However it's also possible he wished to imply that the chief god of the old pantheon was also the founder of Judaism, and therefore indirectly of Christianity, presumably to smooth the conversion of stubborn pagans
  239. @J.Ross
    The Klezmer band Klezmatics can't be content to leave the name of their third album Jews With Horns by itself or connect it to the middle ages, they have to make up a ridiculous story about having once been asked about their head horns in the modern era. This was described on NPR but is not on the wiki or the band site.
    Stories about modern goyim looking for horns represent a level of supremacist bigotry that is completely tolerated and has no equivalent in other major cultures. This is part of an inevitable problem when people are negotiating in bad faith to serve tribalist rivalry: give them an inch, and next time they need something, they will have an even worse story. They will repay your service to them with slander, as we see in the Southern Retcon or in Kosinski's Painted Bird.

    I would attribute horns not to Jews but a God that was dropped from popular worship. Scrubbed out erased. Follow the link to see image.

    “glibôl was a lunar deity in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. His name means “Calf of Bel” (“Calf of the Lord”).

    Aglibôl is depicted with a lunar halo decorating his head and sometimes his shoulders, and one of his attributes is the sickle moon.

    Aglibôl is linked with the sun god Yarḥibôl in a famous trinity. He is also associated with the Syrian versions of Astarte “Venus” and with Arṣu “Evening Star”.

    Aglibôl’s cult continued into Hellenic times and was later extended to Rome.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aglibol

    But of course there is always warriors but who would believe Jews were doing anything but chipping out sarcasm at their enemies on clay tablets from the safe space behind the pharaohs throne.

    ” bronze statuettes dated to the early 12th century BC, the so-called “horned god” and “ingot god”, wearing horned helmets, found in Enkomi, Cyprus. In Sardinia dozens of warriors with horned helmets are depicted in bronze figures and in the monte prama gigantic statues, similar to those of the Shardana warriors (and possibly belonging to the same people) depicted by the Egyptians.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_helmet

  240. @Anonymous
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln's side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.

    As did every German nationalist at the time from Bismarck on down through the 20th century. The German right has always pretty much seen right through the whole moonlight-and-magnolias BS and deprecated the CSA as opposed to what they saw as the blood-and-iron national-conservative triumph of the Union.

  241. Maybe the reason why Southerners were more pro-Semitic than Northerners is that there were fewer Jews in the South and so Southerners were less likely to have the negative experiences with Jews that Northerners had to endure?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.

    For example, when Augusta National Golf Club, the most prestigious country club in America today, opened in the 1930s in Georgia near the South Carolina border, it was open to local Jewish elites. One of my Jewish readers sent me a comment that a Jewish family related to his were members at the Augusta National I looked up obituaries of his relatives from Augusta, and, holy cow, were they ever dynamic local leaders, starting business and charities like crazy. They brought Jewish dynamism to a rather sleepy small city and were much appreciated by their gentile neighbors.

    But when Northern CEOs flooded into Augusta National after WWII, they stopped admitting Jews for a few decades.

  242. @Steve Sailer
    I never heard of Paul Revere Williams until a decade ago or so, even though I used to pay attention to Los Angeles architecture history in the 1970s and early 1980s. He was this black guy who designed a gigantic number of nice buildings in Southern California in the mid-20th Century. The architectural historians ignored him because he didn't have a theory-based style, he just would listen to his celebrity clients and try to make their ideas into reality. For example, Frank Sinatra wanted a house that had superb acoustics, so Williams did all this research on acoustics for the house he built Sinatra.

    On the larger commercial projects, Williams contributed as part of a team at his architectural firm, so again, there is no signature style. There is some debate about how much he contributed to the Theme Building for example.

    Tragically, Williams’ business records (letters, drawings and contracts) were stored in Watts and destroyed in the Rodney King Riots.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    That's sad.

    The LAX theme building looks more like the prominent LA architect Pereira, who had a sci-fi penchant. He did work for set design for Hollywood sci-fi movies, and his UC Irvine campus was used as the set for a futuristic prison for intelligent monkeys in one of the "Planet of the Apes" sequels.

  243. @guest
    There have to be countless instances in which white communities lost their minds and took out their anger on innocent Others, including Jews. Just as there are examples of whites shooting unarmed black teenagers out of the blue. Yet blacks picked Trayvon to freak out over, and the ADL picked a man who could possibly be innocent but at least had been convicted after a fair trial. That's a connection.

    Aside from the one instance of mob violence, after legal options had been exhausted, there isn't any connection between the white community and Frank and the black community and Trayvon/O.J./Mike Brown.

    You don’t necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn’t make Frank’s lynching OK but it really doesn’t have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn’t going to anyway.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I'm sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist -- which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives -- as a "pogrom."
    , @anon
    AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South.

    Huh. That's weird.

    (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.)

    Well. It WASN'T an "anti-Jewish pogrom". It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack. It had nothing to DO with him being Jewish. You just choose to see it that way because you are a Jew, and cannot accept the fact that sometimes Jews actually are at fault for the way people treat them.

    So cut the crap with your "I for one never forget.".

    This doesn’t make Frank’s lynching OK but it really doesn’t have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America.

    Again. Not an anti-Jewish pogrom. It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack.

    The same kind of thing happened to white people all the time. Nothing about this had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Frank being Jewish. If this guy had NOT been Jewish, the exact same thing would have happened to him, only you would have never heard about it, because you and the ADL don't care when people get killed, unless they're members of your tribe.

    Not everything is anti-Semitism. One of the reasons so many people dislike Jews is because they call everything anti-Semitism. If you want to stop this, stop acting this way.

    Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn’t going to anyway.

    Shut up, Jack. Just do yourself a favor and shut up.

  244. Convenient myths are the fumes the left cruises on. When you don’t have substance to attack a group on, tie them to a group that everyone who’s anyone agrees are the worst people ever.

  245. @Clifford Brown
    On the larger commercial projects, Williams contributed as part of a team at his architectural firm, so again, there is no signature style. There is some debate about how much he contributed to the Theme Building for example.

    Tragically, Williams' business records (letters, drawings and contracts) were stored in Watts and destroyed in the Rodney King Riots.

    That’s sad.

    The LAX theme building looks more like the prominent LA architect Pereira, who had a sci-fi penchant. He did work for set design for Hollywood sci-fi movies, and his UC Irvine campus was used as the set for a futuristic prison for intelligent monkeys in one of the “Planet of the Apes” sequels.

  246. Walter Mead’s famous essay “The Jacksonian Tradition” explains why the South was so anti-Nazi.

  247. @Jack D
    You don't necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn't make Frank's lynching OK but it really doesn't have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn't going to anyway.

    I’m sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist — which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives — as a “pogrom.”

    • Replies: @anon
    Particularly since, as Jack should know, the exact same thing was done by whites to other whites. Not uncommonly.

    Even if it was a miscarriage of justice, those kinds of things happen all the time. If not every day, then at least multiple times a year. Again, done by whites to other whites.

    I don't understand how these people can be so oblivious as to how they come across to other people.
    , @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.
  248. @Charles Pewitt
    David Niven always got on my nerves when I watched him in a movie. James Mason was better, he checked out of everybody's program; maybe because he was an aloof Yorkshireman.

    I understand he was different in real life, but on screen David Niven was cast as the prissy, fussy Twentieth Century archetype of the pampered gentlemen. It was inversion of the 1800’s urbane savage variant.

  249. @syonredux
    The "horns" passage in Exodus is something of a crux for hebraists:

    "In reality, the more compelling of the two explanations is simply that it’s a sloppy translation. Not Michelangelo’s sloppiness of course, but the sloppiness of St. Jerome, who translated the Pentateuch into Latin in the 5th century. When Jerome came across Exodus 34:29 (and, though slightly differently, verses 30 and 35), he rendered it as “cornuta esset facies sua“. That is to say, “his face became hornéd“. Everybody knows, of course, that that’s not what the Hebrew says. Or is it?

    Exodus 34:29, according to the JPS Tanakh, reads as follows: “as Moses came down from the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, Moses was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant“. This is more or less what the King James version has as well, when they translate “the skin of his face shone“. It would seem that Jerome was way off! Where did he derive this nonsense about horns?

    Truth be told, both the King James version and the JPS are relying very heavily upon the earliest translation of this passage that was ever made: the translation into Greek. The Greek Septuagint (which was, of course, a Jewish translation) makes it very clear that Moses’ face was shining, and it is this translation that became standard in later Jewish interpretation. In fact, the Midrash goes even further by suggesting that Moses was radiant even at birth; and images of holy people with light emanating from their skin, so popular in the artworks of Renaissance painters, have their source in similar declarations. The Hebrew itself is not quite so easy to understand.

    The problem is that of the three Hebrew words employed in the collocation, one of them doesn’t make much sense. The words are קָ֛רַן‭ ‬ע֥וֹר‭ ‬פָּנָ֖יו, and I include them with the vocalisation and accentuation that the masoretes gave them. For the benefit of those who don’t read Hebrew, the words read as qaran ohr panav and the first word (קרן, qaran) is vocalised as a verb. This is the first problem with the passage, because there are only four instances in the whole Tanakh when this word is a verb and of those four instances, three of them concern Moses’ face. The fourth instance is found in Psalms 69:32 and means… “to have horns”.

    Okay, but surelyקרן‭ ‬ can also mean shine, right? I mean, this is the way the word is used in Israel today! Let’s have a look. As a noun, rather than a verb, the word turns up 90 times in the Bible, in 79 different verses. In every one of those instances, bar one, it either means “horn”, or it refers to something that is the shape of a horn, like the protuberances on the side of the altar. The one exception is Habbakuk 3:4, in which it appears to mean “ray of light”, although the context is non-literal. As if to complicate matters, the following verse (Hab 3:5) makes reference to two Near Eastern gods known as “plague” and “pestilence” (דבר and רשף) both being subservient to the god of Israel. It is therefore possible that the reference to “concealment” in verse 4 (חביון) might be also be an allusion to the hornéd demon known as Hebyon, and that the word קרן might therefore being implying “horns”, rather than “rays of light”.

    Whether or not that is the case, the word does most certainly come to mean “ray of light” in post-Biblical Hebrew, but the corresponding verbal form (“to shine”) isn’t actually attested at all until the liturgical poetry of the mediaeval period! What is more, the usages of the verb with that meaning might have been back-formations, based upon the classical understanding of the verses that describe Moses.

    The problems, unfortunately, don’t end there. If the passage simply seemed to be saying that Moses grew horns, then there would be a thousand better ways of saying so than “the flesh of Moses’ face horned.” What some scholars have suggested is that the passage was originally intended to have the meaning, “his face became a horn of flesh” – like the nightmarish vision that Daniel has in Daniel 7:8.

    Feeling that this was possibly disrespectful, the Alexandrian Jewish community favoured an alternative reading tradition that they then reflected in their Greek translation. Following this tradition, the Tiberian masoretes vocalised the word as a verb, and punctuated it with their accent marks in such a fashion that, even though it’s an awkward reading, it favours the Greek translation over any other possible interpretation. Jerome, who sought a fresh translation from the Hebrew with little assistance from the Greek, hit upon an alternative, although equally viable reading of the text."

    http://galusaustralis.com/2009/09/1608/horny-jew-whats-the-deal-with-michelangelos-moses/

    This is much too convoluted. If you read the original Hebrew and apply common sense, it makes sense that they were saying Moses’s face was glowing. It’s a common and easily understandable image that being in the presence of God would cause your face to light up. As is said above, it’s a common image in art. The alternatives all fail the common sense test. The Greek Septuagint, done by Jews at a much earlier time (3rd century BC) when Hebrew was still a living language, translates it as glowing. According to the legend at least, the King of Egypt had 72 guys independently translate the Bible and they all came up the same.

    The bottom line is that Jerome didn’t really know Hebrew that well and he made an understandable F-up as anyone might when trying to translate a dead language that you really don’t know all by yourself. He did a good job with what he had available but it was inevitable that he was going to make mistakes like this. It was just a mistake, that’s all.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Dunno. I've chatted with some Hebraists at my uni, and they all acknowledge that the passage is murky. One of them even commented that he thinks that the early Israelites might have believed that Moses was disfigured by the Divine Radiance.
  250. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    You don't necessarily get to pick and choose your poster boys. Humans are flawed. We know now that MLK loved the ladies. AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South. (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.) This doesn't make Frank's lynching OK but it really doesn't have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America. Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn't going to anyway.

    AFAIK, there were no other Jews comparable to Frank lynched in the South.

    Huh. That’s weird.

    (America is a blessed place for the Jews, which is something I for one never forget. If the total # of anti-Jewish pogrom victims in all of American history is 1, then it is indeed blessed.)

    Well. It WASN’T an “anti-Jewish pogrom”. It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack. It had nothing to DO with him being Jewish. You just choose to see it that way because you are a Jew, and cannot accept the fact that sometimes Jews actually are at fault for the way people treat them.

    So cut the crap with your “I for one never forget.”.

    This doesn’t make Frank’s lynching OK but it really doesn’t have a larger meaning in that it was the beginning and end of anti-Jewish pogroms in America.

    Again. Not an anti-Jewish pogrom. It was an anti-child-molesting convicted murderer attack.

    The same kind of thing happened to white people all the time. Nothing about this had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Frank being Jewish. If this guy had NOT been Jewish, the exact same thing would have happened to him, only you would have never heard about it, because you and the ADL don’t care when people get killed, unless they’re members of your tribe.

    Not everything is anti-Semitism. One of the reasons so many people dislike Jews is because they call everything anti-Semitism. If you want to stop this, stop acting this way.

    Maybe this is because the Jews organized the ADL and took action to see that the contagion did not spread any further, but maybe it wasn’t going to anyway.

    Shut up, Jack. Just do yourself a favor and shut up.

  251. @Tamaqua
    My mother was born in segregated South Carolina. To quote her, “we didn’t sit around all day waving Rebel flags .... We were poor and had a life to live. It wasn’t perfect but it was better than today.”

    A few other points about the Old South, Jews, and Hitler’s racial philosophy-

    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis. You’re never going to hear anything about him from any Jewish group or academics. Overwhelming numbers of less prominent Southern Jews put on uniforms and fought as infantrymen alongside their neighbors in the Confederate Army, and at a much higher rate than their Northern cousins percentage of population that joined the Union Army.

    An entire book has been written-
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1570033633/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1570033633

    Southerners are overwhelmingly descendants of English, Scots and Northern Irish. English support helped the Confederate States fight the war, importing weapons and buying Southern cotton, and building Confederate warships in Liverpool. Is it any wonder that 80 years later Southerners would feel more disposed to their ancestral and cultural homeland than others?

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them. Southerners also didn’t consider other white ethnic groups worthy of enslavement, such as the Germans did to Slavic people in Eastern Europe.

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them.

    This is a very important and worthy point. Southerners never believed that Negroes should be eradicated en masse because Southerners they were Christians. Although they believed Negroes were inferior, all they really wanted was to be left alone from the depredations of jungle behavior.

    Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages, European Christians held the same views toward Jews: that Jews were morally corrupt but nonetheless worthy of God’s grace, and this forbid the massacre and extermination of the Jews.

    To the contrary, Hitler, as a Darwinist and a neo-pagan, had no such limitations.

    The supposed equivalence between Southern segregationists and Nazis is largely a fantasy perpetrated by Hollywood Jews and the $PLC.

  252. @Anonymous

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson...
     
    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction--Anglo-American White Males--have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.
     

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males

    Isn’t this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II “the good war” and lionize the “Greatest Generation” that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army, and neither America nor Russia went out of its way to ameliorate the genocide. On the contrary, Russia initially facilitated it, by allying itself with Nazi Germany, and the U.S. closed its borders to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Isn’t this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II “the good war” and lionize the “Greatest Generation” that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army,
     
    They weren't just the largest. The Soviets liberated the extermination camps, the facilities that the Nazis established for the purposes of killing millions of undesirables: Treblinka, Bełżec, Sobibor, etc


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp
    , @Anonymous
    Well, there you are agreeing to vilify the people who won the war and saved world jewry. Incidentally, liberating work camps does not equal winning the war. If you don't win the war--militarily--the camps are at best an afterthought. HTH.

    PS: I don't claim that it was 'the last good war' nor do I deny that the Russians were instrumental in bringing it to a close. Please don't put words in my mouth.

  253. @Joe Walker
    Maybe the reason why Southerners were more pro-Semitic than Northerners is that there were fewer Jews in the South and so Southerners were less likely to have the negative experiences with Jews that Northerners had to endure?

    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.

    For example, when Augusta National Golf Club, the most prestigious country club in America today, opened in the 1930s in Georgia near the South Carolina border, it was open to local Jewish elites. One of my Jewish readers sent me a comment that a Jewish family related to his were members at the Augusta National I looked up obituaries of his relatives from Augusta, and, holy cow, were they ever dynamic local leaders, starting business and charities like crazy. They brought Jewish dynamism to a rather sleepy small city and were much appreciated by their gentile neighbors.

    But when Northern CEOs flooded into Augusta National after WWII, they stopped admitting Jews for a few decades.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Well said. I was going to respond exactly along those lines (well maybe not the part about the golf). The small # of Jews filled a sort of empty and available ecological niche in the South and so they were more appreciated than resented. Resentment happens when some other group moves your cheese. In addition to the major businessmen of the big Southern cities, every small town had its Jewish dry goods store and maybe the local doctor or pharmacist was Jewish. It was harder on the Jews (especially at a time when more Jews were still religious and felt the need to keep kosher, etc.) than it was on the locals because they were so spread out.

    There seems to be a tipping point with minorities (and immigrants) in general - most people don't mind if there are a few of them who you know personally by name. There's nice Dr. Levy, the dentist, and Ben who owns the furniture store - he's OK. Nowadays Mr. Patel owns the motel and Mr. Singh runs the gas station. But when suddenly there are a whole mobs of them you feel threatened - the South never reached that tipping point with its Jews.
    , @syonredux

    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.
     
    Yeah. One of the key weaknesses of the antebellum South involved its lack of a native bourgeoisie. They were constantly having to import trained personnel (lawyers, accountants, factors, managers, etc) from elsewhere, usually either the North or Scotland. Edgar Allan Poe's Scots foster-father, John Allan, was one of them.
  254. @Bliss
    FYI:

    Homosexuals were holocausted by the nazis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

    Nazi Germany was a christian, carnivorous nation not a pagan, vegetarian hippie commune...regardless of the personal preferences of Hitler (vegetarianism) and Himmler (occultism).

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute. Locking up gays was more about cementing Himmler’s position in the party. (Similar story holds true for labor unions and the Strasserites)

    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, a significant fraction of the Nazi party was openly gay. More than half of the SA, up to and including Ernst Rohm, openly engaged in gay sex. There’s zero record of Hitler having any moral objection to this. In fact this group was much more militantly radical than Himmler and Goring’s conciliatory faction.

    Rohm and the gays weren’t purged for being gay, or even bad Nazis. They were purged because Hindenburg insisted on it as a pre-condition to have over power. As much as a snake in the grass can, Hitler was actually quite conflicted about killing Rohm and the other gay Nazis.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute.
     
    It is true that the SA's leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the "socialism" in "national socialism" rather more seriously. They also wanted to be given control of the army. The industrialist backers of the Nazi party probably wanted them gone because they were socialists. The Army certainly wanted them gone because they wanted to be given control of the army; purging Rohm and his leadership was imposed on Hitler by the Army as a condition for their support. And the SS wanted them gone because they were a rival for power within the Party. The SS and the Army probably also wanted to do away with Rohm and the SA leadership because they were homosexuals. The Nazi Party had publicly opposed the decadence and "cultural bolshevism" of Weimar Germany, and the army certainly wanted none of that either. Moreover, the Nazis continued to persecute homosexuals long after the SA had been neutered; they did so because they were anti-homosexual.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The Nazis were long sort of a Coalition of the Fringes who were LARPing as salt of the earth regular Germans. For example, Hitler's designated successor Hess came out of a faction of oujia board enthusiasts whom Hess brought with him into the Nazi party. The 1920s Nazis sound a lot like the the kind of people Orwell was always fuming about in England: fruit-juice drinkers! Sandals-wearers!

    "In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
  255. @David In TN
    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.

    Funny thing, I read that John Patterson endorsed Obama in 2008.

    Yes, apparently he did. Also in 2003, he presided over the special court that removed Roy Moore as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

  256. @inertial
    Beevor has to be taken with a grain of salt. His books are Cold War propaganda (and are banned in modern Russia.) Even that little quote that you give about the Soviets "stoking the desire for vengeance" is full of half truths, omissions, and highly questionable "facts."

    Please. Beevor was given access to Russian archives as well as Western and German ones, and his books are copiously documented. The “stoking the desire for revenge” was accurate, as was the Soviets’ late reversal from that, in order to facilitate peaceful postwar occupation of East Germany.

    • Replies: @inertial
    Beevor doesn't know Russian so his access to Russian archives is less impressive than you might think. Was there “stoking the desire for revenge?” Perhaps. I found a couple of mentions of 'many posters' supposedly printed with words, "You are now on German soil. The hour of revenge has struck." (but not a single picture of such a poster.) On the other hand, Soviet soldiers and officers had this Stalin's quote from 1941 drilled into their heads, over and over again, "Hitlers come and go but German people remain." Does Beevor mention that?

    True, Ehrenburg kept saying "kill the German" back when the Germans were occupying Russia. But in 1945 he was publicly told - in Pravda - to knock it off. Does Beevor mention that?

    And I have to call BS on the "French informant's" story. I didn't find any mention of this elsewhere and it sounds implausible. Can you imagine the labor involved? Besides, it wasn't even necessary; Soviet soldiers could see the results of Nazi atrocities for themselves or listen to the locals. Now I am sure there is a source for that, i.e. a report by that "French informant" relaying some wild rumor. That's a problem with Beevor - his reliance on anecdotes, whether true or not.

    Another problem is what facts that his chooses to highlight. Apparently, in the Soviet Army there was an accident caused by mishandling of live munitions. So? This happens in all mass armies everywhere. Why does Beevor dwell on this? Obviously because it fits his agenda, which is to present the Russian army in WWII as a herd of baboons. Judging by your tweets, he succeeded beautifully.
    , @inertial
    Another thing about Beevor and his sources is that what he calls"NKVD reports" about rapes and such are usually court martial cases. He doesn't say that explicitly and neither does he mention what happened to the perpetrators. Because the goal is to create impression that this was normal and the Soviet command did nothing about it.

    Imagine someone writes a book about American Army in Europe with several chapters that simply describe crimes committed by American servicemen (such as Emmet Till's father.) It would all be true and all based on sources from "American security forces archives." And yet it would be a horrible slander.
  257. @LondonBob
    JFK had identical views to Lindbergh on WWII, so no real surprise.

    In 1962, Charles Lindbergh was still high on the pantheon of American heroes. He had flown missions in the Pacific in 1944 and gave valuable advice on increasing the range of the P-38 fighter.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Lindbergh's involvement in "America First" really damaged his reputation. Lindbergh flew as a consultant to United Aircraft because Roosevelt would not let him join the US military. After the war was over, it recovered somewhat, but not fully.

    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.
    , @Anonymous
    Parallels with Neville Chamberlain, who also sincerely wanted to prevent war, and--after a period of bad grace--had his reputation rehabilitated after the war. The contemporary vilification of both men as fools and traitors is a much more recent phenomenon.
    , @Whoever
    My great grandfather, a naval aviator, while serving aboard the Saratoga, met Lindbergh when he visited the ship a couple of weeks after their daring surprise attack (mock!) against the Panama Canal in 1929. We still have a photo of him and Lindbergh posing alone and together with his fellow squadron aviators.
    My great grandfather knew Jack Ryan, Don Hall and Bill Bowlus, and through them had previously met Lindbergh before he became famous and was just another dumb army pilot not good enough be be a naval aviator (^_^).
    Lindbergh seems to have been very well liked by others in the aviation field, considered to be a man's man, professional, capable, reliable, who didn't say much, but what he said was worth listening to.
    He first came into conflict with Franklin Roosevelt when he declined an invitation to Christmas dinner at the White House in 1933, not for political reasons but because he wanted to spend the holidays alone with his family. He didn't understand that his taking a pass on that would be seen as a snub.
    Then the next year he did get in conflict with Roosevelt over his handling of the air mail crisis, publicly criticizing him and blaming him for the needless deaths of a number of army pilots, firmly placing him on FDR's roster of enemies.
    What he did with the P-38 pilots in the Pacific was remind them about the oversquare -- MP higher than RPM divided by 100 -- engine management technique. This gives better cylinder charging and more complete combustion, thus better fuel economy.
    Funny thing is, the P-38's operating manual instructs pilots to do this. For example, for maximum continuous flight operation at 12,000 feet, the manual says to set the RPM at 2450 and the MP at 38 inches -- that's oversquare! That provided a fuel burn rate of 190 GPH in auto rich.
    But, you know, who reads the manual, right? Those army fighter jocks were kick the tires and light the fires types, pull streamers taking off in a fighter fan, turning and burning till they ran out of go juice.
    Lindbergh reminded them of what they had been taught when learning to fly the P-38, but also taught them to keep the MP up but drop RPM down to 2050 and use auto lean (in later editions of the flight manual, this advice is added on below the Flight Operation Instruction Chart).
    Doing that extended the range of the P-38, and allowed P-38s to fly the longest bomber escort missions of the war, something like 1,800 miles r/t.
    I have always admired Lindbergh, and have read, I think everything he ever published, including his diaries, so I may not be the best person to express an opinion on this, but I believe that the only people who have ever really disliked Lindbergh have been war enthusiasts, international interventionists and a certain type of Jew. The rest of us, despite the vicious brown-smearing campaign he was subjected to by the Roosevelt administration, have always thought that he was a pretty cool guy. (And his personal life is none of our business.)
  258. @Anonymous
    I have no idea why Steve feels obligated to go out of his way to cuck for a a person (Roth) who has demonised Steve's group of people all his life. Roth is not 'extremely sane'. He's a typical neurotic Jew with a massive inferiority complex towards Anglos.

    As someone said, no group did more to help Jews than white Anglo-Americans and how did Jews repay that debt? By demonising them and their people nonstop. And yet Steve can't shake that habit of constantly turning the other cheek. It's pathetic to watch.

    It’s interesting how often a comment would have been 10 times better if the last sentence were left off. It’s true of my comments way too often, so I’m not casting stones.

  259. @Sean
    That was tried and failed in the latter Boer war, but the British crushed support for the Boer guerrillas by regular army sweep, destroying homes and also unleashing 20, 000 armed black scouts which the civilians (especially women) were helpless against.

    Everybody fit to fight that Lee told to lay down their arms was not, relatively speaking, a lot, because so many Southerners willing to fight were already dead of severely wounded by then. But if Lee had ordered guerrilla warfare, the North would never have given up, and unlike the South, the North had manpower. The ranks of the Union army were increasingly filled with low class Irish and German immigrants (paid a generous bounty for joining) by later stages of the war, while many students at the top universities in the North never even joined up. The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people's houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

    The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people’s houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.

    If what you say is true, it’s a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government.

    • Replies: @Anon
    "If what you say is true, it’s a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government."

    They care so much about democracy, republican government, and fair-play that they are trying to undo all three via mass immigration.
  260. I’ve visited the UC Irvine for that very reason. I was thoroughly disappointed by how pleasant the campus was. Without the deceptive camera angles, the campus is not very authoritarian looking. It’s borderline intimate. Plant a couple of trees and much of the brutalism is hidden behind a green canopy.

    It helps that the Southern California climate tends to make Brutalism seem less brutal.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping. The UCLA business school I went to in 1980-82 looked like a junior high school building, but was largely hidden behind fast growing eucalyptus trees. They've since given the MBA students a super 1990s building and handed the old MBA school over to the Social Work school.

    One problem with UC campuses, however, twas he reliance on fast-growing eucalyptus trees. They look beautiful for their first 20 years or so, but then they get shaggy and decrepit-looking.

  261. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    I'm sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist -- which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives -- as a "pogrom."

    Particularly since, as Jack should know, the exact same thing was done by whites to other whites. Not uncommonly.

    Even if it was a miscarriage of justice, those kinds of things happen all the time. If not every day, then at least multiple times a year. Again, done by whites to other whites.

    I don’t understand how these people can be so oblivious as to how they come across to other people.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Don't worry. After we are all dispossesed and tortured to death by black or mestizo drug gangs, a Jew will strike up a conversation with a Chinese, will start making ridiculous claims, will demand compensation, and the Chinese will start doing to the Jew what the Chinese do to Uighurs who attempt Semitic-derived tribalist competition shenanigans.
  262. @James Braxton
    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.

    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.

    Care to provide a link?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I've never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.

    , @James Braxton
    My information is anecdotal, from old timers I know who lived through it.

    I suspect you would find editorials in the pre Pearl Harbor black press to this effect, but I have not done the research.

    Like I said, lost to history.
  263. An interesting, very iStevey fictional look at 1930s Southern Jewry was “The Last Night of Ballyhoo,” by Alfred Uhry, who wrote “Driving Miss Daisy.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Night_of_Ballyhoo

  264. @J.Ross
    I'm sorry but it is completely unacceptable to describe the extrajudicial killing of a undoubtedly guilty murderous pedophile rapist -- which damaged no other property and threatened no other lives -- as a "pogrom."

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    • Replies: @anon
    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    Which is the part you still have not demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate, except by talking a bunch of nonsense about how "The south at the time was being transformed" and "conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases", all of which ignores the fact that you yourself said that you wouldn't be surprised if Frank molested her, and the other fact that she did, indeed, wind up dead in his factory.

    Do you really think that, if an Irish guy or an English guy found himself in the same set of circumstances, the same thing wouldn't have happened to him? The only difference would be that the case wouldn't have attracted national attention, and nobody would have made it into a federal case, and his sentence wouldn't have been commuted. He would have just been executed, and that would have been that. You would never have even heard about it.
    , @Anon
    "the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty)."

    1. Appeal to authority fallacy.

    2. Falsely implying that believing the opposite makes you "anti-Semitic."

    3. Consensus of opinion doesn't necessarily make something so.
    , @J.Ross
    None of which touches what I said -- the issue is comparing anti-Jewish race riots tolerated by authorities to a precise one-target lynch mob -- but there's just no way in hell Frank was not guilty.
    , @Mr. Anon

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).
     
    And who exactly are "non anti-Semite" historians? Whomever the SPLC and the New York Times designates as such? Whether Frank committed the murder or not (I am not convinced he did, but it seems to me to be possible), both Conley and Frank behaved in a guilty manner with respect to the murder. A reasonable person could have concluded that the crime happened as the prosecution argued. If Frank's putative innocence is a matter that supposedly everyone knows, it is down to a concerted campaign conducted to make people believe so. Just as there has been a concerted campaign to downplay the seriousness of Jonathan Pollard's spying, and construe the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as an accident rather than a deliberate attack.

    I'm really not impressed by claims that believing anything else on these matters is something that can only be explained by anti-semitism, rather than - say - simply not buying what appears to be a concerted and extensive campaign of ethnically motivated public relations.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.
     
    Why you got your own special little words for everything. If a Gentile gets lynched, that's just a hanging; if a Jew gets lynched, that's a pogrom.
    , @ben tillman

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).
     
    Baloney. No unbiased historian could reach that conclusion.
  265. @njguy73

    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.
     
    Care to provide a link?

    I’ve never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I’ve never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.
     
    WEB DuBois had a similar mindset. If memory serves, he even thought that, since the Japanese were the only non-Western Great Power, the Chinese should acquiesce to being conquered by them. Taking one for the team, so to speak
  266. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.
     
    Really. Can you give any examples? The founders of St. Grottlesex and various hunt clubs likely would have been surprised at your assertion.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English.
     
    Massachusetts, founded by the English, is a bit older than the American Revolution. See Millennial’s comment. The Massachusetts founding event that is most recognized and mythologized is the Plymouth Thanksgiving.

    P.S., For those to whom Yankee claims to Thanksgiving are a perennial perineal sore spot, read this past subthread. (#12… )

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.

    Really. Can you give any examples?

    Sure. The Louise Woodard case in 1997–the UK press surveyed tons of New Englanders during the trial and were astounded at the results–they called Boston the most historically Anglophobic city in North America. They felt it was all but impossible for an English au pair to get a fair trial.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is obviously related to the Irish conflict, which before 1998 was killing people every week. The ceasefire, and then the Omagh idiocy, caused a shift in attitudes.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    the UK press surveyed tons of New Englanders during the trial and were astounded at the results
     
    Citation(s) needed. Nothing in the Wikipedia article says anything about New Englanders (let alone New Englanders of English descent, which is the topic at hand) expressing anti-English views.

    The rest of your comment alludes to hysterical British tabloid anti-septic projection, which is something quite different than New Englanders slagging off the English.
  267. @Doug
    The Nazis didn't persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute. Locking up gays was more about cementing Himmler's position in the party. (Similar story holds true for labor unions and the Strasserites)

    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, a significant fraction of the Nazi party was openly gay. More than half of the SA, up to and including Ernst Rohm, openly engaged in gay sex. There's zero record of Hitler having any moral objection to this. In fact this group was much more militantly radical than Himmler and Goring's conciliatory faction.

    Rohm and the gays weren't purged for being gay, or even bad Nazis. They were purged because Hindenburg insisted on it as a pre-condition to have over power. As much as a snake in the grass can, Hitler was actually quite conflicted about killing Rohm and the other gay Nazis.

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute.

    It is true that the SA’s leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the “socialism” in “national socialism” rather more seriously. They also wanted to be given control of the army. The industrialist backers of the Nazi party probably wanted them gone because they were socialists. The Army certainly wanted them gone because they wanted to be given control of the army; purging Rohm and his leadership was imposed on Hitler by the Army as a condition for their support. And the SS wanted them gone because they were a rival for power within the Party. The SS and the Army probably also wanted to do away with Rohm and the SA leadership because they were homosexuals. The Nazi Party had publicly opposed the decadence and “cultural bolshevism” of Weimar Germany, and the army certainly wanted none of that either. Moreover, the Nazis continued to persecute homosexuals long after the SA had been neutered; they did so because they were anti-homosexual.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Is there any chance that Kaiser Wilhelm II was bisexual?

    Nabokov wrote a long story before WWII about a gay rightwing king of a fictional European country, then he reworked the idea into his wonderful novel "Pale Fire." I presume Nabokov was inspired by something historical but I've never seen any discussion of what.

    , @syonredux

    It is true that the SA’s leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the “socialism” in “national socialism” rather more seriously.
     
    One historian called them "beefsteak Nazis," brown on the outside, red on the inside.
  268. @Clifford Brown
    I've visited the UC Irvine for that very reason. I was thoroughly disappointed by how pleasant the campus was. Without the deceptive camera angles, the campus is not very authoritarian looking. It's borderline intimate. Plant a couple of trees and much of the brutalism is hidden behind a green canopy.

    It helps that the Southern California climate tends to make Brutalism seem less brutal.

    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping. The UCLA business school I went to in 1980-82 looked like a junior high school building, but was largely hidden behind fast growing eucalyptus trees. They’ve since given the MBA students a super 1990s building and handed the old MBA school over to the Social Work school.

    One problem with UC campuses, however, twas he reliance on fast-growing eucalyptus trees. They look beautiful for their first 20 years or so, but then they get shaggy and decrepit-looking.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping.
     
    Fortunately, UC Berkeley has a lot of nice, pre-1945 buildings:

    http://www.ratcliffarch.com/content/projects/SeisProgImprLibAnnex/UCB_Doe_7.jpg
    , @G Pinfold
    Australian trees are famously drab. The dry, khaki vegetation is one of the major reasons for the depression that afflicts British immigrants, colloquially known as ‘Whinging Pom Syndrome’. Many return home to the English countryside and report an immediate mood boost.
  269. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    Which is the part you still have not demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate, except by talking a bunch of nonsense about how “The south at the time was being transformed” and “conflicted feelings that people can’t quite verbalize and which gain outlets in symbolic cases”, all of which ignores the fact that you yourself said that you wouldn’t be surprised if Frank molested her, and the other fact that she did, indeed, wind up dead in his factory.

    Do you really think that, if an Irish guy or an English guy found himself in the same set of circumstances, the same thing wouldn’t have happened to him? The only difference would be that the case wouldn’t have attracted national attention, and nobody would have made it into a federal case, and his sentence wouldn’t have been commuted. He would have just been executed, and that would have been that. You would never have even heard about it.

  270. @David In TN
    In 1962, Charles Lindbergh was still high on the pantheon of American heroes. He had flown missions in the Pacific in 1944 and gave valuable advice on increasing the range of the P-38 fighter.

    Lindbergh’s involvement in “America First” really damaged his reputation. Lindbergh flew as a consultant to United Aircraft because Roosevelt would not let him join the US military. After the war was over, it recovered somewhat, but not fully.

    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Lindbergh’s involvement in “America First” really damaged his reputation.
     
    That is nonsense. His reputation was not generally damaged among ordinary gentile Americans. It was not damaged among veterans (especially flyers). Lindbergh was even the subject of postitive movies in the post-war era:

    The Spirit of St. Louis (1957) - Directed by Billy Wilder and starring Jimmy Stewart

    The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (1976)

    Portrayals by Jimmy Stewart in Hollywood A-pictures was generally not accorded to pariahs.


    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.
     
    Wow! He had mistresses! Yeah, Jews never do that. Well, not everyone can live up to the high ethical standards set by people like Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein.
  271. I have some reliable sources among the leaders of the Jewish community in Virginia. According to these sources, the most consistent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel goyim in Virginia are evangelical Christians. For example, someone I know had Hanukkah dinner with the Robertson family not long ago (as the Christian Broadcast Network). From what I hear, if the Jewish community has any issues with bills before the legislature, the Jewish leaders call the Robertsons. The Robertsons then call up some law makers, and the problem gets taken care of.

  272. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    “But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).”

    There is no evidence for that whatsoever. Cite some if you can.

  273. @Twodees Partain
    "Mother Night" by Kurt Vonnegut contains a scene in which Hitler discusses the merits of Lincoln and ends up expressing concern that Lincoln may have been Jewish due to his first name. It's a little comical.

    One famous Jew in the Confederate cabinet was Judah Benjamin, the Secretary of Treasury. Somehow, the gold of the treasury vanished at the end of the war.

    Judah Benjamin became a very hardworking lawyer in England, handling many cases and writing a textbook on the law of sales. A successor version of Benjamin on Sales is still in use.

    Far from being welcomed with open arms, Benjamin had to requalify as an attorney in England.

  274. @Jack D
    This is much too convoluted. If you read the original Hebrew and apply common sense, it makes sense that they were saying Moses's face was glowing. It's a common and easily understandable image that being in the presence of God would cause your face to light up. As is said above, it's a common image in art. The alternatives all fail the common sense test. The Greek Septuagint, done by Jews at a much earlier time (3rd century BC) when Hebrew was still a living language, translates it as glowing. According to the legend at least, the King of Egypt had 72 guys independently translate the Bible and they all came up the same.

    The bottom line is that Jerome didn't really know Hebrew that well and he made an understandable F-up as anyone might when trying to translate a dead language that you really don't know all by yourself. He did a good job with what he had available but it was inevitable that he was going to make mistakes like this. It was just a mistake, that's all.

    Dunno. I’ve chatted with some Hebraists at my uni, and they all acknowledge that the passage is murky. One of them even commented that he thinks that the early Israelites might have believed that Moses was disfigured by the Divine Radiance.

  275. @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    “the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).”

    1. Appeal to authority fallacy.

    2. Falsely implying that believing the opposite makes you “anti-Semitic.”

    3. Consensus of opinion doesn’t necessarily make something so.

  276. @Barnard
    There were a number of Northern WASP families who had daughters that married into British nobility. Winston Churchill's mother is the most famous example.

    Jerome Avenue is a major thoroughfare in the Bronx and is named for Churchill’s grandfather. It takes you to Yankee Stadium.

  277. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    The North would have just taken its other hand out from behind its back and swamped the South with regular troops, demolished ordinary people’s houses and shot anyone suspected of being a guerrilla sympathizer or out riding after dark (they did this to a certain extent which is why the KKK was quickly crushed).

    Most demoralisingly for the South the North faced with armed nonuniformed combatants would , and recruited blacks of the South as auxiliaries, and if the South had fought to the very last extremity their women and children would have paid the price.
     
    If what you say is true, it's a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government.

    “If what you say is true, it’s a good thing the North won, as they clearly were dedicated to fair-play, democracy, the rule of law, and republican government.”

    They care so much about democracy, republican government, and fair-play that they are trying to undo all three via mass immigration.

  278. @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    None of which touches what I said — the issue is comparing anti-Jewish race riots tolerated by authorities to a precise one-target lynch mob — but there’s just no way in hell Frank was not guilty.

  279. @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    And who exactly are “non anti-Semite” historians? Whomever the SPLC and the New York Times designates as such? Whether Frank committed the murder or not (I am not convinced he did, but it seems to me to be possible), both Conley and Frank behaved in a guilty manner with respect to the murder. A reasonable person could have concluded that the crime happened as the prosecution argued. If Frank’s putative innocence is a matter that supposedly everyone knows, it is down to a concerted campaign conducted to make people believe so. Just as there has been a concerted campaign to downplay the seriousness of Jonathan Pollard’s spying, and construe the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as an accident rather than a deliberate attack.

    I’m really not impressed by claims that believing anything else on these matters is something that can only be explained by anti-semitism, rather than – say – simply not buying what appears to be a concerted and extensive campaign of ethnically motivated public relations.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    Why you got your own special little words for everything. If a Gentile gets lynched, that’s just a hanging; if a Jew gets lynched, that’s a pogrom.

  280. @anon
    Particularly since, as Jack should know, the exact same thing was done by whites to other whites. Not uncommonly.

    Even if it was a miscarriage of justice, those kinds of things happen all the time. If not every day, then at least multiple times a year. Again, done by whites to other whites.

    I don't understand how these people can be so oblivious as to how they come across to other people.

    Don’t worry. After we are all dispossesed and tortured to death by black or mestizo drug gangs, a Jew will strike up a conversation with a Chinese, will start making ridiculous claims, will demand compensation, and the Chinese will start doing to the Jew what the Chinese do to Uighurs who attempt Semitic-derived tribalist competition shenanigans.

  281. @Steve Sailer
    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.

    For example, when Augusta National Golf Club, the most prestigious country club in America today, opened in the 1930s in Georgia near the South Carolina border, it was open to local Jewish elites. One of my Jewish readers sent me a comment that a Jewish family related to his were members at the Augusta National I looked up obituaries of his relatives from Augusta, and, holy cow, were they ever dynamic local leaders, starting business and charities like crazy. They brought Jewish dynamism to a rather sleepy small city and were much appreciated by their gentile neighbors.

    But when Northern CEOs flooded into Augusta National after WWII, they stopped admitting Jews for a few decades.

    Well said. I was going to respond exactly along those lines (well maybe not the part about the golf). The small # of Jews filled a sort of empty and available ecological niche in the South and so they were more appreciated than resented. Resentment happens when some other group moves your cheese. In addition to the major businessmen of the big Southern cities, every small town had its Jewish dry goods store and maybe the local doctor or pharmacist was Jewish. It was harder on the Jews (especially at a time when more Jews were still religious and felt the need to keep kosher, etc.) than it was on the locals because they were so spread out.

    There seems to be a tipping point with minorities (and immigrants) in general – most people don’t mind if there are a few of them who you know personally by name. There’s nice Dr. Levy, the dentist, and Ben who owns the furniture store – he’s OK. Nowadays Mr. Patel owns the motel and Mr. Singh runs the gas station. But when suddenly there are a whole mobs of them you feel threatened – the South never reached that tipping point with its Jews.

  282. @Steve Sailer
    I've never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.

    I’ve never heard that.

    However, Zora Neale Hurston was sympathetic toward the Japanese as a nonwhite power sticking threatening European colonial empires in Asia.

    WEB DuBois had a similar mindset. If memory serves, he even thought that, since the Japanese were the only non-Western Great Power, the Chinese should acquiesce to being conquered by them. Taking one for the team, so to speak

  283. @Steve Sailer
    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.

    For example, when Augusta National Golf Club, the most prestigious country club in America today, opened in the 1930s in Georgia near the South Carolina border, it was open to local Jewish elites. One of my Jewish readers sent me a comment that a Jewish family related to his were members at the Augusta National I looked up obituaries of his relatives from Augusta, and, holy cow, were they ever dynamic local leaders, starting business and charities like crazy. They brought Jewish dynamism to a rather sleepy small city and were much appreciated by their gentile neighbors.

    But when Northern CEOs flooded into Augusta National after WWII, they stopped admitting Jews for a few decades.

    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.

    Yeah. One of the key weaknesses of the antebellum South involved its lack of a native bourgeoisie. They were constantly having to import trained personnel (lawyers, accountants, factors, managers, etc) from elsewhere, usually either the North or Scotland. Edgar Allan Poe’s Scots foster-father, John Allan, was one of them.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    I guess the moral of the story is: If you are not - in part, at least - a nation of shop keepers, you will be a nation of some other nation's shop-keepers.
  284. @Steve Sailer
    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping. The UCLA business school I went to in 1980-82 looked like a junior high school building, but was largely hidden behind fast growing eucalyptus trees. They've since given the MBA students a super 1990s building and handed the old MBA school over to the Social Work school.

    One problem with UC campuses, however, twas he reliance on fast-growing eucalyptus trees. They look beautiful for their first 20 years or so, but then they get shaggy and decrepit-looking.

    The UC schools tend to have bad postwar architecture and good landscaping.

    Fortunately, UC Berkeley has a lot of nice, pre-1945 buildings:

  285. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    “I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.”

    What a piece of work this guy is. Can’t win an argument, so…must be anti-Semitism! That tends to happen when you assume anecdotes suffice for actual evidence, which you had absolutely zero before making a pretty bold claim. Making unsupported assertions against a group based on zero evidence but merely anecdote and stereotype could be construed as anti-Gentilism.

    “I don’t know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.”

    Prove my grandmother didn’t see aliens kidnap Michael Jackson. Think she’s lying? You’re not some kind of racist, are you? Hate old people, too? Sad.

  286. @Jack D
    Lindbergh's involvement in "America First" really damaged his reputation. Lindbergh flew as a consultant to United Aircraft because Roosevelt would not let him join the US military. After the war was over, it recovered somewhat, but not fully.

    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.

    Lindbergh’s involvement in “America First” really damaged his reputation.

    That is nonsense. His reputation was not generally damaged among ordinary gentile Americans. It was not damaged among veterans (especially flyers). Lindbergh was even the subject of postitive movies in the post-war era:

    The Spirit of St. Louis (1957) – Directed by Billy Wilder and starring Jimmy Stewart

    The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (1976)

    Portrayals by Jimmy Stewart in Hollywood A-pictures was generally not accorded to pariahs.

    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.

    Wow! He had mistresses! Yeah, Jews never do that. Well, not everyone can live up to the high ethical standards set by people like Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein.

    • Replies: @Anon
    "That is nonsense. His reputation was not generally damaged among ordinary gentile Americans."

    Ah, but you see, it was damaged later on in the eyes of the right people. Therefore, he was one of the world's worst people.

    Example:

    Bill Clinton had lots of personal problems but had a great rep among the right people; therefore, great guy - even committed a felony by lying under oath and got away with it while his minions smeared a 22 year old girl as being a floozy.

    Lindbergh had personal problems but had a good rep with the wrong people; therefore, terrible bigot - what was that thing he did, again...the thing that Earhart must've done first anyway?
    , @The Man From K Street
    Not to take away from your main point, which is true, but THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS (directed by Billy Wilder--a refugee from the nazis) was a colossal box office flop.

    The real credit for the rehabilitation of Charles Lindbergh goes to President Eisenhower, who restored him to status in the Air Force and gave him general rank.
    , @Jack D
    Mistresses, sure. But what non-Muslim has 4 families in 4 cities? That's weird.

    I've known several cases where (non-Muslim, non-Mormon) guys had an additional family on top of their legitimate family. This in more common than you might think. But THREE secret families - I think that has to be some kind of record for a white guy. Charlie, baby, wear a raincoat!
  287. @Twodees Partain
    The Carolinas have quite a few descendants of German families who arrived there in the 18th century, mine included. The branch of my family that originated in Germany fought on the American side in the revolutionary war and on the Confederate side in the war over secession.

    "[A]lmost no one" is grossly inaccurate.

    Sure, years later I actually met one of those much ballyhooed Germans from the Orangeburg area out here in Dallas. It was amusing to hear her pronounce my last name with her drawl. It was even funnier ten years later when I learned of her maiden name, which rhymes with my surname both in German and in her drawl. So there are a few.

    But 1 or 2 percent is “virtually none” in my book when it’s 20% nationwide.

  288. @Charles Pewitt

    I would however consider Roth an expert on the northern half of the state of New Jersey.

     

    Roth might be an expert on all things Jewish in Newark, New Jersey, or the Eastern portion of northern New Jersey, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's an expert on the northern half of New Jersey.

    Northwestern New Jersey is mostly White and mostly Christian. Unfortunately, there is now an Asian and Mestizo invasion underway. New Jersey is one of the states that must be reclaimed by White Core American Patriots when the time comes.

    OFF TOPIC

    FELDSTEIN FORECASTS FLOP FOR STOCKS

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-are-headed-for-a-fall-1516145624

    You are being pedantic. Steve is referring to part of NJ that is inside 287. No one cares about Sussex and Warren Counties.

  289. @Dave Pinsen

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males
     
    Isn't this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II "the good war" and lionize the "Greatest Generation" that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army, and neither America nor Russia went out of its way to ameliorate the genocide. On the contrary, Russia initially facilitated it, by allying itself with Nazi Germany, and the U.S. closed its borders to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.

    Isn’t this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II “the good war” and lionize the “Greatest Generation” that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army,

    They weren’t just the largest. The Soviets liberated the extermination camps, the facilities that the Nazis established for the purposes of killing millions of undesirables: Treblinka, Bełżec, Sobibor, etc

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp

  290. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    I suppose general anti-Semitism

    This appears to be your answer to nearly everything. No, we know that it’s a lie because 1) it comports too neatly with approved narratives 2) it’s an extremely tired cliché 3) it assaults your tribal enemies in a ludicrous fashion and 4) it provides fodder for your treasured victim fables. That’s just off the top of my head. And if yours weren’t firmly up your rear you’d see the story for the preposterous nonsense that it is.

  291. If we didn’t want them in our country clubs, what on Earth makes Roth believe we’d want them in our homes?

  292. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wade

    (I have heard many Jews who claim Southerners asked them in all seriousness whether Jews really “have horns”, for example). But ignorance does not necessarily equal anti-Semitism.
     
    I grew up in the south (the benighted Arkansas, no less) and was raised in a conservative Christian home. I can tell you with certainty that I have *never* heard any southerner suggest that, or ask whether or not, Jews have horns whether in jest or in ignorance. If anyone had ever made such a statement I can assure you that it would've been met with stares of disbelief and laughter directed at the speaker who suggested such a preposterous thing.

    It’s a BS story like human lampshades or soap. Why nazis would want to bathe with soap made from jews was never quite explained. Soap is supposed to be cleansing, and cleanliness was one of the nazi obsessions most vilified by jews. Sort of like the poop swastika. Why nazis would use poop to paint their treasured symbol was never quite explained. But then again, it never happened. Not that that matters much. Veracity and accuracy fall by the wayside when there’s cultural hay to be baled.

  293. @AndrewR
    I hate to defend the odious Kennedy, but "lie" and "falsehood" obviously have very different meanings, as anyone with the most basic grasp of English knows. Obviously what Kennedy said turned out to be false, but his claims cannot honestly be called lies without evidence that Kennedy knew his claims were likely to be proven false. The world in 1965 was very different and it certainly would not have been unreasonable for Kennedy to have truly believed his claims, so to say that his claims were "lies" requires evidence.

    Retconning history is a deplorable practice that is certainly not limited to the left.

    One fact I rarely hear mentioned from immigration-skeptics is that the provisions of the act that encourage chain migration were originally intended in order to maintain the ethnic balance of the nation.

    It’s hard to know anything at all about Teddy Kennedy and believe that the accuracy (or not) of his statement was anything more or less than a political calculation.

  294. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann Ricke

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish “outsiders” – Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).
     
    I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn't eligible, but this was the subtext. Given the significant amount of support Cruz got in the South, a good chunk of the electorate obviously held no truck with those traditional views. But enough did to torpedo his run.

    “I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn’t eligible, but this was the subtext.”

    The JackD quote you cited had precisely zero to do with Cruz losing. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or needs to ask his doctor to check his memory. Trump ran as an economic populist who opposed free trade and immigration while Cruz ran to the border with Glenn Beck to hand out stuffed animals to illegals and had a long history of supporting unpopular economic policies, like a national sales tax to replace the income tax on the rich. Republican economic dogma isn’t as popular as the GOP elite would have you believe – even in the South – and the GOP had a significant faction of war weary types that didn’t want Cruz’s foreign policy. Trump was also personally charismatic and gave the crowds lots of red meat by attacking and being attacked by the establishment, proving to a lot of people that he was their guy.

    By the way, the left tried making the same argument against Trump to zero effect and no one cared about his foreign wife. Pretty strong counter-example, wouldn’t you say?

    Don’t turn to JackD for political analysis. He’ll have you believing that making Americans sign loyalty oaths to Israel (boycott pledges), having the government crack down on completely legal boycotts of Israel by private citizens, and moving our embassy to Jerusalem against the wishes of most Americans is A-okay.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Yeah, Cruz had two things against him, and neither had to do with Trump, Dealey Plaza, or Cruz's Halloween greetings to the LAPD.
    Cruz was supposed to be the most anti-establishmentarian guy in the establishment (hence the argument that he was better placed and prepared but not a complete surrender for Trump voters). To Trump voters, that still makes him an establishmentarian.
    Cruz was sold as a more professional and mature alternative to Trump but he's a self-sabotaging flake, last witnessed in his reconcilation-no-changed-my-mind thing that cost him a cabinet position.
    He might still be good on or before the Supreme Court (apparently he's a gifted trial attorney) but there was no xenophobia in rejecting him.
    , @Jack D
    I hate to break this to you but most Americans don't really want to boycott Israel (or any other country) and don't really care where the embassy is (in Israel or any other country). The only ones who care about this stuff are 1. Jews and 2. Anti-Semites. And I'm pretty sure you're not Jewish.

    Can anyone name what city the US Embassy is in Kazakhstan? Is it Akmola, Almaty or Astana? Does anyone want to boycott (or not boycott) Belgium? Tevye's old joke is, I know that we are the Chosen People, but couldn't you pick someone else once in a while?

    Jews for anti-Semites are like Trump to Leftists - they're living in your head rent free. Think about something else for a change. Can the Eagles win without their lead quarterback? Will Bitcoin go up or crash?

  295. @Dave Pinsen

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males
     
    Isn't this a bit of retconning history too, to make World War II "the good war" and lionize the "Greatest Generation" that fought it? The largest concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army, not the U.S. Army, and neither America nor Russia went out of its way to ameliorate the genocide. On the contrary, Russia initially facilitated it, by allying itself with Nazi Germany, and the U.S. closed its borders to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.

    Well, there you are agreeing to vilify the people who won the war and saved world jewry. Incidentally, liberating work camps does not equal winning the war. If you don’t win the war–militarily–the camps are at best an afterthought. HTH.

    PS: I don’t claim that it was ‘the last good war’ nor do I deny that the Russians were instrumental in bringing it to a close. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    You write this,

    Well, there you are agreeing to vilify the people who won the war and saved world jewry.
     
    And then ask me not to put words in your mouth?
  296. @Steve Sailer
    But I'd hold Roth, who is extremely sane, to a higher standard than Dick, who was a crazy man who accomplished a lot despite his severe troubles.

    bored identity always had a feeling that something’s really rothen in Kentucky:
    Every. Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. Single.Time.

    Yet, Philip somehow manages not only to ride safely on his paranoia engined, retconquisling log flume aaaaaall the way through Splash Mountain* , but also to softly land his tribal tempered fiction-faction right into the briar’s patch of lasting fame & glory – regardless of Slezkine’s Confession of The Century.

    *BTW, Maurice Rapf , the same guy that was hired by Disney to niggle and fiddle with “Song of the South” script ( remember that video of fat mouse Gus with Phrygian cap hording shekels shiny, golden kernels of corn – that you censored last week… on a wimp ? ) was uncredited for his work on giving the character of Cinderella a spirit of class struggle.

    If Maurice was still to be among US, he would have a weekly column in any of Mother Washington Forward Globe Slate Wall publications, providing the perfect opportunity for industrious lamenting over the need for Kentuckian Bubba to understand what any Good War is really good for;

    In order to maintain Fake Pax Americana, it is again time for Cletus to voluntarilly get rid of a few budding twigs on his family tree.

    Because nothing screams, by echoes encased patriotism louder than a decent Southerner spilling his guts on Vladivostok’s Mean Street while saving Private Gessen…

    ….Every. Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. Single.Time.

  297. @Anonymous

    Nicholas Lemann’s comments appeared in his NY Review of Books review of Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time by Ira Katznelson...
     
    Sometimes I wonder what our history would look like if we had been permitted to write it ourselves. As I said elsewhere:

    The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction--Anglo-American White Males--have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.
     

    “The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude.”

    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.

    • Replies: @Anon
    "Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women."

    Fun Fact: American war casualties were 99% Ashkenazi (even split male to female), most War bonds were bought by Jewish bank Vice Presidents, and most of the Russian soldiers on the Eastern Front spoke Yiddish as their first language.
    , @anon
    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.

    Hey, awesome! We've finally found someone who admits to getting their knowledge of history from Wolfenstein II.
    , @Hibernian
    Care to elaborate?
  298. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CCZ
    One of historian Katznelson's other books, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE, An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, presents his interpretation of 1930-1940s American racial history, an interpretation that Ta Neshi Coates invokes with his demand for reparations.

    From the NY Times book review:

    “Ira Katznelson, the Ruggles professor of political science and history at Columbia University, enters this fray with a provocative new book, "When Affirmative Action Was White," which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.”
     

    Thank you. There are in fact several such books out lately, explaining how FDR’s policies were actually about holding down the Black Man, and need to be compensated for today over and above all the compensation we’ve been engaged in for fifty years. Each and every one of these books is lauded in the Establishment Media (NPR, NYT etc) and every single one was written by a FWP tribeman. They are busy helping to lay the groundwork for dispossession.

    ‘Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.’

    Rothstein gives this passage the appearance of a syllogism, but it is actually an assertion.

    https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    ‘Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.’
     
    That's scary in its stupidity. Wealth is cumulative. Obviously, ceteris paribus, the difference in wealth is going to be many times greater than the difference in annual income.
  299. @RebelWriter
    Thanks for that. Most Southerners haven't met many Jews, it's true, and rarely think about them, in spite of their presence on TV and in the movies. When they do think about Jews, they generally think about Old Testament Jews, and I can attest they think of them as ancestors of sort. 99.9% of Evangelical preachers are Christian Zionists.
    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century, with significant communities in Camden and Charleston. Charleston had the largest Jewish community in the US until abut 1830, when it was finally eclipsed by New York City. Almost all SC Jews are Sephardic, and while they are very well recorded, they are generally quiet. For instance, I was an adult before I discovered that FDR's "Ambassador at Large," Bernhard Baruch, was born and raised in Camden. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and rode with the KKK during Reconstruction. Ben Bernanke is a descendant of Baruch, and also from Camden.
    The Low Country of South Carolina is very, very German. My mother's family is almost entirely German. Charleston itself was settled from Barbados, not Britain. The old blue bloods there are of English and French descent. The Upstate was settled primarily by the Scotch Irish and Welsh, with some Palatine Germans as well. Dr. Walter Edgar identified 38 different ethnicities among the founding stock of SC. I don't think ancestry had anything much to do with Southern support for Britain in the war, so much as a perception of kinship, perhaps.

    Jews have lived in South Carolina since the turn of the 19th century….

    Try the turn of the 18th century.

  300. @Johann Ricke

    Everyone here knows you made that little story up. Out of whole cloth, as the garment workers say.
     
    Just like everyone knows that slavery never existed, because blacks are obviously privileged over whites today.

    Just like everyone knows the blood libel was absolutely false in every reported instance because Nazis killed a lot of Jews, so none of them could, like, ever have done something wrong.

  301. @Anon
    "I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn’t eligible, but this was the subtext."

    The JackD quote you cited had precisely zero to do with Cruz losing. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what he's talking about or needs to ask his doctor to check his memory. Trump ran as an economic populist who opposed free trade and immigration while Cruz ran to the border with Glenn Beck to hand out stuffed animals to illegals and had a long history of supporting unpopular economic policies, like a national sales tax to replace the income tax on the rich. Republican economic dogma isn't as popular as the GOP elite would have you believe - even in the South - and the GOP had a significant faction of war weary types that didn't want Cruz's foreign policy. Trump was also personally charismatic and gave the crowds lots of red meat by attacking and being attacked by the establishment, proving to a lot of people that he was their guy.

    By the way, the left tried making the same argument against Trump to zero effect and no one cared about his foreign wife. Pretty strong counter-example, wouldn't you say?

    Don't turn to JackD for political analysis. He'll have you believing that making Americans sign loyalty oaths to Israel (boycott pledges), having the government crack down on completely legal boycotts of Israel by private citizens, and moving our embassy to Jerusalem against the wishes of most Americans is A-okay.

    Yeah, Cruz had two things against him, and neither had to do with Trump, Dealey Plaza, or Cruz’s Halloween greetings to the LAPD.
    Cruz was supposed to be the most anti-establishmentarian guy in the establishment (hence the argument that he was better placed and prepared but not a complete surrender for Trump voters). To Trump voters, that still makes him an establishmentarian.
    Cruz was sold as a more professional and mature alternative to Trump but he’s a self-sabotaging flake, last witnessed in his reconcilation-no-changed-my-mind thing that cost him a cabinet position.
    He might still be good on or before the Supreme Court (apparently he’s a gifted trial attorney) but there was no xenophobia in rejecting him.

  302. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In New England even those of us of English decent still hold a grudge against the English dating back to the Revolution.
     
    Really. Can you give any examples? The founders of St. Grottlesex and various hunt clubs likely would have been surprised at your assertion.

    The founding myth of Massachusetts is fighting the English.
     
    Massachusetts, founded by the English, is a bit older than the American Revolution. See Millennial’s comment. The Massachusetts founding event that is most recognized and mythologized is the Plymouth Thanksgiving.

    P.S., For those to whom Yankee claims to Thanksgiving are a perennial perineal sore spot, read this past subthread. (#12… )

    Re: Plymouth/Thanksgiving – it’s interesting to compare the three “first-born children” of the three founding English colonies:

    1. Virginia Dare of Roanoke disappeared. If she has descendants, they’re most likely part of some Indian tribe.

    2. Virgina Laydon of Jamestown- virtually nothing is known of her. Did she even make it to adulthood?

    3. Peregrine White of Plymouth – grew to manhood, sired a large family, was a soldier and civic leader, and lived into the next century.

    Unsurprisingly, squared-away Plymouth just worked better as a founding symbol.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Massachusetts was healthier than just about any place in the western world. It had huge fertility -- Waltham, MA reached a Total Fertility Rate of nine at one point -- and low death rates.

    There are a lot of people descended from Puritans around today.

    , @Anonymous
    Those two anecdotes (yes--two, not three) hardly explain much. They certainly dont explain the historical favoritism shown the MBC... that was about who won the Civil War, nothing more nothing less. Read old history books (if you can find any) published before 1860. Jamestown (and Virginia) was considered (and was in fact) America's founding colony.
  303. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Lindbergh’s involvement in “America First” really damaged his reputation.
     
    That is nonsense. His reputation was not generally damaged among ordinary gentile Americans. It was not damaged among veterans (especially flyers). Lindbergh was even the subject of postitive movies in the post-war era:

    The Spirit of St. Louis (1957) - Directed by Billy Wilder and starring Jimmy Stewart

    The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (1976)

    Portrayals by Jimmy Stewart in Hollywood A-pictures was generally not accorded to pariahs.


    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.
     
    Wow! He had mistresses! Yeah, Jews never do that. Well, not everyone can live up to the high ethical standards set by people like Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein.

    “That is nonsense. His reputation was not generally damaged among ordinary gentile Americans.”

    Ah, but you see, it was damaged later on in the eyes of the right people. Therefore, he was one of the world’s worst people.

    Example:

    Bill Clinton had lots of personal problems but had a great rep among the right people; therefore, great guy – even committed a felony by lying under oath and got away with it while his minions smeared a 22 year old girl as being a floozy.

    Lindbergh had personal problems but had a good rep with the wrong people; therefore, terrible bigot – what was that thing he did, again…the thing that Earhart must’ve done first anyway?

  304. @Mr. Anon

    Lindbergh’s involvement in “America First” really damaged his reputation.
     
    That is nonsense. His reputation was not generally damaged among ordinary gentile Americans. It was not damaged among veterans (especially flyers). Lindbergh was even the subject of postitive movies in the post-war era:

    The Spirit of St. Louis (1957) - Directed by Billy Wilder and starring Jimmy Stewart

    The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (1976)

    Portrayals by Jimmy Stewart in Hollywood A-pictures was generally not accorded to pariahs.


    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.
     
    Wow! He had mistresses! Yeah, Jews never do that. Well, not everyone can live up to the high ethical standards set by people like Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein.

    Not to take away from your main point, which is true, but THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS (directed by Billy Wilder–a refugee from the nazis) was a colossal box office flop.

    The real credit for the rehabilitation of Charles Lindbergh goes to President Eisenhower, who restored him to status in the Air Force and gave him general rank.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Not to take away from your main point, which is true, but THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS (directed by Billy Wilder–a refugee from the nazis) was a colossal box office flop.
     
    I was not aware of that. It got screened with some frequency on television when I was a kid, so it wasn't like it was suppressed or anything.

    I was not aware about Eisenhower having restored his rank. Thanks for the comment.
  305. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude."

    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.

    “Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.”

    Fun Fact: American war casualties were 99% Ashkenazi (even split male to female), most War bonds were bought by Jewish bank Vice Presidents, and most of the Russian soldiers on the Eastern Front spoke Yiddish as their first language.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're much more fun to read than Corvinus--and more accurate too.
  306. @Steve Sailer
    I've never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    The British government/establishment started trying to woo American elites around the 1890s. I suspect they did a lot of it retail rather than wholesale: e.g., Rhodes Scholarships, that sort of thing.

    The quality of British propagandists sent to Washington during WWII was off the charts: e.g., Isaiah Berlin and Kenneth Clark. The British Army employed Hollywood movie star David Niven as a buffer to sit in their meetings with the American generals and say witty things that the Americans would find funny when the discussion got tense.

    I’ve never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.

    Well, there was the English language. Shared history. Literature.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.
    , @Desiderius
    https://www.amazon.com/American-Language-Inquiry-Development-English/dp/0394400755
  307. @Jack D
    Look, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born. But my MIL is still very much alive and has all of her marbles, God bless her. This is what she told me happened to her and I have no reason to doubt her. I don't know how you would know whether she (or I for that matter) is lying or not other than I suppose general anti-Semitism.

    Maybe they were kidding her and she didn’t get the joke?

    But even if sincere, one question from one idiot is pretty scant evidence from which to make any generalizations about the people of a region.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    1. I don't think it was a joke that she didn't get. She's a pretty sharp lady (all of her kids have graduate degrees) and doesn't miss much, even at 95.

    2. I don't think this was just a random question from an idiot given that this is known to be a widespread belief (going as far back as St. Jerome's translation in 420 AD). I can't tell you what % of people in the South still believed this in the 1940s but I would bet that she didn't just happen to meet the one and only person who did.

    I don't know why people resist believing this - it's a reflection of a different people at a different time. I'm pretty sure most Southerners today are up to date on this (correct answer: no horns) but the past is a different country. P.S. 77% of Americans today believe that angels are real.

  308. @Corvinus
    "The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude."

    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.

    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.

    Hey, awesome! We’ve finally found someone who admits to getting their knowledge of history from Wolfenstein II.

    • LOL: G Pinfold
  309. @Millennial
    Re: Plymouth/Thanksgiving - it's interesting to compare the three "first-born children" of the three founding English colonies:

    1. Virginia Dare of Roanoke disappeared. If she has descendants, they're most likely part of some Indian tribe.

    2. Virgina Laydon of Jamestown- virtually nothing is known of her. Did she even make it to adulthood?

    3. Peregrine White of Plymouth - grew to manhood, sired a large family, was a soldier and civic leader, and lived into the next century.

    Unsurprisingly, squared-away Plymouth just worked better as a founding symbol.

    Massachusetts was healthier than just about any place in the western world. It had huge fertility — Waltham, MA reached a Total Fertility Rate of nine at one point — and low death rates.

    There are a lot of people descended from Puritans around today.

  310. @George
    "Roth really has it in for Kentucky. "

    A common theme, Al Capp's Lil Abner takes place in two backward places Dogpatch KY and Lower Slobbovia Eastern Europe Russia.

    The South voted consistently D until Nixon because the Rs burned Atlanta to the ground while singing "Marching through Georgia". Harding did surprisingly well in the South.

    re: Al Capp’s Lil Abner

    There’s something we haven’t talked about! Hilarious stereotypes that you would think would be as un-pc as blackface and minstrel shows. Though I’m glad it isn’t.

    Lincoln, America’s first stand-up comedian, was once in conversation with his black washerwoman, who was complaining about some indignity or other connected with being a black person in Springfield. He told that he himself had come from what was colloquially known as white trash — adding he had to admit that some of them were “pretty trashy.”

    Where would comedy be without stereotypes? I submit there is something wholesomely healthy about stereotypes, even (or perhaps especially) for the groups being satirized. Let’s hear it for more Jewish jokes!

    I say this as a Southern white Protestant male (and yes I did go barefoot to school, at least once).

  311. @Luke Lea

    I’ve never found much of a pattern to explain why a Northern WASP of, say, a century ago would be Anglophilic or Anglophobic.
     
    Well, there was the English language. Shared history. Literature.

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

     

    Maybe McCormick had some bad experiences when he was a boy living in the UK:

    His father Robert Sanderson McCormick was Second Secretary of the American Legation in London, serving from 1889 to 1892 under Robert Todd Lincoln. Later, his father served as his nation's ambassador to Austria-Hungary (1901–1902) and Imperial Russia (1902–1905), and replaced Horace Porter as ambassador to France in 1905.

    While in London, Bertie attended Ludgrove School.
    Send back to the United States, Bertie attended Groton School, as had his brother.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._McCormick
    , @syonredux

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.
     
    Maybe there is no pattern? Gore Vidal has a passage in one of his American Empire novels where John Hay wonders why Henry Cabot Lodge (who, he notes, even kinda talks like a member of the British elite)is something of an Anglophobe, whereas he (John Hay ) is an Anglophile.
    , @Luke Lea

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.
     
    Maybe the question is why certain particular individuals were not Anglophile since the majority were.

    Thus in Friedman's The Question of Palestine: 1914-1918 he details the diplomatic negotiations between England, France, and Russia's leading to issuance of the Balfour Declaration, whose purpose was to get the US in on the Allied side before the Germans issued their own Balfour Declaration.

    There were four major ethnic groups in America, of which only Anglo-Americans were predominantly pro-British. German Americans were naturally pro-German; Jewish Americans were naturally pro-German and anti-Russian; and Irish Americans were naturally anti-English. Once Russia dropped out of the war and the Balfour Declaration was issued, Jewish support switched sides and America entered the war.
    , @Desiderius
    Affinity/tolerance for hierarchy.
    , @guest
    A few things: boyhood in London, Groton, and Yale aside, McCormick possessed a few qualities separating him from the patroon-class FDR. For ine, he was of Irish background, as implied by the name. His mother's name sounds Scottish. He was a Midwesterner, not a New Englander. Unlike FDR, he saw action in WWI, which may have soured him on the idea of fighting on behalf of foreign powers.

    Not that any of that means much. You might as well ask why FDR was a "traitor to his class" instead of one of the people who allegedly planned a coup against himself (imagining there had been an FDR in FDR's place). In both cases, I don't really know.

    Maybe McCormick was upset that he only got to Scroll and Key at Yale, and was resentful of all those anglophilic Skull and Bones guys.
  312. @Tamaqua
    My mother was born in segregated South Carolina. To quote her, “we didn’t sit around all day waving Rebel flags .... We were poor and had a life to live. It wasn’t perfect but it was better than today.”

    A few other points about the Old South, Jews, and Hitler’s racial philosophy-

    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis. You’re never going to hear anything about him from any Jewish group or academics. Overwhelming numbers of less prominent Southern Jews put on uniforms and fought as infantrymen alongside their neighbors in the Confederate Army, and at a much higher rate than their Northern cousins percentage of population that joined the Union Army.

    An entire book has been written-
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1570033633/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1570033633

    Southerners are overwhelmingly descendants of English, Scots and Northern Irish. English support helped the Confederate States fight the war, importing weapons and buying Southern cotton, and building Confederate warships in Liverpool. Is it any wonder that 80 years later Southerners would feel more disposed to their ancestral and cultural homeland than others?

    As for Nazi ideology, there’s a vast difference between Southern segregation and Nazi genocidal polices. Southerners believed negroes were inferior, but didn’t plan on expelling or murdering millions of them. Southerners also didn’t consider other white ethnic groups worthy of enslavement, such as the Germans did to Slavic people in Eastern Europe.

    Southern Jews were quite prominent in supporting the Confederacy, including the first Jew to hold a cabinet level appointment in an American government- Judah Benjamin, who was the Secretary of State for Jefferson Davis.

    Judah Benjamin was also the first US Senator of the Jewish faith. David Yulee, his second cousin, had been a US Senator before Judah Benjamin, but Yulee had converted to Christianity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Benjamin

  313. @Anonymous
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln's side.
    And yes, the South was more philo-Semitic, with Jews holding a number of prominent positions in government and the army of the Confederacy.

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually briefly discusses the American Civil War. He does not come off as being particularly emotionally invested, but he does come down firmly on Lincoln’s side.

    Where can I find this? I was interested so I got out my Kindle version of Main Kampf and searched for “Lincoln”, “confederacy”, and “United States” and found nothing on the civil war.

  314. @Mr. Anon

    Lindbergh’s involvement in “America First” really damaged his reputation.
     
    That is nonsense. His reputation was not generally damaged among ordinary gentile Americans. It was not damaged among veterans (especially flyers). Lindbergh was even the subject of postitive movies in the post-war era:

    The Spirit of St. Louis (1957) - Directed by Billy Wilder and starring Jimmy Stewart

    The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (1976)

    Portrayals by Jimmy Stewart in Hollywood A-pictures was generally not accorded to pariahs.


    After Lindbergh died, it was revealed that he had a harem going. He had not 1 but 3 illegitimate families with a total of 7 children going in Germany (he really liked Germans I guess) in addition to his legitimate family.
     
    Wow! He had mistresses! Yeah, Jews never do that. Well, not everyone can live up to the high ethical standards set by people like Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein.

    Mistresses, sure. But what non-Muslim has 4 families in 4 cities? That’s weird.

    I’ve known several cases where (non-Muslim, non-Mormon) guys had an additional family on top of their legitimate family. This in more common than you might think. But THREE secret families – I think that has to be some kind of record for a white guy. Charlie, baby, wear a raincoat!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Yeah, imagine...........jumping from woman to woman like that.

    Who did he think he was?

    Eddie Fisher?
    , @Anonymous
    For your own reasons, you are inadequately skeptical of MSM propaganda.
    That's putting it very kindly.
    , @William Badwhite
    Gordon Getty had a second family in Los Angeles (the first was in San Francisco) though I believe it was more or less an open secret. Though to Jack's, he would definitely qualify as weird.
  315. @anonguy
    Maybe they were kidding her and she didn't get the joke?

    But even if sincere, one question from one idiot is pretty scant evidence from which to make any generalizations about the people of a region.

    1. I don’t think it was a joke that she didn’t get. She’s a pretty sharp lady (all of her kids have graduate degrees) and doesn’t miss much, even at 95.

    2. I don’t think this was just a random question from an idiot given that this is known to be a widespread belief (going as far back as St. Jerome’s translation in 420 AD). I can’t tell you what % of people in the South still believed this in the 1940s but I would bet that she didn’t just happen to meet the one and only person who did.

    I don’t know why people resist believing this – it’s a reflection of a different people at a different time. I’m pretty sure most Southerners today are up to date on this (correct answer: no horns) but the past is a different country. P.S. 77% of Americans today believe that angels are real.

    • Replies: @anon
    I don’t know why people resist believing this –

    Jack. Honey.

    You know that there are people here who actually grew up in the south. And who had relatives growing up in the south at the time. Don't you think that some of them would probably have heard from these relatives that they grew up believing this weird thing, if very many of them actually did?

    1. I don’t think it was a joke that she didn’t get.

    That's how jokes are, though. I grew up in the midwest, and some of the most fun I had in college was making fun of people from California or New York or foreign countries, and doing it in such a way that they had no idea I was even making fun of them. I don't think it meant that they weren't smart. I think it just meant that humor is very culturally specific, and back then, America's regions were far more culturally different than they are today.

    the past is a different country.

    Yes, but seventy years ago isn't so much of a different country that the people there didn't have a grasp of basic human anatomy. Particularly since photographs and movies were already pretty common.
    , @Anon

    all of her kids have graduate degrees
     
    Yes, this is EXACTLY how one measures a sense of humor.
  316. @MarcB.
    Southerners in the Memphis, TN area loved the NAZI's so much that they changed the name of neighboring Germantown to the vaguely Hebrew sounding Neshoba during WWII. German's were more prevalent West of the Mississippi, so there may have been different sympathies in places like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Not so much in the areas settled by the Scots-Irish.

    A lot of Germans settled in the Hill Country of Texas which includes the site of the LBJ ranch.

  317. @Jack D
    I think it is an exaggeration to call the South "philo-Semitic". It's true that the South had a small and well integrated Jewish community of its own and the local Jews were mostly well liked. A lawyer I knew in NY grew up in Savannah. His grandfather had been the police chief of Savannah at the beginning of the 20th century. The South did not hesitate to elect Jews to political office, long before a Jew could have been elected in the North. These local Jews in turn did not make waves against the Jim Crow system. They were firmly on the "white" side of the color line and even if some might have had sympathy for blacks (which they may or may not have had - although the stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards, they were not actively opposed to it either) they were not going to alienate their white friends and neighbors and customers upon whom their livelihoods depended.

    But, starting at the time of the Leo Frank trial and continuing until the murder of the Jewish civil rights workers and to some extent to this day, Jewish "outsiders" - Yankee Jews, New York Jews, foreign masses of immigrant Jews (and Eyetalians, etc.) were not seen favorably by Southerners (and the feeling is mutual).

    stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards

    That’s true. But if Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews is to be believed they did pioneer the use of slave labor on sugar plantations in Brazil in the aftermath of their expulsion from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

    There are no innocent groups in history. Everybody was exploiting and being exploited in a fallen world that was based on exploitation. The miracle is that we have escaped that world, for which every group can take some credit. No pointing fingers!

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I hadn't heard that before but it wouldn't shock me. Jews are often pioneers of new business forms and technologies. In the 16th century, cane sugar was a novel and hi tech product.

    In the end the Jews were expelled from Brazil by the Inquisition - this is where the 1st Jews in NY came from.

    It's my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.
    , @utu
    Jews were into slave trade in Middle Ages and were responsible for bringing white European slaves to Muslim markets. Spanish Reconquista stopped it on Spanish peninsula and Russia's wins with Turkey stopped it in Crimea circa 250 years later. There should be no surprise that they transitioned to slavery business across the Atlantic. They had a better know how than anybody else.
    , @Mr. Anon

    There are no innocent groups in history.
     
    Some people seem to think there is one that is uniquely innocent. And that you are an anti-semite if you think otherwise.
  318. @Steve Sailer
    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

    Maybe McCormick had some bad experiences when he was a boy living in the UK:

    His father Robert Sanderson McCormick was Second Secretary of the American Legation in London, serving from 1889 to 1892 under Robert Todd Lincoln. Later, his father served as his nation’s ambassador to Austria-Hungary (1901–1902) and Imperial Russia (1902–1905), and replaced Horace Porter as ambassador to France in 1905.

    While in London, Bertie attended Ludgrove School. Send back to the United States, Bertie attended Groton School, as had his brother.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._McCormick

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    William F. Buckley's first Blackford Oakes spy novel is about how the American main character was sent to a boarding school in England where he became ardently Anglophobic.
  319. Mississippi politician and senator James Vardaman was a virulent racist when it came to blacks. But he wrote newspaper opinion pieces castigating Henry Ford for antisemitism and praised Jews for their contribution to society.

    As for Judah Benjamin, he escaped to London after the war and is buried in Paris’ Père Lachaise Cemetery. the grave is hard to find, but it’s not too far from Jim Morrison’s site.

  320. @Anonymous
    Well, there you are agreeing to vilify the people who won the war and saved world jewry. Incidentally, liberating work camps does not equal winning the war. If you don't win the war--militarily--the camps are at best an afterthought. HTH.

    PS: I don't claim that it was 'the last good war' nor do I deny that the Russians were instrumental in bringing it to a close. Please don't put words in my mouth.

    You write this,

    Well, there you are agreeing to vilify the people who won the war and saved world jewry.

    And then ask me not to put words in your mouth?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You need to re-read the exchange. You vilified the Americans for 'not doing enough' in more than one context of the War and there are quite a number of graves of good Americans and British boys that you're stomping upon. I thought you were better than this. In this exchange you appear to hate Americans (and Russians, tangentially) and care only for the Chosen People. Is that really how you feel?
  321. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    1. I don't think it was a joke that she didn't get. She's a pretty sharp lady (all of her kids have graduate degrees) and doesn't miss much, even at 95.

    2. I don't think this was just a random question from an idiot given that this is known to be a widespread belief (going as far back as St. Jerome's translation in 420 AD). I can't tell you what % of people in the South still believed this in the 1940s but I would bet that she didn't just happen to meet the one and only person who did.

    I don't know why people resist believing this - it's a reflection of a different people at a different time. I'm pretty sure most Southerners today are up to date on this (correct answer: no horns) but the past is a different country. P.S. 77% of Americans today believe that angels are real.

    I don’t know why people resist believing this –

    Jack. Honey.

    You know that there are people here who actually grew up in the south. And who had relatives growing up in the south at the time. Don’t you think that some of them would probably have heard from these relatives that they grew up believing this weird thing, if very many of them actually did?

    1. I don’t think it was a joke that she didn’t get.

    That’s how jokes are, though. I grew up in the midwest, and some of the most fun I had in college was making fun of people from California or New York or foreign countries, and doing it in such a way that they had no idea I was even making fun of them. I don’t think it meant that they weren’t smart. I think it just meant that humor is very culturally specific, and back then, America’s regions were far more culturally different than they are today.

    the past is a different country.

    Yes, but seventy years ago isn’t so much of a different country that the people there didn’t have a grasp of basic human anatomy. Particularly since photographs and movies were already pretty common.

    • Replies: @anonguy

    Jack. Honey.

    You know that there are people here who actually grew up in the south. And who had relatives growing up in the south at the time. Don’t you think that some of them would probably have heard from these relatives that they grew up believing this weird thing, if very many of them actually did?
     
    I was going to make this point. When I was growing up in the Deep South, there were plenty of people around from that time. I never heard anything like this and I heard a lot of old south superstitions still rattling around then, both black and white ones.

    I'm not defensive at all about the South either, I would never live there again, plenty of valid reasons to paint them as ignorant/backwards, but a belief that Jews have horns is not one of them.

    I vote that your mother got put on, didn't realize it, and prefers to remember it as some piece of exoticism in a far off land.

    Or show us some literature, footnotes, etc, that demonstrate that this was a common belief then. If it is common, it would get mentioned somewhere in memoirs, literature, etc.

    BTW, I don't at all doubt your mother's tale, that somebody asked her this. It just doesn't signify anything. Lots of people get asked lots of stupid questions.
  322. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    Excellent post; many thanks.

    This is exactly the point of view I’m trying to Daughter C, i.e. that human nature — in both its created-in-the-image-of-God glory, and its broken, skewed sinfulness — is both constant and infinitely complex.

  323. @Steve Sailer
    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

    Maybe there is no pattern? Gore Vidal has a passage in one of his American Empire novels where John Hay wonders why Henry Cabot Lodge (who, he notes, even kinda talks like a member of the British elite)is something of an Anglophobe, whereas he (John Hay ) is an Anglophile.

  324. @Doug
    The Nazis didn't persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute. Locking up gays was more about cementing Himmler's position in the party. (Similar story holds true for labor unions and the Strasserites)

    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, a significant fraction of the Nazi party was openly gay. More than half of the SA, up to and including Ernst Rohm, openly engaged in gay sex. There's zero record of Hitler having any moral objection to this. In fact this group was much more militantly radical than Himmler and Goring's conciliatory faction.

    Rohm and the gays weren't purged for being gay, or even bad Nazis. They were purged because Hindenburg insisted on it as a pre-condition to have over power. As much as a snake in the grass can, Hitler was actually quite conflicted about killing Rohm and the other gay Nazis.

    The Nazis were long sort of a Coalition of the Fringes who were LARPing as salt of the earth regular Germans. For example, Hitler’s designated successor Hess came out of a faction of oujia board enthusiasts whom Hess brought with him into the Nazi party. The 1920s Nazis sound a lot like the the kind of people Orwell was always fuming about in England: fruit-juice drinkers! Sandals-wearers!

    “In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words “Socialism” and “Communism” draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, “Nature Cure” quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Nazis were into nudism too:

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-naked-nazis-and-a-surprise-bestseller-fotostrecke-69232.html

    Remember that National Socialists are a type of Socialist so this is not a big surprise. People think of the Nazis as being "right wing" but that's a funny name for a socialist group.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    In Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon, riffing on the ouija board stuff, has Nazis conducting a seance to talk to the ghost of Walther Rathenau.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/877425764236394496
  325. @Corvinus
    "The people who actually saved the Jews from extinction–Anglo-American White Males–have somehow been their Enemy #1 ever since. Such is gratitude."

    Actually, the people who saved the Jews from Nazi persecution were Jews themselves, Europeans, and Americans, both men and women.

    Care to elaborate?

  326. @Steve Sailer
    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

    Maybe the question is why certain particular individuals were not Anglophile since the majority were.

    Thus in Friedman’s The Question of Palestine: 1914-1918 he details the diplomatic negotiations between England, France, and Russia’s leading to issuance of the Balfour Declaration, whose purpose was to get the US in on the Allied side before the Germans issued their own Balfour Declaration.

    There were four major ethnic groups in America, of which only Anglo-Americans were predominantly pro-British. German Americans were naturally pro-German; Jewish Americans were naturally pro-German and anti-Russian; and Irish Americans were naturally anti-English. Once Russia dropped out of the war and the Balfour Declaration was issued, Jewish support switched sides and America entered the war.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street

    Once Russia dropped out of the war and the Balfour Declaration was issued, Jewish support switched sides and America entered the war.
     
    Before that, I think it was true that Abraham Cahan's Forverts was the only newspaper with a six-digit circulation in America that advocated for a German victory in World War I. Other papers like the NYT were certainly sympathetic to the Entente but never made a clear endorsement, and other papers like the Hearst rags were skeptical of the war but never pro-German per se.
  327. @Anon
    "I think to a large extent, this is how Trump defeated Cruz. He was seen as the illegitimate dago. There was flurry of words about Canada and how Cruz wasn’t eligible, but this was the subtext."

    The JackD quote you cited had precisely zero to do with Cruz losing. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what he's talking about or needs to ask his doctor to check his memory. Trump ran as an economic populist who opposed free trade and immigration while Cruz ran to the border with Glenn Beck to hand out stuffed animals to illegals and had a long history of supporting unpopular economic policies, like a national sales tax to replace the income tax on the rich. Republican economic dogma isn't as popular as the GOP elite would have you believe - even in the South - and the GOP had a significant faction of war weary types that didn't want Cruz's foreign policy. Trump was also personally charismatic and gave the crowds lots of red meat by attacking and being attacked by the establishment, proving to a lot of people that he was their guy.

    By the way, the left tried making the same argument against Trump to zero effect and no one cared about his foreign wife. Pretty strong counter-example, wouldn't you say?

    Don't turn to JackD for political analysis. He'll have you believing that making Americans sign loyalty oaths to Israel (boycott pledges), having the government crack down on completely legal boycotts of Israel by private citizens, and moving our embassy to Jerusalem against the wishes of most Americans is A-okay.

    I hate to break this to you but most Americans don’t really want to boycott Israel (or any other country) and don’t really care where the embassy is (in Israel or any other country). The only ones who care about this stuff are 1. Jews and 2. Anti-Semites. And I’m pretty sure you’re not Jewish.

    Can anyone name what city the US Embassy is in Kazakhstan? Is it Akmola, Almaty or Astana? Does anyone want to boycott (or not boycott) Belgium? Tevye’s old joke is, I know that we are the Chosen People, but couldn’t you pick someone else once in a while?

    Jews for anti-Semites are like Trump to Leftists – they’re living in your head rent free. Think about something else for a change. Can the Eagles win without their lead quarterback? Will Bitcoin go up or crash?

    • Replies: @anon
    Jews for anti-Semites are like Trump to Leftists – they’re living in your head rent free. Think about something else for a change.

    You could make it easier if you'd quit talking about yourselves for an hour or two. I don't know if you noticed, but he wrote a fairly long comment, and most of it wasn't even about Israel or Jews or anything. So he was thinking about something else. You are the one that focused exclusively on the Jewish part, and you are the one who brought the whole thing back to Jews.

    And then you accuse him of not wanting to talk about anything else.

    Do you have even a shred of self-awareness, Jack?

    , @Anon
    "Can anyone name what city the US Embassy is in Kazakhstan? Is it Akmola, Almaty or Astana?"

    False equivalence. Israel is probably mentioned 20x more in the media and has been more important to US regional policy for much longer, so don't pretend that Israel is just like any other country - Micronesia or Albania. When was the last time Kazakhstan went to war with Egypt or some peace accord between Kazakhs and some ethnic group got national attention in the United States?

    "I hate to break this to you but most Americans don’t really want to boycott Israel (or any other country)"

    Wishing to retain the right to do something, regardless of whether I exercise it, and being barred from doing something that I have the right to do are not the same. I may not want to boycott the NFL, but I also wouldn't want my government telling me I can't do so if I please, especially if it came out that the government was doing so only at the behest and in the interests of team owners and at my expense.

    "and don’t really care where the embassy is (in Israel or any other country). "

    Americans care so little that they told pollsters in a large majority that they oppose it. Moving our embassy around in Israel isn't like moving our embassy in Trinidad and Tobago. The former is something of profound consequence for the United States given political realities in the region.

    "The only ones who care about this stuff are 1. Jews and 2. Anti-Semites. And I’m pretty sure you’re not Jewish."

    Ah, "disagree with me and you're anti-Semitic." Seems to be a theme with you. Of course, besides being offensive, your argument is fallacious and flatly dishonest. There are very good reasons to care about these issues, as I have pointed out. The only kind of person who thinks the United States should sacrifice its interests, ignore important issues, or sacrifice our people's constitutional freedoms in order to further the interests of a foreign country is a traitor.

  328. To sum up, I think the problem is that Jewish intellectuals as a whole, as smart as they are, know little about history, either their own or anybody else’s. They are descended from rabbis, who were immersed in Talmudic studies for centuries, completely cut off from the world in culturally isolated communities. Look at the heredi today.

  329. @Steve Sailer
    The Nazis were long sort of a Coalition of the Fringes who were LARPing as salt of the earth regular Germans. For example, Hitler's designated successor Hess came out of a faction of oujia board enthusiasts whom Hess brought with him into the Nazi party. The 1920s Nazis sound a lot like the the kind of people Orwell was always fuming about in England: fruit-juice drinkers! Sandals-wearers!

    "In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."

    The Nazis were into nudism too:

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-naked-nazis-and-a-surprise-bestseller-fotostrecke-69232.html

    Remember that National Socialists are a type of Socialist so this is not a big surprise. People think of the Nazis as being “right wing” but that’s a funny name for a socialist group.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Nazis seemed to feed off a lot of the "life reform" dynamism of German culture a century ago: "You must change your life." - Rilke.

    So Germany was full of various kinds of cultists of one life reform movement or another, and Hitler managed to get more than a few on board in his movement in the 1920s.

    My aunt remarked after reading a biography of Hitler that his personality reminded her of her not-very-pleasant father who was Swiss German. Fortunately, my grandfather's Germanic crankitude just went into health food obsessions and paranoia that store-bought food was poisoning him rather than into worrying about Blood Poisoning and invading Poland.

    Some of this German dynamism went into the hippie movement in California. By the late 1940s there were long-haired "Nature Boys" in robes and sandals hanging around a German couple's health food store in West Hollywood. (Nat King Cole, of all people, had a giant hit record on the subject.)

    This stuff doesn't fit under normal left-right frameworks, so it's pretty much forgotten.
    , @Mr. Anon

    People think of the Nazis as being “right wing” but that’s a funny name for a socialist group.
     
    "Democrat" is a funny name for a party that is as undemocratic as the Democratic Party is. Names often don't mean much. By the time the Nazis had fully established their regime, in 1934 or so, they weren't really any more socialist than the FDR administration. They were pretty well right-wing by the time they held power.
  330. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I hate to break this to you but most Americans don't really want to boycott Israel (or any other country) and don't really care where the embassy is (in Israel or any other country). The only ones who care about this stuff are 1. Jews and 2. Anti-Semites. And I'm pretty sure you're not Jewish.

    Can anyone name what city the US Embassy is in Kazakhstan? Is it Akmola, Almaty or Astana? Does anyone want to boycott (or not boycott) Belgium? Tevye's old joke is, I know that we are the Chosen People, but couldn't you pick someone else once in a while?

    Jews for anti-Semites are like Trump to Leftists - they're living in your head rent free. Think about something else for a change. Can the Eagles win without their lead quarterback? Will Bitcoin go up or crash?

    Jews for anti-Semites are like Trump to Leftists – they’re living in your head rent free. Think about something else for a change.

    You could make it easier if you’d quit talking about yourselves for an hour or two. I don’t know if you noticed, but he wrote a fairly long comment, and most of it wasn’t even about Israel or Jews or anything. So he was thinking about something else. You are the one that focused exclusively on the Jewish part, and you are the one who brought the whole thing back to Jews.

    And then you accuse him of not wanting to talk about anything else.

    Do you have even a shred of self-awareness, Jack?

  331. @Luke Lea

    stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards
     
    That's true. But if Paul Johnson's History of the Jews is to be believed they did pioneer the use of slave labor on sugar plantations in Brazil in the aftermath of their expulsion from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

    There are no innocent groups in history. Everybody was exploiting and being exploited in a fallen world that was based on exploitation. The miracle is that we have escaped that world, for which every group can take some credit. No pointing fingers!

    I hadn’t heard that before but it wouldn’t shock me. Jews are often pioneers of new business forms and technologies. In the 16th century, cane sugar was a novel and hi tech product.

    In the end the Jews were expelled from Brazil by the Inquisition – this is where the 1st Jews in NY came from.

    It’s my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    It’s my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.
     
    72% of Jewish households owned slaves.

    29% of white (gentile) households owned slaves.
    , @syonredux

    It’s my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.
     
    Here's some data on the rates in Charleston:

    The percentage of Jewish Charlestonians who held slaves in 1830 (83%) was roughly the same as that of the general white population of the city (87%).
     
    The Jews in Charleston were pretty prominent:

    Cohen, born in Poland in 1763, began work as a young immigrant peddler in Charleston but rapidly rose in status and wealth. Eventually, he came to own many properties across the city and large estates on the nearby Ashley River. Revered as a philanthropist who especially supported the Charleston Orphan House, Cohen was a central figure not merely in the Jewish community of South Carolina, but also in the nation, embodying a new vision of what American citizenship and success might look like.
     

    Cohen set up his own sons on nearby plantations that rivaled some of the greatest in the South. Right around Lafayette’s visit in 1824, Mordecai Cohen bought Soldier’s Retreat, a large estate of over 1,000 acres overlooking the Ashley River for his son David. By the 1830s, David or “Davy” Cohen had taken over the estate in his own name and held slaves who worked his fields, emptied his slops and raised his children.
     

    One of these slaves was a young man named Jim, who was not impressed by the Cohen wealth. Jim escaped from slavery and narrated the story of his life to northern abolitionists in one of the earliest abolitionist American slave narratives, 1838’s “Recollections of Slavery by a Runaway Slave,” a graphic account of torture and suffering. In his memoir, Jim gave particular attention to his experiences under the Cohen family, providing details that would help authenticate his own story and also indict the horror of the slave system.
     

    Jim worked as a hostler or a groom for David Cohen but also did field work. He described David Cohen as a man of relentless vigilance: “He was in the habit of walking about at all hours of the night to find out who stole wood, or turnips, or hogs, or any thing else.” When he suspected anyone of thieving, the punishments were dire. One old man, Peter, was found stealing a few sticks of wood from David Cohen. Jim testified that Peter was whipped for hours until he was unconscious and then doused with brine before being chained in the stocks kept on the plantation for just such occasions.

    After being on the receiving end of one especially cruel whipping by David Cohen’s overseer, Jim fled Soldier’s Retreat and hid with a community of black fugitives in the dense swamps. Recaptured after only few brief weeks of freedom, Jim was brutally punished with another whipping. When sympathetic interviewers later transcribed his story, they added a footnote testifying that the fugitive’s scars all over his body “appear as if pieces of flesh had been gouged out, and some are ridges or elevations of the flesh and skin. They could easily be felt through his clothing.”

     


    Uncowed, however, he soon fled again, this time seeking out his sister at a nearby plantation. She told him that David Cohen had reportedly offered a $50 reward for his capture. Before she or Jim could contrive a plan for his safety, he was once again spotted and captured. This time, though, he wasn’t returned to Cohen’s Ashley River estate. He was instead taken to the Sugar House, a notorious workhouse jail in Charleston especially famous for its treadmill run by slave labor that not infrequently maimed and killed the weary people chained to its rotating pedals, as well as for other punishments so unsavory that genteel enslavers preferred them to be done out of sight. Jim described the whippings and torture being carried on continuously at all hours of the days and nights, such was the demand for the Sugar House services: “You may hear the whip and paddle there, all hours in the day. There’s no stopping.” He added: “I have heard a great deal said about hell, and wicked places, but I don’t think there is any worse hell than that sugar house.”


    At the Sugar House, Mordecai Cohen was informed of Jim’s plight and after assessing the situation, sent for his son. David Cohen came in from his estate and stopped by the Sugar House. As Jim remembered it, “He told them to whip me twice a week till they had given me two hundred lashes. My back, when they went to whip me, would be full of scabs, and they whipped them off till I bled so that my clothes were all wet.” The guards were instructed to alternate bouts of whippings with days on the treadmill for several weeks.

     

    https://forward.com/culture/205455/slaves-of-charleston/
    , @Johann Ricke

    Will Bitcoin go up or crash?
     
    Crash. Then stabilize at a much lower level. The problem with bitcoin is pretty simple - no cash sweep-like vehicles. I expect most people who use it for evading currency controls (rather than simple speculation in the ongoing mania), such as Venezuelan or Chinese tycoons trying to keep their wealth out of the hands of grasping government officials, immediately convert it to something else. That's a real problem if the virtual currency is to retain its value. Where are the interest-bearing saving accounts and CD's denominated in bitcoin?
  332. @njguy73

    Something that has been lost to history is that prior to Pearl Harbor black Americans en masse were rooting for Hitler to defeat England.
     
    Care to provide a link?

    My information is anecdotal, from old timers I know who lived through it.

    I suspect you would find editorials in the pre Pearl Harbor black press to this effect, but I have not done the research.

    Like I said, lost to history.

  333. @Mr. Anon

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute.
     
    It is true that the SA's leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the "socialism" in "national socialism" rather more seriously. They also wanted to be given control of the army. The industrialist backers of the Nazi party probably wanted them gone because they were socialists. The Army certainly wanted them gone because they wanted to be given control of the army; purging Rohm and his leadership was imposed on Hitler by the Army as a condition for their support. And the SS wanted them gone because they were a rival for power within the Party. The SS and the Army probably also wanted to do away with Rohm and the SA leadership because they were homosexuals. The Nazi Party had publicly opposed the decadence and "cultural bolshevism" of Weimar Germany, and the army certainly wanted none of that either. Moreover, the Nazis continued to persecute homosexuals long after the SA had been neutered; they did so because they were anti-homosexual.

    Is there any chance that Kaiser Wilhelm II was bisexual?

    Nabokov wrote a long story before WWII about a gay rightwing king of a fictional European country, then he reworked the idea into his wonderful novel “Pale Fire.” I presume Nabokov was inspired by something historical but I’ve never seen any discussion of what.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    There was a homosexual Austrian officer who was compelled to shoot himself after a huge intelligence blunder connected to his hobbies, I'll see if I can dig it up. One of those things that everybody at the time knew of but then never discussed again, as opposed to now, when Cracked introduces semi-literates to "history."
    ... here:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Redl

    Redl's motives for treason are still unclear. He may have been caught in a compromising position by Russian agents, because he was homosexual[2] and being exposed as such would have been fatal to his career prospects. Actually, Russian military intelligence, based in Warsaw at the time, under the command of Colonel Nikolai Batyushin, had discovered Redl's homosexuality as early as 1901, information that was used to blackmail him into revealing classified information. In 1902, he reportedly passed a copy of Austro-Hungarian war plans to the Russians.
     
    , @Mr. Anon
    You got me. Googling "Kaiser Wilhalm II" and "bisexual" results in about 400,000 hits, so it is an idea that has occurred to others. Then there is this:

    Harden–Eulenburg affair

    Which involved a prussian general dying from a heart-attack while dancing for the Kaiser in a tutu. There's really no way to make that sound good.

    However, given the possible motive of representatives of other European powers to want to impugn the morals of the German government or monarchy, the contemporary tendency of homosexual activists to retcon people as queer, and the actual not insignificant possibility that Kaiser Bill may have been a little light in the jack-boots,.......................who knows.
  334. @Mr. Blank
    One of the most annoying things about the current era is its complete inability to deal with moral complexity. This is one of the things that always stands out to me when reading about history, or reading books written in more politically-incorrect eras: People in earlier eras were often startlingly "liberal" and "cosmopolitan," in the best sense of those words. We fancy ourselves as far more rational and enlightened than our boobish forebears, but it's hard to imagine people in, say, 1925 getting sucked into a mindless SJW Twitter mob.

    Of course modern folks think the 1930s and 1940s South was pro-Nazi, because current wisdom holds that humans are incapable of fitting more than one idea into their head at a time.

    The idea that a person could hold segregationist views without viewing that as the central theme of their life, and might actually have a rich and varied collection of interesting ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with segregation, is now viewed as simply unpossible. The idea that segregationists might have other concerns and commitments that might have greatly overshadowed any superficial agreement they had with the Nazis on racial matters is enough to make people's heads explode in 2018. Easier to just retcon them into closet Nazis who for some strange reason were way, way, way more enthusiastic about killing Nazis than any other part of America.

    It's always a strange experience when I read something written in a supposedly less-enlightened age and find that the people of that era were far, far savvier about the messiness of human nature and human affairs. When I snap back to The Current Year, everybody suddenly seems flat and unimaginative by comparison.

    Wonderful erudite comment. Thank you.

  335. @Jack D
    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    2. Extra-judicial killing is wrong even IF the person lynched is guilty.

    3. If an extra-judicial killing is animated by anti-Semitism then it is a form of pogrom.

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).

    Baloney. No unbiased historian could reach that conclusion.

    • Replies: @utu
    If Hitler said that Frank was not guilty Jack D. would grant him a temporary status of a non-anti-Semite historian for the sake of this argument. Don't you realize that you are not dealing with a normal human being but with hasbara/haggada generating machine for which the rules of discourse are different? Jews are the ultimate sophists of Socratic dialogues for whom only winning the debate counts and not as we used to believe within the Western Civilization that arriving at truth supposed to be our ultimate goal. In Jewish haggadah the truth in Western sense does not exist. It was always postmodern and utilitarian. In Jewish haggadah truth has only a rhetorical value. The one who can claim to possess it wins the debate (you can defeat goys with truth because truth paralyzes them) but truth in itself has no value.
  336. @Jack D
    I hadn't heard that before but it wouldn't shock me. Jews are often pioneers of new business forms and technologies. In the 16th century, cane sugar was a novel and hi tech product.

    In the end the Jews were expelled from Brazil by the Inquisition - this is where the 1st Jews in NY came from.

    It's my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.

    It’s my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.

    72% of Jewish households owned slaves.

    29% of white (gentile) households owned slaves.

    • Replies: @anon
    72% of Jewish households owned slaves.


    29% of white (gentile) households owned slaves.

    Nice going. Now we'll get to hear about how only an anti-Semite would know that, and it's the goyim's fault for making them own slaves anyway.

  337. @Jack D
    I hadn't heard that before but it wouldn't shock me. Jews are often pioneers of new business forms and technologies. In the 16th century, cane sugar was a novel and hi tech product.

    In the end the Jews were expelled from Brazil by the Inquisition - this is where the 1st Jews in NY came from.

    It's my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.

    It’s my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.

    Here’s some data on the rates in Charleston:

    The percentage of Jewish Charlestonians who held slaves in 1830 (83%) was roughly the same as that of the general white population of the city (87%).

    The Jews in Charleston were pretty prominent:

    Cohen, born in Poland in 1763, began work as a young immigrant peddler in Charleston but rapidly rose in status and wealth. Eventually, he came to own many properties across the city and large estates on the nearby Ashley River. Revered as a philanthropist who especially supported the Charleston Orphan House, Cohen was a central figure not merely in the Jewish community of South Carolina, but also in the nation, embodying a new vision of what American citizenship and success might look like.

    Cohen set up his own sons on nearby plantations that rivaled some of the greatest in the South. Right around Lafayette’s visit in 1824, Mordecai Cohen bought Soldier’s Retreat, a large estate of over 1,000 acres overlooking the Ashley River for his son David. By the 1830s, David or “Davy” Cohen had taken over the estate in his own name and held slaves who worked his fields, emptied his slops and raised his children.

    One of these slaves was a young man named Jim, who was not impressed by the Cohen wealth. Jim escaped from slavery and narrated the story of his life to northern abolitionists in one of the earliest abolitionist American slave narratives, 1838’s “Recollections of Slavery by a Runaway Slave,” a graphic account of torture and suffering. In his memoir, Jim gave particular attention to his experiences under the Cohen family, providing details that would help authenticate his own story and also indict the horror of the slave system.

    Jim worked as a hostler or a groom for David Cohen but also did field work. He described David Cohen as a man of relentless vigilance: “He was in the habit of walking about at all hours of the night to find out who stole wood, or turnips, or hogs, or any thing else.” When he suspected anyone of thieving, the punishments were dire. One old man, Peter, was found stealing a few sticks of wood from David Cohen. Jim testified that Peter was whipped for hours until he was unconscious and then doused with brine before being chained in the stocks kept on the plantation for just such occasions.

    After being on the receiving end of one especially cruel whipping by David Cohen’s overseer, Jim fled Soldier’s Retreat and hid with a community of black fugitives in the dense swamps. Recaptured after only few brief weeks of freedom, Jim was brutally punished with another whipping. When sympathetic interviewers later transcribed his story, they added a footnote testifying that the fugitive’s scars all over his body “appear as if pieces of flesh had been gouged out, and some are ridges or elevations of the flesh and skin. They could easily be felt through his clothing.”

    Uncowed, however, he soon fled again, this time seeking out his sister at a nearby plantation. She told him that David Cohen had reportedly offered a $50 reward for his capture. Before she or Jim could contrive a plan for his safety, he was once again spotted and captured. This time, though, he wasn’t returned to Cohen’s Ashley River estate. He was instead taken to the Sugar House, a notorious workhouse jail in Charleston especially famous for its treadmill run by slave labor that not infrequently maimed and killed the weary people chained to its rotating pedals, as well as for other punishments so unsavory that genteel enslavers preferred them to be done out of sight. Jim described the whippings and torture being carried on continuously at all hours of the days and nights, such was the demand for the Sugar House services: “You may hear the whip and paddle there, all hours in the day. There’s no stopping.” He added: “I have heard a great deal said about hell, and wicked places, but I don’t think there is any worse hell than that sugar house.”

    At the Sugar House, Mordecai Cohen was informed of Jim’s plight and after assessing the situation, sent for his son. David Cohen came in from his estate and stopped by the Sugar House. As Jim remembered it, “He told them to whip me twice a week till they had given me two hundred lashes. My back, when they went to whip me, would be full of scabs, and they whipped them off till I bled so that my clothes were all wet.” The guards were instructed to alternate bouts of whippings with days on the treadmill for several weeks.

    https://forward.com/culture/205455/slaves-of-charleston/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yeah but Jews are still superior to everyone else so if they did have a lot of slaves it's only because they are pioneers in everything they do.
  338. @ben tillman

    It’s my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.
     
    72% of Jewish households owned slaves.

    29% of white (gentile) households owned slaves.

    72% of Jewish households owned slaves.

    29% of white (gentile) households owned slaves.

    Nice going. Now we’ll get to hear about how only an anti-Semite would know that, and it’s the goyim’s fault for making them own slaves anyway.

  339. @Mr. Anon

    The Nazis didn’t persecute gays because of a deep-seated ideological opposition. They did so because they had a major gay faction, which lost an intra-party dispute.
     
    It is true that the SA's leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the "socialism" in "national socialism" rather more seriously. They also wanted to be given control of the army. The industrialist backers of the Nazi party probably wanted them gone because they were socialists. The Army certainly wanted them gone because they wanted to be given control of the army; purging Rohm and his leadership was imposed on Hitler by the Army as a condition for their support. And the SS wanted them gone because they were a rival for power within the Party. The SS and the Army probably also wanted to do away with Rohm and the SA leadership because they were homosexuals. The Nazi Party had publicly opposed the decadence and "cultural bolshevism" of Weimar Germany, and the army certainly wanted none of that either. Moreover, the Nazis continued to persecute homosexuals long after the SA had been neutered; they did so because they were anti-homosexual.

    It is true that the SA’s leadership was largely and even flagrantly homosexual. Also, the SA were considerably more left-wing than the rest of the party; they took the “socialism” in “national socialism” rather more seriously.

    One historian called them “beefsteak Nazis,” brown on the outside, red on the inside.

  340. @syonredux

    Okay, but what were some of the patterns to help understand why some Northern WASPs were Anglophilic in foreign policy (e.g., FDR) and others where Anglophobic (Col. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?

    FDR and McCormick were at Groton together.

     

    Maybe McCormick had some bad experiences when he was a boy living in the UK:

    His father Robert Sanderson McCormick was Second Secretary of the American Legation in London, serving from 1889 to 1892 under Robert Todd Lincoln. Later, his father served as his nation's ambassador to Austria-Hungary (1901–1902) and Imperial Russia (1902–1905), and replaced Horace Porter as ambassador to France in 1905.

    While in London, Bertie attended Ludgrove School.
    Send back to the United States, Bertie attended Groton School, as had his brother.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._McCormick

    William F. Buckley’s first Blackford Oakes spy novel is about how the American main character was sent to a boarding school in England where he became ardently Anglophobic.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    As far as I can tell, there's not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.
    , @LondonBob
    Angleton went to Malvern, and was an anglophile. I would suspect it would more likely make you an anglophobe in those days, pretty brutal environment and a Yank would stick out.
  341. @syonredux

    Southern gentile elites found Jewish skills in business to be complementary to what they saw as their own aristocratic skillset. Northern elites where highly businesslike, so they tended to be more competitive with Jews.
     
    Yeah. One of the key weaknesses of the antebellum South involved its lack of a native bourgeoisie. They were constantly having to import trained personnel (lawyers, accountants, factors, managers, etc) from elsewhere, usually either the North or Scotland. Edgar Allan Poe's Scots foster-father, John Allan, was one of them.

    I guess the moral of the story is: If you are not – in part, at least – a nation of shop keepers, you will be a nation of some other nation’s shop-keepers.

  342. @Steve Sailer
    William F. Buckley's first Blackford Oakes spy novel is about how the American main character was sent to a boarding school in England where he became ardently Anglophobic.

    As far as I can tell, there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.

    • Replies: @utu

    there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites
     
    Sailer, sometime you are hopelessly naive. They did not have to be white supremacists. They were Jewish supremacist which covers all supremacisms you can think of.
    , @anonguy

    As far as I can tell, there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.
     
    The Jewish people I knew growing up and being a young adult in the Deep South seemed pretty much the same as anyone else. Their Judaism wasn't a defining trait at all, more like some innocuous trait like being left handed. Never even occurred to anyone that it should be anything of deal.

    I'm surprised nobody has brought up Driving Miss Daisy as an example of some typical southern jewish people.

    And, BTW, if there was a belief about jews having horns back then, you can bet it would have made its way into that movie some way or another.

    , @syonredux

    As far as I can tell, there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.
     
    There's certainly no evidence that Southern Jews were less White Supremacist than their Christian neighbors were in the antebellum period. Indeed, as near as I can tell, antebellum Northern Jews seemed not to have played a significant role in the anti-slave trade/abolitionist movement:

    Raphall’s [ a pro-slavery rabbi] sermon reflected the interests of a majority of New York Jewry’s interests: New York’s booming economy, the cause of the recent wealth of many of the city’s most prominent Jewish citizens, including many members of B’nai Jeshurun, was tied to the southern trade; a civil war threatened personal catastrophe. Moreover, many Jews were in the garment industry, a trade directly attached to the South. Jews also resented the seemingly ever-present Protestant missionaries bent on converting the Jews. Strong-willed Protestantism and the Republican Party were seen as deeply conjoined. Furthermore, Jews feared that their political liberty, greater in America than any other part of the world, would be threatened if the Constitution, which they identified with the Union, were to fall. Compromise was the better solution, even if it meant giving in to Southern demands. Thus, along with the rest of New York City, Jews in 1860 voted more than two to one against Lincoln and the Republican Party
     

    Two weeks later, Raphall gave his sermon as a speech before members of the Democratic Party and the pro-South American Society for Promotion of National Unity. In attendance were advocates of national reconciliation in harmony with southern demands, including the banker August Belmont, and prominent pro-slavery Jews from Richmond, Montgomery, and New Orleans. The artist and inventor Samuel B. Morse presided. Dr. Bernard Ilowy of Baltimore, highly respected for his biblical expertise, endorsed Raphall’s position. Rabbi Simon Tuska of Mobile, Ala., stated that his sermon contained “the most forceful arguments in justification of the slavery of the African race.” Southern sympathizers dispersed the discourse throughout the nation.
     

    In his opinion on Lincoln and the issue of slavery, Raphall was not alone among Jewish leaders. Diplomat, playwright, and journalist Mordecai M. Noah, the “most important Jew in America” during the 1830s and 1840s, according to his biographer Jonathan D. Sarna, wrote that blacks were “anatomically and mentally inferior to the white” and could find contentment only in servile labor. Noah dreaded the thought of a slave revolt and viciously condemned abolitionists. Emmanuel Hart, the first Jewish congressman from New York in the 1850s, was a leader of the conservative “hunker” Democrats, a faction that opposed any agitation against slavery and worked to uphold the interests of the slaveholding states. Editor Robert Lyon of the Asmonean, a self-described progressive who hired Reform Judaism’s leading proponent, Isaac Mayer Wise, as his literary editor, endorsed James Buchanan in 1856 as a “progressionist,” defended the Fugitive Slave Act, and called abolitionists “the foul Fiend which stalks among us.” Lyon included among the abolitionists both “Frederick Douglass the ******,” and a “heterogeneous stew of fanatics and imposters.” The notion of black suffrage was, he said, “preposterous.”
     
    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/112312/new-yorks-pro-slavery-rabbi
  343. @Luke Lea

    stories of the Jews dominating the slave trade are anti-Semitic canards
     
    That's true. But if Paul Johnson's History of the Jews is to be believed they did pioneer the use of slave labor on sugar plantations in Brazil in the aftermath of their expulsion from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

    There are no innocent groups in history. Everybody was exploiting and being exploited in a fallen world that was based on exploitation. The miracle is that we have escaped that world, for which every group can take some credit. No pointing fingers!

    Jews were into slave trade in Middle Ages and were responsible for bringing white European slaves to Muslim markets. Spanish Reconquista stopped it on Spanish peninsula and Russia’s wins with Turkey stopped it in Crimea circa 250 years later. There should be no surprise that they transitioned to slavery business across the Atlantic. They had a better know how than anybody else.

  344. @anon
    I don’t know why people resist believing this –

    Jack. Honey.

    You know that there are people here who actually grew up in the south. And who had relatives growing up in the south at the time. Don't you think that some of them would probably have heard from these relatives that they grew up believing this weird thing, if very many of them actually did?

    1. I don’t think it was a joke that she didn’t get.

    That's how jokes are, though. I grew up in the midwest, and some of the most fun I had in college was making fun of people from California or New York or foreign countries, and doing it in such a way that they had no idea I was even making fun of them. I don't think it meant that they weren't smart. I think it just meant that humor is very culturally specific, and back then, America's regions were far more culturally different than they are today.

    the past is a different country.

    Yes, but seventy years ago isn't so much of a different country that the people there didn't have a grasp of basic human anatomy. Particularly since photographs and movies were already pretty common.

    Jack. Honey.

    You know that there are people here who actually grew up in the south. And who had relatives growing up in the south at the time. Don’t you think that some of them would probably have heard from these relatives that they grew up believing this weird thing, if very many of them actually did?

    I was going to make this point. When I was growing up in the Deep South, there were plenty of people around from that time. I never heard anything like this and I heard a lot of old south superstitions still rattling around then, both black and white ones.

    I’m not defensive at all about the South either, I would never live there again, plenty of valid reasons to paint them as ignorant/backwards, but a belief that Jews have horns is not one of them.

    I vote that your mother got put on, didn’t realize it, and prefers to remember it as some piece of exoticism in a far off land.

    Or show us some literature, footnotes, etc, that demonstrate that this was a common belief then. If it is common, it would get mentioned somewhere in memoirs, literature, etc.

    BTW, I don’t at all doubt your mother’s tale, that somebody asked her this. It just doesn’t signify anything. Lots of people get asked lots of stupid questions.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The notion that Moses, leader of the Jews, had horns was not intended as an insult.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/84241

    But the horns thing isn't the King James Bible, it's in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. It's most famous expression is in Michelangelo's statue of Moses. So it seems more like something Catholics would think than Southern Protestants.

  345. @Steve Sailer
    As far as I can tell, there's not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.

    there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites

    Sailer, sometime you are hopelessly naive. They did not have to be white supremacists. They were Jewish supremacist which covers all supremacisms you can think of.

  346. @Steve Sailer
    Is there any chance that Kaiser Wilhelm II was bisexual?

    Nabokov wrote a long story before WWII about a gay rightwing king of a fictional European country, then he reworked the idea into his wonderful novel "Pale Fire." I presume Nabokov was inspired by something historical but I've never seen any discussion of what.

    There was a homosexual Austrian officer who was compelled to shoot himself after a huge intelligence blunder connected to his hobbies, I’ll see if I can dig it up. One of those things that everybody at the time knew of but then never discussed again, as opposed to now, when Cracked introduces semi-literates to “history.”
    … here:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Redl

    Redl’s motives for treason are still unclear. He may have been caught in a compromising position by Russian agents, because he was homosexual[2] and being exposed as such would have been fatal to his career prospects. Actually, Russian military intelligence, based in Warsaw at the time, under the command of Colonel Nikolai Batyushin, had discovered Redl’s homosexuality as early as 1901, information that was used to blackmail him into revealing classified information. In 1902, he reportedly passed a copy of Austro-Hungarian war plans to the Russians.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I have a vague impression that the Kaiser's circle and the pre-Great War German General Staff had a homosexual tinge. There's some transvestite scandal recounted in Barbara Tuchman's "Proud Tower."
  347. @Steve Sailer
    As far as I can tell, there's not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.

    As far as I can tell, there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.

    The Jewish people I knew growing up and being a young adult in the Deep South seemed pretty much the same as anyone else. Their Judaism wasn’t a defining trait at all, more like some innocuous trait like being left handed. Never even occurred to anyone that it should be anything of deal.

    I’m surprised nobody has brought up Driving Miss Daisy as an example of some typical southern jewish people.

    And, BTW, if there was a belief about jews having horns back then, you can bet it would have made its way into that movie some way or another.

  348. @Jack D
    The Nazis were into nudism too:

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-naked-nazis-and-a-surprise-bestseller-fotostrecke-69232.html

    Remember that National Socialists are a type of Socialist so this is not a big surprise. People think of the Nazis as being "right wing" but that's a funny name for a socialist group.

    The Nazis seemed to feed off a lot of the “life reform” dynamism of German culture a century ago: “You must change your life.” – Rilke.

    So Germany was full of various kinds of cultists of one life reform movement or another, and Hitler managed to get more than a few on board in his movement in the 1920s.

    My aunt remarked after reading a biography of Hitler that his personality reminded her of her not-very-pleasant father who was Swiss German. Fortunately, my grandfather’s Germanic crankitude just went into health food obsessions and paranoia that store-bought food was poisoning him rather than into worrying about Blood Poisoning and invading Poland.

    Some of this German dynamism went into the hippie movement in California. By the late 1940s there were long-haired “Nature Boys” in robes and sandals hanging around a German couple’s health food store in West Hollywood. (Nat King Cole, of all people, had a giant hit record on the subject.)

    This stuff doesn’t fit under normal left-right frameworks, so it’s pretty much forgotten.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    You're right - that stuff cut across political lines. My wife's grandmother was into "health food" back in the '20s and '30s when it was still quite rare. She subscribed to the teaching of Bernarr Macfadden, who was sort of an early Jack Lalane who is now largely forgotten.
    , @The Man From K Street

    So Germany was full of various kinds of cultists of one life reform movement or another, and Hitler managed to get more than a few on board in his movement in the 1920s...Some of this German dynamism went into the hippie movement in California. By the late 1940s there were long-haired “Nature Boys” in robes and sandals hanging around a German couple’s health food store in West Hollywood.
     
    The notion that socialism = healthy physicality and vigorous animal spirits was very common in the 1930s especially. Go down to a U.S. Post office built in the Great Depression with murals by federally-supported WPA artists; there are still lots of them. You'll see lots of vaguely Stalinist art: workers stripped to the waist, all rippling muscles and gazing towards a classless future...with beautiful, fertile proletarian madonnas standing loyally at their side.

    Of course, some at the time, like Orwell, realized it was all crap. Real life proletarians were chain-smoking, smelly, unhealthy, pasty-skinned wretches, he observed. And it didn't work the other way 'round either...healthy, beautiful people weren't drawn to the Revolution. Tom Wolfe had a great line somewhere about Herbert Marcuse arriving on California campuses after the war and finally seeing the kind of young men and women that he had heretofore only seen on strike posters in Europe...only to realize with dismay that they were mostly interested in beach volleyball and
    marijuana, not Marxism.
  349. @HunInTheSun
    "Many old stocker Southerners have German ancestors."

    No they didn't. In fact almost none do.

    Southerners in general have resented Germans and German-Americans ever since their heavy participation in and sympathy for the Union cause in the Civil War. For a sense of this, read Margaret Mitchell.

    The CSA’s Secretary of the Treasury was actually born in Germany:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Memminger

    And one of the Lincoln assassination conspirators was also German-born:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Atzerodt

    And the commander of the infamous Andersonville prison camp was a Swiss-German.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz

    But yes, there would have been more Germans on the Northern side, if only for immigration reasons.

  350. @Steve Sailer
    Is there any chance that Kaiser Wilhelm II was bisexual?

    Nabokov wrote a long story before WWII about a gay rightwing king of a fictional European country, then he reworked the idea into his wonderful novel "Pale Fire." I presume Nabokov was inspired by something historical but I've never seen any discussion of what.

    You got me. Googling “Kaiser Wilhalm II” and “bisexual” results in about 400,000 hits, so it is an idea that has occurred to others. Then there is this:

    Harden–Eulenburg affair

    Which involved a prussian general dying from a heart-attack while dancing for the Kaiser in a tutu. There’s really no way to make that sound good.

    However, given the possible motive of representatives of other European powers to want to impugn the morals of the German government or monarchy, the contemporary tendency of homosexual activists to retcon people as queer, and the actual not insignificant possibility that Kaiser Bill may have been a little light in the jack-boots,…………………..who knows.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Derbyshire made the case once that Kaiser Wilhelm II is the guy who, more than anybody else, screwed up the 20th Century at a time when things were good, not through doing anything hugely wrong but through a lot of little bumptious things. The criticism that Trump is the new Hitler is stupid, but the concern that Trump could be the new Kaiser is not unreasonable.
    , @Anonymous

    Which involved a prussian general dying from a heart-attack while dancing for the Kaiser in a tutu. There’s really no way to make that sound good.
     
    What are you even talking about. I think it sounds fabulous.
  351. @Jack D
    1. I don't think it was a joke that she didn't get. She's a pretty sharp lady (all of her kids have graduate degrees) and doesn't miss much, even at 95.

    2. I don't think this was just a random question from an idiot given that this is known to be a widespread belief (going as far back as St. Jerome's translation in 420 AD). I can't tell you what % of people in the South still believed this in the 1940s but I would bet that she didn't just happen to meet the one and only person who did.

    I don't know why people resist believing this - it's a reflection of a different people at a different time. I'm pretty sure most Southerners today are up to date on this (correct answer: no horns) but the past is a different country. P.S. 77% of Americans today believe that angels are real.

    all of her kids have graduate degrees

    Yes, this is EXACTLY how one measures a sense of humor.

  352. @J.Ross
    There was a homosexual Austrian officer who was compelled to shoot himself after a huge intelligence blunder connected to his hobbies, I'll see if I can dig it up. One of those things that everybody at the time knew of but then never discussed again, as opposed to now, when Cracked introduces semi-literates to "history."
    ... here:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Redl

    Redl's motives for treason are still unclear. He may have been caught in a compromising position by Russian agents, because he was homosexual[2] and being exposed as such would have been fatal to his career prospects. Actually, Russian military intelligence, based in Warsaw at the time, under the command of Colonel Nikolai Batyushin, had discovered Redl's homosexuality as early as 1901, information that was used to blackmail him into revealing classified information. In 1902, he reportedly passed a copy of Austro-Hungarian war plans to the Russians.
     

    I have a vague impression that the Kaiser’s circle and the pre-Great War German General Staff had a homosexual tinge. There’s some transvestite scandal recounted in Barbara Tuchman’s “Proud Tower.”

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It's an understood thing that elite homosexuality was tolerated in the late imperial age.
    , @syonredux

    I have a vague impression that the Kaiser’s circle and the pre-Great War German General Staff had a homosexual tinge. There’s some transvestite scandal recounted in Barbara Tuchman’s “Proud Tower.”
     
    Buchan, in Greenmantle, talks about homosexuality in the German army:

    We went up a staircase to a room at the end of a long corridor. Stumm locked the door behind him and laid the key on the table. That room took my breath away, it was so unexpected. In place of the grim bareness of downstairs here was a place all luxury and colour and light. It was very large, but low in the ceiling, and the walls were full of little recesses with statues in them. A thick grey carpet of velvet pile covered the floor, and the chairs were low and soft and upholstered like a lady's boudoir. A pleasant fire burned on the hearth and there was a flavour of scent in the air, something like incense or burnt sandalwood. A French clock on the mantelpiece told me that it was ten minutes past eight. Everywhere on little tables and in cabinets was a profusion of knickknacks, and there was some beautiful embroidery framed on screens. At first sight you would have said it was a woman's drawing-room.

    But it wasn't. I soon saw the difference. There had never been a woman's hand in that place. It was the room of a man who had a passion for frippery, who had a perverted taste for soft delicate things. It was the complement to his bluff brutality. I began to see the queer other side to my host, that evil side which gossip had spoken of as not unknown in the German army. The room seemed a horribly unwholesome place, and I was more than ever afraid of Stumm.
     

  353. @Jack D
    Believe her or don't believe her - I don't care. She is, God bless her, clear and lucid and recently repeated this story to me (she has mentioned it before - not frequently but once or twice when relating her wartime experiences) without any ambiguity or doubt. She is not a liar to my knowledge and had nothing to gain from inventing this story. She is not prone to tall tales. I am clearly never going to convince you but personally I have no doubt that the woman is telling the truth.

    Reminds me of the other guy whose father saw a sign reading “No dogs or Jews allowed”– at a hotel which admitted dogs. You sure you remember everything in your life accurately and never embellish a story?

  354. @Jack D
    The Nazis were into nudism too:

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-naked-nazis-and-a-surprise-bestseller-fotostrecke-69232.html

    Remember that National Socialists are a type of Socialist so this is not a big surprise. People think of the Nazis as being "right wing" but that's a funny name for a socialist group.

    People think of the Nazis as being “right wing” but that’s a funny name for a socialist group.

    “Democrat” is a funny name for a party that is as undemocratic as the Democratic Party is. Names often don’t mean much. By the time the Nazis had fully established their regime, in 1934 or so, they weren’t really any more socialist than the FDR administration. They were pretty well right-wing by the time they held power.

    • Replies: @Anon
    They were essentially aligned with the European Right of the time but were not really of it; they were off in their own wacko-land ideologically but by comparison with Weimar they really shone as administrators (as would pretty much anything except actual Communism).
    , @guest
    They certainly were more socialistic than the FDR administration, and the FDR administration was left-of-center in its own country. That's why FDR-type people looked up to fascists (for a time): because them Browns could get stuff done.

    What does "pretty well right-wing" mean to you? To the right of commies is accurate. To the right of socialists, no. They were socialists.

    There's an idea relentlessly drilled into our heads that the Nazis were on the extreme right, as in to the right of everything. In fact, they were merely on the right wing of the left. In which case it's misleading to refer to them as "pretty well right-wing." Unless you specify you're only talking about the world of socialism.

    Of course, historians do get into that mindset, because many of them are from that world. Or, if not, have nevertheless been trained to think of it as normal.

  355. @ben tillman

    1. You are assuming facts not in evidence (in fact, as I mentioned before, the historical consensus among non-anti-Semite historians is that Frank was not guilty).
     
    Baloney. No unbiased historian could reach that conclusion.

    If Hitler said that Frank was not guilty Jack D. would grant him a temporary status of a non-anti-Semite historian for the sake of this argument. Don’t you realize that you are not dealing with a normal human being but with hasbara/haggada generating machine for which the rules of discourse are different? Jews are the ultimate sophists of Socratic dialogues for whom only winning the debate counts and not as we used to believe within the Western Civilization that arriving at truth supposed to be our ultimate goal. In Jewish haggadah the truth in Western sense does not exist. It was always postmodern and utilitarian. In Jewish haggadah truth has only a rhetorical value. The one who can claim to possess it wins the debate (you can defeat goys with truth because truth paralyzes them) but truth in itself has no value.

  356. OT: US white supremacists murdered more last year than domestic Islamists, says Anti-Defamation League

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5281563/US-white-supremacists-murdered-2017-Islamists.html#ixzz54VJMZdx9

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    In not surprised metrics aren't your forte, considering that the ADL inflates this number to the moon by claiming white people killing people in prison is "white supremacy", or any suspicious killing of a colored is by a "white supremacist".
  357. @anonguy

    Jack. Honey.

    You know that there are people here who actually grew up in the south. And who had relatives growing up in the south at the time. Don’t you think that some of them would probably have heard from these relatives that they grew up believing this weird thing, if very many of them actually did?
     
    I was going to make this point. When I was growing up in the Deep South, there were plenty of people around from that time. I never heard anything like this and I heard a lot of old south superstitions still rattling around then, both black and white ones.

    I'm not defensive at all about the South either, I would never live there again, plenty of valid reasons to paint them as ignorant/backwards, but a belief that Jews have horns is not one of them.

    I vote that your mother got put on, didn't realize it, and prefers to remember it as some piece of exoticism in a far off land.

    Or show us some literature, footnotes, etc, that demonstrate that this was a common belief then. If it is common, it would get mentioned somewhere in memoirs, literature, etc.

    BTW, I don't at all doubt your mother's tale, that somebody asked her this. It just doesn't signify anything. Lots of people get asked lots of stupid questions.

    The notion that Moses, leader of the Jews, had horns was not intended as an insult.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/84241

    But the horns thing isn’t the King James Bible, it’s in St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. It’s most famous expression is in Michelangelo’s statue of Moses. So it seems more like something Catholics would think than Southern Protestants.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    https://frieze.com/sites/default/files/editorial/higgins.jpg
  358. @Steve Sailer
    As far as I can tell, there's not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.

    As far as I can tell, there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.

    There’s certainly no evidence that Southern Jews were less White Supremacist than their Christian neighbors were in the antebellum period. Indeed, as near as I can tell, antebellum Northern Jews seemed not to have played a significant role in the anti-slave trade/abolitionist movement:

    Raphall’s [ a pro-slavery rabbi] sermon reflected the interests of a majority of New York Jewry’s interests: New York’s booming economy, the cause of the recent wealth of many of the city’s most prominent Jewish citizens, including many members of B’nai Jeshurun, was tied to the southern trade; a civil war threatened personal catastrophe. Moreover, many Jews were in the garment industry, a trade directly attached to the South. Jews also resented the seemingly ever-present Protestant missionaries bent on converting the Jews. Strong-willed Protestantism and the Republican Party were seen as deeply conjoined. Furthermore, Jews feared that their political liberty, greater in America than any other part of the world, would be threatened if the Constitution, which they identified with the Union, were to fall. Compromise was the better solution, even if it meant giving in to Southern demands. Thus, along with the rest of New York City, Jews in 1860 voted more than two to one against Lincoln and the Republican Party

    Two weeks later, Raphall gave his sermon as a speech before members of the Democratic Party and the pro-South American Society for Promotion of National Unity. In attendance were advocates of national reconciliation in harmony with southern demands, including the banker August Belmont, and prominent pro-slavery Jews from Richmond, Montgomery, and New Orleans. The artist and inventor Samuel B. Morse presided. Dr. Bernard Ilowy of Baltimore, highly respected for his biblical expertise, endorsed Raphall’s position. Rabbi Simon Tuska of Mobile, Ala., stated that his sermon contained “the most forceful arguments in justification of the slavery of the African race.” Southern sympathizers dispersed the discourse throughout the nation.

    In his opinion on Lincoln and the issue of slavery, Raphall was not alone among Jewish leaders. Diplomat, playwright, and journalist Mordecai M. Noah, the “most important Jew in America” during the 1830s and 1840s, according to his biographer Jonathan D. Sarna, wrote that blacks were “anatomically and mentally inferior to the white” and could find contentment only in servile labor. Noah dreaded the thought of a slave revolt and viciously condemned abolitionists. Emmanuel Hart, the first Jewish congressman from New York in the 1850s, was a leader of the conservative “hunker” Democrats, a faction that opposed any agitation against slavery and worked to uphold the interests of the slaveholding states. Editor Robert Lyon of the Asmonean, a self-described progressive who hired Reform Judaism’s leading proponent, Isaac Mayer Wise, as his literary editor, endorsed James Buchanan in 1856 as a “progressionist,” defended the Fugitive Slave Act, and called abolitionists “the foul Fiend which stalks among us.” Lyon included among the abolitionists both “Frederick Douglass the ******,” and a “heterogeneous stew of fanatics and imposters.” The notion of black suffrage was, he said, “preposterous.”

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/112312/new-yorks-pro-slavery-rabbi

    • Replies: @Jack D
    There were a lot of connections between the Jews of NY and the Jews of the South. Ochs of the NY Times was from Tennessee. The Lehman Brothers were cotton brokers in Montgomery, Alabama. NY City was no hotbed of abolitionism though upstate (which always had a New England influence) was.
    , @syonredux

    The second most common response was in some ways more interesting: The Jews who fought in the Civil War were against slavery, right? The discomfiting answer: not so much.
     

    As Jewish historian Dale Rosengarten expresses it, quoting a Talmudic precept: “The law of the land is the law of the Jews.” From a modern perspective, it seems anomalous that a people whose history hinged on an epic escape from servitude would not have been deeply troubled by America’s “peculiar institution” — but few were.

    Some Jews owned slaves, a few traded them, and the livelihoods of many, North and South, were inextricably bound to the slave system. Most southern Jews defended slavery, and some went further, advocating its expansion.

     


    Even in the North, many sympathized with the South and only a very few were abolitionists. Almost all Jews sought peace above all else. Until the war was at hand, they remained silent on the subject.
     

    Yet the majority of American Jews were mute on the subject, perhaps because they dreaded its tremendous corrosive power. Prior to 1861, there are virtually no instances of rabbinical sermons on slavery, probably due to fear that the controversy would trigger a sectional conflict in which Jewish families would be arrayed on opposite sides. And that is exactly what happened.

     


    Ironically, the silence was breached by an attempt to forestall the conflict. With Lincoln’s election and the gathering momentum of the secession movement, the celebrated New York Rabbi Morris Raphall attempted to make a case for reconciliation by defending slavery on biblical grounds. The speech had the opposite effect, triggering furious rebuttals from Rabbi David Einhorn and biblical scholar Michael Heilprin, among others, and widening the growing divide. Jews had at last engaged in numbers with the great issue of the age.

     


    The experience of Jews in New York City is indicative of this process in some ways. By far America’s largest Jewish community, New York’s Jews were overwhelmingly pro-southern, pro-slavery, and anti-Lincoln in the early years of the war. Increasingly, however, as both the toll of the war and the North’s military victories mounted, feelings began to shift toward “Father Abraham,” his party, the Union and eventually, emancipation. Close to 2,000 Jews from New York State joined the Union forces.
     
    https://forward.com/opinion/179441/jews-mostly-supported-slavery-or-kept-silent-d/?p=all&p=all#ixzz326OPEy5Q
  359. @Steve Sailer
    The notion that Moses, leader of the Jews, had horns was not intended as an insult.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/84241

    But the horns thing isn't the King James Bible, it's in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. It's most famous expression is in Michelangelo's statue of Moses. So it seems more like something Catholics would think than Southern Protestants.

  360. @Mr. Anon
    You got me. Googling "Kaiser Wilhalm II" and "bisexual" results in about 400,000 hits, so it is an idea that has occurred to others. Then there is this:

    Harden–Eulenburg affair

    Which involved a prussian general dying from a heart-attack while dancing for the Kaiser in a tutu. There's really no way to make that sound good.

    However, given the possible motive of representatives of other European powers to want to impugn the morals of the German government or monarchy, the contemporary tendency of homosexual activists to retcon people as queer, and the actual not insignificant possibility that Kaiser Bill may have been a little light in the jack-boots,.......................who knows.

    Derbyshire made the case once that Kaiser Wilhelm II is the guy who, more than anybody else, screwed up the 20th Century at a time when things were good, not through doing anything hugely wrong but through a lot of little bumptious things. The criticism that Trump is the new Hitler is stupid, but the concern that Trump could be the new Kaiser is not unreasonable.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Derbyshire made the case once that Kaiser Wilhelm II is the guy who, more than anybody else, screwed up the 20th Century at a time when things were good, not through doing anything hugely wrong but through a lot of little bumptious things.
     
    He did. If he had been more like his father, or even his grandfather, or like Bismarck, he would have been a better Monarch, for Germany and for Europe. The case could be made that the Tsar screwed up a lot of things too. For that matter, if the English had limited their alliance to their long historical enemy, the French, rather than their more recent enemy, the Russians, then Germany might not have gotten as touchy about encirclement.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Please Steve, take a position on what Trump could be doing right.

    Acting more like your Grandpa Patriarch Romney that you write big sloppy love letters to?

    I insist, lay down what you think Trump should or should not be doing.
    , @Sean

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobald_von_Bethmann-Hollweg

    When Wilhelm arrived at the Potsdam station late in the evening of July 26, he was met by a pale, agitated, and somewhat fearful Chancellor. Bethmann-Hollweg's apprehension stemmed not from the dangers of the looming war, but rather from his fear of the Kaiser's wrath when the extent of his deceptions were revealed. The Kaiser's first words to him were suitably brusque: "How did it all happen?" Rather than attempt to explain, the Chancellor offered his resignation by way of apology. Wilhelm refused to accept it, muttering furiously, "You've made this stew, now you're going to eat it!"[6]
     

    The Kaiser tried to cancel the entire Westward invasion.

    The status quo was not on offer to Germany, Britain would not allow it to isolate and bully France (Bethmann-Hollweg's policy). Russia (aided by French financing of military railways in the Russia Empire) was getting so powerful that not long before the war Bethmann-Hollweg wondered out loud whether it was worth planting trees on his estate because the Russians would be there is a few years. Since 1905 Britain had protected France and effectively undertaken to enter any war against Germany. There was no way to peaceably protect Germany security, and that is why Mearsheimer called his book The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics

  361. @Mr. Anon

    People think of the Nazis as being “right wing” but that’s a funny name for a socialist group.
     
    "Democrat" is a funny name for a party that is as undemocratic as the Democratic Party is. Names often don't mean much. By the time the Nazis had fully established their regime, in 1934 or so, they weren't really any more socialist than the FDR administration. They were pretty well right-wing by the time they held power.

    They were essentially aligned with the European Right of the time but were not really of it; they were off in their own wacko-land ideologically but by comparison with Weimar they really shone as administrators (as would pretty much anything except actual Communism).

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    They were essentially aligned with the European Right of the time but were not really of it; they were off in their own wacko-land ideologically but by comparison with Weimar they really shone as administrators (as would pretty much anything except actual Communism).
     
    A lot of them were of the right and from traditional right-wing backgrounds - minor nobility, upper middle-class, etc. Goering and Heydrich, certainly. And they were backed by most of what remained of the the old right in Germany - the army and the aristocracy.

    So many people nowadays - libertarians as far as I can tell (perhaps Randians) - believe this ridiculous line that the Nazis were left-wing. I've had people tell me they were left wing because they were authoritarian, statist, used violence, etc. All of which could be said about the Tsars, Henry VIII, Ghengis Kahn, etc. When I asked one guy in particular if Ghengis Kahn was "left wing", he assured me that he was. Another similar guy said that real right-wingers are anarchists - so Leon Czolgosz was a conservative, I guess. It's difficult to even have an intelligent conversation with people whose view of history is so detached from reality.

  362. @Steve Sailer
    The Nazis seemed to feed off a lot of the "life reform" dynamism of German culture a century ago: "You must change your life." - Rilke.

    So Germany was full of various kinds of cultists of one life reform movement or another, and Hitler managed to get more than a few on board in his movement in the 1920s.

    My aunt remarked after reading a biography of Hitler that his personality reminded her of her not-very-pleasant father who was Swiss German. Fortunately, my grandfather's Germanic crankitude just went into health food obsessions and paranoia that store-bought food was poisoning him rather than into worrying about Blood Poisoning and invading Poland.

    Some of this German dynamism went into the hippie movement in California. By the late 1940s there were long-haired "Nature Boys" in robes and sandals hanging around a German couple's health food store in West Hollywood. (Nat King Cole, of all people, had a giant hit record on the subject.)

    This stuff doesn't fit under normal left-right frameworks, so it's pretty much forgotten.

    You’re right – that stuff cut across political lines. My wife’s grandmother was into “health food” back in the ’20s and ’30s when it was still quite rare. She subscribed to the teaching of Bernarr Macfadden, who was sort of an early Jack Lalane who is now largely forgotten.

  363. @Steve Sailer
    I have a vague impression that the Kaiser's circle and the pre-Great War German General Staff had a homosexual tinge. There's some transvestite scandal recounted in Barbara Tuchman's "Proud Tower."

    It’s an understood thing that elite homosexuality was tolerated in the late imperial age.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    In "Brideshead Revisited," a worldly Italian woman in Venice in the 1920s says that male-male "romantic friendships" seem to be an upper class English and German thing, but not a French or Italian thing.
    , @Desiderius
    "Elite" and "late" often go hand in hand with homosexuality.
  364. @Steve Sailer
    I have a vague impression that the Kaiser's circle and the pre-Great War German General Staff had a homosexual tinge. There's some transvestite scandal recounted in Barbara Tuchman's "Proud Tower."

    I have a vague impression that the Kaiser’s circle and the pre-Great War German General Staff had a homosexual tinge. There’s some transvestite scandal recounted in Barbara Tuchman’s “Proud Tower.”

    Buchan, in Greenmantle, talks about homosexuality in the German army:

    We went up a staircase to a room at the end of a long corridor. Stumm locked the door behind him and laid the key on the table. That room took my breath away, it was so unexpected. In place of the grim bareness of downstairs here was a place all luxury and colour and light. It was very large, but low in the ceiling, and the walls were full of little recesses with statues in them. A thick grey carpet of velvet pile covered the floor, and the chairs were low and soft and upholstered like a lady’s boudoir. A pleasant fire burned on the hearth and there was a flavour of scent in the air, something like incense or burnt sandalwood. A French clock on the mantelpiece told me that it was ten minutes past eight. Everywhere on little tables and in cabinets was a profusion of knickknacks, and there was some beautiful embroidery framed on screens. At first sight you would have said it was a woman’s drawing-room.

    But it wasn’t. I soon saw the difference. There had never been a woman’s hand in that place. It was the room of a man who had a passion for frippery, who had a perverted taste for soft delicate things. It was the complement to his bluff brutality. I began to see the queer other side to my host, that evil side which gossip had spoken of as not unknown in the German army. The room seemed a horribly unwholesome place, and I was more than ever afraid of Stumm.

  365. @J.Ross
    It's an understood thing that elite homosexuality was tolerated in the late imperial age.

    In “Brideshead Revisited,” a worldly Italian woman in Venice in the 1920s says that male-male “romantic friendships” seem to be an upper class English and German thing, but not a French or Italian thing.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    And so there's a Catholic-Protestant distinction.
    , @utu

    French Prime Minister Edith Cresson was at the center of a political and journalistic furor Monday over an interview in which she was quoted as saying that 25% of Anglo-Saxon males are homosexual.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-18/news/mn-996_1_anglo-saxon-men-gay
     
    , @MB
    What, no mention of Abrams and Lively's Pink Swastika regarding what one writer in 1945 called "Germany's national vice"?
    Judith Reisman's review is here.

    Contra the big lie and all the prevailing sanctimonious cant about discrimination and persecution of homosexuals by Hitler, the secular stand in for the devil and root of all modern evil Nationalsozialismus was itself homosexuell. (Oooops.) The Night of the Long Knives was a power play. Roehm and the SA were purged because they were a threat to Hitler, not because they were homosexual.

    No, you won't see anything about it on the History Channel and the NY Review of Books wouldn't review it, much more recommend it, but then again the usual propaganda outlets are not interested in truth, which is many times stranger than fiction. Abrams and Lively first published it in 1995 and according to the Amazon page will soon becoming out with the sixth and expanded edition. It will be worth it.

  366. @syonredux

    As far as I can tell, there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.
     
    There's certainly no evidence that Southern Jews were less White Supremacist than their Christian neighbors were in the antebellum period. Indeed, as near as I can tell, antebellum Northern Jews seemed not to have played a significant role in the anti-slave trade/abolitionist movement:

    Raphall’s [ a pro-slavery rabbi] sermon reflected the interests of a majority of New York Jewry’s interests: New York’s booming economy, the cause of the recent wealth of many of the city’s most prominent Jewish citizens, including many members of B’nai Jeshurun, was tied to the southern trade; a civil war threatened personal catastrophe. Moreover, many Jews were in the garment industry, a trade directly attached to the South. Jews also resented the seemingly ever-present Protestant missionaries bent on converting the Jews. Strong-willed Protestantism and the Republican Party were seen as deeply conjoined. Furthermore, Jews feared that their political liberty, greater in America than any other part of the world, would be threatened if the Constitution, which they identified with the Union, were to fall. Compromise was the better solution, even if it meant giving in to Southern demands. Thus, along with the rest of New York City, Jews in 1860 voted more than two to one against Lincoln and the Republican Party
     

    Two weeks later, Raphall gave his sermon as a speech before members of the Democratic Party and the pro-South American Society for Promotion of National Unity. In attendance were advocates of national reconciliation in harmony with southern demands, including the banker August Belmont, and prominent pro-slavery Jews from Richmond, Montgomery, and New Orleans. The artist and inventor Samuel B. Morse presided. Dr. Bernard Ilowy of Baltimore, highly respected for his biblical expertise, endorsed Raphall’s position. Rabbi Simon Tuska of Mobile, Ala., stated that his sermon contained “the most forceful arguments in justification of the slavery of the African race.” Southern sympathizers dispersed the discourse throughout the nation.
     

    In his opinion on Lincoln and the issue of slavery, Raphall was not alone among Jewish leaders. Diplomat, playwright, and journalist Mordecai M. Noah, the “most important Jew in America” during the 1830s and 1840s, according to his biographer Jonathan D. Sarna, wrote that blacks were “anatomically and mentally inferior to the white” and could find contentment only in servile labor. Noah dreaded the thought of a slave revolt and viciously condemned abolitionists. Emmanuel Hart, the first Jewish congressman from New York in the 1850s, was a leader of the conservative “hunker” Democrats, a faction that opposed any agitation against slavery and worked to uphold the interests of the slaveholding states. Editor Robert Lyon of the Asmonean, a self-described progressive who hired Reform Judaism’s leading proponent, Isaac Mayer Wise, as his literary editor, endorsed James Buchanan in 1856 as a “progressionist,” defended the Fugitive Slave Act, and called abolitionists “the foul Fiend which stalks among us.” Lyon included among the abolitionists both “Frederick Douglass the ******,” and a “heterogeneous stew of fanatics and imposters.” The notion of black suffrage was, he said, “preposterous.”
     
    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/112312/new-yorks-pro-slavery-rabbi

    There were a lot of connections between the Jews of NY and the Jews of the South. Ochs of the NY Times was from Tennessee. The Lehman Brothers were cotton brokers in Montgomery, Alabama. NY City was no hotbed of abolitionism though upstate (which always had a New England influence) was.

    • Replies: @Anon
    “The only ones who care about this stuff are 1. Jews and 2. Anti-Semites. And I’m pretty sure you’re not Jewish.”

    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right? So...we should allow police to come into your home without a warrant whenever they want? Seems like a slippery slope. I'm sure it's possible to defend fundamental freedoms without needing to hide or endorse anything. Of course, I say that as an American who wishes to protect fundamental American liberties in the interest of Americans and not someone who would sacrifice them to benefit some other country's interests.
  367. @Jack D
    I hadn't heard that before but it wouldn't shock me. Jews are often pioneers of new business forms and technologies. In the 16th century, cane sugar was a novel and hi tech product.

    In the end the Jews were expelled from Brazil by the Inquisition - this is where the 1st Jews in NY came from.

    It's my understanding that Jews were slaveholders in the Old South but at a rate that was slightly less than for non-Jews.

    Will Bitcoin go up or crash?

    Crash. Then stabilize at a much lower level. The problem with bitcoin is pretty simple – no cash sweep-like vehicles. I expect most people who use it for evading currency controls (rather than simple speculation in the ongoing mania), such as Venezuelan or Chinese tycoons trying to keep their wealth out of the hands of grasping government officials, immediately convert it to something else. That’s a real problem if the virtual currency is to retain its value. Where are the interest-bearing saving accounts and CD’s denominated in bitcoin?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Where are the interest-bearing savings accounts and CDs denominated in dollars these days. (I mean more than 0.2% interest.)
  368. @Steve Sailer
    In "Brideshead Revisited," a worldly Italian woman in Venice in the 1920s says that male-male "romantic friendships" seem to be an upper class English and German thing, but not a French or Italian thing.

    And so there’s a Catholic-Protestant distinction.

    • Replies: @guest
    One of the Englishmen she's talking about is Catholic, though that may be incidental.

    Anyway, there is a substantial Catholic population in Germany.

  369. @Johann Ricke

    Will Bitcoin go up or crash?
     
    Crash. Then stabilize at a much lower level. The problem with bitcoin is pretty simple - no cash sweep-like vehicles. I expect most people who use it for evading currency controls (rather than simple speculation in the ongoing mania), such as Venezuelan or Chinese tycoons trying to keep their wealth out of the hands of grasping government officials, immediately convert it to something else. That's a real problem if the virtual currency is to retain its value. Where are the interest-bearing saving accounts and CD's denominated in bitcoin?

    Where are the interest-bearing savings accounts and CDs denominated in dollars these days. (I mean more than 0.2% interest.)

  370. @Steve Sailer
    In "Brideshead Revisited," a worldly Italian woman in Venice in the 1920s says that male-male "romantic friendships" seem to be an upper class English and German thing, but not a French or Italian thing.

    French Prime Minister Edith Cresson was at the center of a political and journalistic furor Monday over an interview in which she was quoted as saying that 25% of Anglo-Saxon males are homosexual.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-18/news/mn-996_1_anglo-saxon-men-gay

  371. @syonredux

    As far as I can tell, there’s not much evidence that Southern Jews were more or less white supremacist than other Southern whites. They just seem to have had about the same political views as their gentile peers of similar class next door.
     
    There's certainly no evidence that Southern Jews were less White Supremacist than their Christian neighbors were in the antebellum period. Indeed, as near as I can tell, antebellum Northern Jews seemed not to have played a significant role in the anti-slave trade/abolitionist movement:

    Raphall’s [ a pro-slavery rabbi] sermon reflected the interests of a majority of New York Jewry’s interests: New York’s booming economy, the cause of the recent wealth of many of the city’s most prominent Jewish citizens, including many members of B’nai Jeshurun, was tied to the southern trade; a civil war threatened personal catastrophe. Moreover, many Jews were in the garment industry, a trade directly attached to the South. Jews also resented the seemingly ever-present Protestant missionaries bent on converting the Jews. Strong-willed Protestantism and the Republican Party were seen as deeply conjoined. Furthermore, Jews feared that their political liberty, greater in America than any other part of the world, would be threatened if the Constitution, which they identified with the Union, were to fall. Compromise was the better solution, even if it meant giving in to Southern demands. Thus, along with the rest of New York City, Jews in 1860 voted more than two to one against Lincoln and the Republican Party
     

    Two weeks later, Raphall gave his sermon as a speech before members of the Democratic Party and the pro-South American Society for Promotion of National Unity. In attendance were advocates of national reconciliation in harmony with southern demands, including the banker August Belmont, and prominent pro-slavery Jews from Richmond, Montgomery, and New Orleans. The artist and inventor Samuel B. Morse presided. Dr. Bernard Ilowy of Baltimore, highly respected for his biblical expertise, endorsed Raphall’s position. Rabbi Simon Tuska of Mobile, Ala., stated that his sermon contained “the most forceful arguments in justification of the slavery of the African race.” Southern sympathizers dispersed the discourse throughout the nation.
     

    In his opinion on Lincoln and the issue of slavery, Raphall was not alone among Jewish leaders. Diplomat, playwright, and journalist Mordecai M. Noah, the “most important Jew in America” during the 1830s and 1840s, according to his biographer Jonathan D. Sarna, wrote that blacks were “anatomically and mentally inferior to the white” and could find contentment only in servile labor. Noah dreaded the thought of a slave revolt and viciously condemned abolitionists. Emmanuel Hart, the first Jewish congressman from New York in the 1850s, was a leader of the conservative “hunker” Democrats, a faction that opposed any agitation against slavery and worked to uphold the interests of the slaveholding states. Editor Robert Lyon of the Asmonean, a self-described progressive who hired Reform Judaism’s leading proponent, Isaac Mayer Wise, as his literary editor, endorsed James Buchanan in 1856 as a “progressionist,” defended the Fugitive Slave Act, and called abolitionists “the foul Fiend which stalks among us.” Lyon included among the abolitionists both “Frederick Douglass the ******,” and a “heterogeneous stew of fanatics and imposters.” The notion of black suffrage was, he said, “preposterous.”
     
    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/112312/new-yorks-pro-slavery-rabbi

    The second most common response was in some ways more interesting: The Jews who fought in the Civil War were against slavery, right? The discomfiting answer: not so much.

    As Jewish historian Dale Rosengarten expresses it, quoting a Talmudic precept: “The law of the land is the law of the Jews.” From a modern perspective, it seems anomalous that a people whose history hinged on an epic escape from servitude would not have been deeply troubled by America’s “peculiar institution” — but few were.

    Some Jews owned slaves, a few traded them, and the livelihoods of many, North and South, were inextricably bound to the slave system. Most southern Jews defended slavery, and some went further, advocating its expansion.

    Even in the North, many sympathized with the South and only a very few were abolitionists. Almost all Jews sought peace above all else. Until the war was at hand, they remained silent on the subject.

    Yet the majority of American Jews were mute on the subject, perhaps because they dreaded its tremendous corrosive power. Prior to 1861, there are virtually no instances of rabbinical sermons on slavery, probably due to fear that the controversy would trigger a sectional conflict in which Jewish families would be arrayed on opposite sides. And that is exactly what happened.

    Ironically, the silence was breached by an attempt to forestall the conflict. With Lincoln’s election and the gathering momentum of the secession movement, the celebrated New York Rabbi Morris Raphall attempted to make a case for reconciliation by defending slavery on biblical grounds. The speech had the opposite effect, triggering furious rebuttals from Rabbi David Einhorn and biblical scholar Michael Heilprin, among others, and widening the growing divide. Jews had at last engaged in numbers with the great issue of the age.

    The experience of Jews in New York City is indicative of this process in some ways. By far America’s largest Jewish community, New York’s Jews were overwhelmingly pro-southern, pro-slavery, and anti-Lincoln in the early years of the war. Increasingly, however, as both the toll of the war and the North’s military victories mounted, feelings began to shift toward “Father Abraham,” his party, the Union and eventually, emancipation. Close to 2,000 Jews from New York State joined the Union forces.

    https://forward.com/opinion/179441/jews-mostly-supported-slavery-or-kept-silent-d/?p=all&p=all#ixzz326OPEy5Q

  372. OT: Here’s a bit of history, that, astonishingly, does not retcon.

    A long-form biographical essay about James Watson, that, published in 2017, devotes no more than a couple of paragraphs to the “racism” controversy that overwhelms all other accounts of him these days.

    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-evangelist-of-molecular-biology

  373. It seems to be the pre-WWII Southern support for Democrats and FDR resulted more from their ultimate support for segregation of Blacks than war.

    For WWII the support could be a hangover from WW1 and Scots-Irish dudes still pissed off at the Germans. I’m guessing not so much from concern about the Jews oppressed in Europe.

    • Replies: @guest
    "I'm guessing not so much from concern about the Jews oppressed in Europe"

    I don't imagine any pro-war faction was in it for that reason, besides of course Jews themselves.
  374. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I hate to break this to you but most Americans don't really want to boycott Israel (or any other country) and don't really care where the embassy is (in Israel or any other country). The only ones who care about this stuff are 1. Jews and 2. Anti-Semites. And I'm pretty sure you're not Jewish.

    Can anyone name what city the US Embassy is in Kazakhstan? Is it Akmola, Almaty or Astana? Does anyone want to boycott (or not boycott) Belgium? Tevye's old joke is, I know that we are the Chosen People, but couldn't you pick someone else once in a while?

    Jews for anti-Semites are like Trump to Leftists - they're living in your head rent free. Think about something else for a change. Can the Eagles win without their lead quarterback? Will Bitcoin go up or crash?

    “Can anyone name what city the US Embassy is in Kazakhstan? Is it Akmola, Almaty or Astana?”

    False equivalence. Israel is probably mentioned 20x more in the media and has been more important to US regional policy for much longer, so don’t pretend that Israel is just like any other country – Micronesia or Albania. When was the last time Kazakhstan went to war with Egypt or some peace accord between Kazakhs and some ethnic group got national attention in the United States?

    “I hate to break this to you but most Americans don’t really want to boycott Israel (or any other country)”

    Wishing to retain the right to do something, regardless of whether I exercise it, and being barred from doing something that I have the right to do are not the same. I may not want to boycott the NFL, but I also wouldn’t want my government telling me I can’t do so if I please, especially if it came out that the government was doing so only at the behest and in the interests of team owners and at my expense.

    “and don’t really care where the embassy is (in Israel or any other country). ”

    Americans care so little that they told pollsters in a large majority that they oppose it. Moving our embassy around in Israel isn’t like moving our embassy in Trinidad and Tobago. The former is something of profound consequence for the United States given political realities in the region.

    “The only ones who care about this stuff are 1. Jews and 2. Anti-Semites. And I’m pretty sure you’re not Jewish.”

    Ah, “disagree with me and you’re anti-Semitic.” Seems to be a theme with you. Of course, besides being offensive, your argument is fallacious and flatly dishonest. There are very good reasons to care about these issues, as I have pointed out. The only kind of person who thinks the United States should sacrifice its interests, ignore important issues, or sacrifice our people’s constitutional freedoms in order to further the interests of a foreign country is a traitor.